[HN Gopher] CEO of data privacy company Onerep.com founded dozen...
___________________________________________________________________
CEO of data privacy company Onerep.com founded dozens of people-
search firms
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 118 points
Date : 2024-03-14 21:17 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (krebsonsecurity.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (krebsonsecurity.com)
| actualwitch wrote:
| Apparently it is also the same service that Mozilla Monitor uses,
| as per ToS. Big yikes.
|
| https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/terms/subscription...
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Considering how much Firefox phones home, I daresay Microsoft
| and Google are more private than Mozilla because they're at
| least god damn honest about their practices.
| lagrange77 wrote:
| God damn honest is maybe slightly exaggerated.
| actualwitch wrote:
| > Microsoft and Google are more private than Mozilla
|
| Having used an app firewall, I have determined this to be
| false.
| LegibleCrimson wrote:
| I don't understand the logic. They're more private for
| admitting that they don't respect your privacy?
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Microsoft and Google don't even try to hide the fact they
| will siphon your data, whether you like it or not. You can
| turn off some of the egregious siphoning, but that's about
| it.
|
| Mozilla meanwhile claims to be the champion of digital
| privacy, marketing Firefox as _the_ private browser of
| choice along with a host of ostensibly privacy products
| such as VPN, all the while also siphoning data. Turning it
| _all_ off requires digging deep into about:config.
|
| One group is honest (or at least relatively more so) about
| what they do. The other entity is a pathological liar led
| by a queen on Google's leash for controlled opposition
| purposes. As such, I daresay Microsoft and Google are more
| private than Mozilla because you know what you sign up for.
| WhatsName wrote:
| That is probably the bigger story right here. Not trusting
| scammy businesses is easy. Getting fooled by big name like
| Mozilla a different story.
| actualwitch wrote:
| They should have definitely done a more thorough due
| diligence before partnering with them.
| DANmode wrote:
| Now do DuckDuckGo!
| alexnewman wrote:
| sigh, i never trusted these sites and it never achieved anything
| for me.
| ghaff wrote:
| One redeeming thing about the monetization of the Internet is
| that these deep web people search sites are generally not free
| any longer. There was a time when, for free, you could
| basically search a person who didn't have an especially common
| name with maybe a couple for tidbits about them and could you
| find a huge part of their life history and, of course, info
| like birthdays.
| carimura wrote:
| in the same category of "Best of the Internet", my favorite are
| the sites that claim every person on the planet has an "arrest
| record found" and you can see those records for $49. Or if you're
| that person, pay us $99 to remove it.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Well in the US we are on track for that to be true.
|
| But seriously - trading both sides (or, selling protection, as
| the case may be) is quite a profitable business model.
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| Takes one to know one!
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Sell the disease, and then sell the cure. Capitalism at its
| finest!
| samstave wrote:
| So on a serious note, we were discussing this in another thread
| about:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39698546
|
| and using that to automate the unsub from trackers:
|
| -->
|
| This really needs to be used to make a tool to automate all the
| "delete my data" requests and have users map out deleting their
| data/PII etc from data brokers to a git something and people can
| submit the recipes to delete your personal data.
|
| I just did so on one of the more terrible ones yesterday - and
| the dark pattern was it would put you in captcha-loops... and
| youd have to reload/retry several times before stopped asking you
| firehydrant bus traffic motorcycle crosswalk over and over.
|
| but to save unsub/delete me scripts with this would be nifty.
|
| A recipe bounty would be neat - for example - Optery found me in
| more PII dbs than I expected - and it would be cool for people to
| see which brokers they are found in and there is a bounty list
| for all the brokers people are finding for someone to create a
| Delete-Me for each thing, so that one hopefully has the help of
| many to navigate the minefield of dark patterns in such.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| You see this a lot these days (though I suppose it's just more
| visible now). Another example is people selling political
| t-shirts (many offensive or obnoxious) to both sides of a
| partisan divide.
| ummonk wrote:
| I don't think that's bad unless the seller claims to be
| representing the causes they're selling for.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| In the US, I feel like I only see one side buying merchandise.
| Especially offensive and obnoxious merchandise.
| j-bos wrote:
| This kind of thing feels better left to trusted 1st parties,
| oneself. Link to a list of data broker opt out
| methods:https://github.com/yaelwrites/Big-Ass-Data-Broker-Opt-
| Out-Li...
| j-bos wrote:
| Indusrty connections aside, it's not a good look that thaf the
| CEO of a privacy company did not register domains with some form
| of Whois privacy.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| Why? I don't understand this at all?
|
| It's largely unnecessary for corporate owned domains. You know
| who owns it from the website they publish.
| altairprime wrote:
| Some TLDs prohibit Whois privacy altogether; this stance isn't
| maintainable globally.
| omnimike wrote:
| I can't give specifics, I know someone who had to deal with
| "delete me" requests from these "privacy" companies. The privacy
| company would literally take your personal info (name, email),
| and _email it to every company they could think of_ asking the
| company to delete your account _even if you didn't have one_.
| Animats wrote:
| It's like the old days of Ironport. Ironport built a rack-mount
| spam filtering appliance for business. They also built a rack-
| mount spam-sending appliance for business. That blew their
| reputation.
| SteveGerencser wrote:
| A not-so-secret dirty little secret is that many of the
| reputation management agencies also own many of the public
| records websites that publish mug shots, court records, and so
| on. When you hire them to remove that information from the
| internet it puts you into a cycle of being removed from one or
| two of their website and added to something else.
|
| You end up in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. Complete with
| monthly fees.
| greggsy wrote:
| It's racketeering
| omoikane wrote:
| I wonder if there are reputation protection companies that try a
| different strategy: for every user that requests their service,
| prop up thousands of fake identities with the user's name, but
| each with some inconsistent profile that are almost, but not
| quite, entirely unlike the original user. So if someone search
| for a person, their search results would be flooded with garbage.
|
| Since it seems very difficult to try to get a leaked identity
| removed, maybe try to hide a tree in the forest?
| runjake wrote:
| Reputation management companies do this. It's normally referred
| to as "disinformation".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-14 23:00 UTC)