The best removal rate was less than 70%, and that didn't beat manual opt-outs:
If you've searched your name online in the last few years, you know what's out there, and it's bad. Alternately, you've seen the lowest-common-denominator ads begging you to search out people from your past to see what crimes are on their record. People-search sites are a gross loophole in the public records system, and it doesn't feel like there's much you can do about it.
Not that some firms haven't promised to try. Do they work? Not really, Consumer Reports (CR) suggests in a recent study.
"[O]ur study shows that many of these services fall short of providing the kind of help and performance you'd expect, especially at the price levels some of them are charging," said Yael Grauer, program manager for CR, in a statement.
Consumer Reports' study asked 32 volunteers for permission to try to delete their personal data from 13 people-search sites, using seven services over four months. The services, including DeleteMe, Reputation Defender from Norton, and Confidently, were also compared to "Manual opt-outs," i.e. following the tucked-away links to pull down that data on each people-search site. CR took volunteers from California, in which the California Consumer Privacy Act should theoretically make it mandatory for brokers to respond to opt-out requests, and in New York, with no such law, to compare results.
Finding a total of 332 instances of identifying information profiles on those sites, Consumer Reports found that only 117 profiles were removed within four months using all the services, or 35 percent. The services varied in efficacy, with EasyOptOuts notably performing the second-best at a 65 percent removal rate after four months. But if your goal is to remove entirely others' ability to find out about you, no service Consumer Reports tested truly gets you there.
Manual opt-outs were the most effective removal method, at 70 percent removed within one week, which is both a higher elimination rate and quicker turn-around than all the automated services.
The study noted close ties between the people-search sites and the services that purport to clean them. Removing one volunteer's data from ClustrMaps resulted in a page with a suggested "Next step": signing up for privacy protection service OneRep. Firefox-maker Mozilla dropped OneRep as a service provider for its Mozilla Monitor Plus privacy bundle after reporting by Brian Krebs found that OneRep's CEO had notable ties to the people-search industry.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 21 2024, @01:39AM
The least expensive, and the most expensive had comparable deletion rates - which aren't horrible. Not good, but not horrible. Everything else just plain sucks. Based on the information provided, EasyOptOuts is the no-brainer choice, for $19.99. Or, just do it yourself for free, and get slightly better results.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 5, Informative) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday August 21 2024, @02:31AM (3 children)
Yes, manual removal yields better results. But it's also a massive undertaking and it requires a lof of knowledge. So $20 might very well be worth it just to save time and effort.
The problem is more fundamental: why the fuck do I need to pay to fix a problem imposed upon me by third parties? The data collection / advertisement industry is a scourge on society as a whole, and we have to pay to defend ourselves?
Fuck that! If beavers dam up the river upstream and floods your house, do you invest in a dam of your own around your house to protect yourself from the rising waters or do you go blow up the beavers' dam?
The other problem is, data removal is largely voluntary on the part of data collectors. Apart in a few states, they have no legal requirement to actually remove your data. So you might be paying for a placebo button. In fact, unless you live in California, you probably are.
Data removal services aren't the solution: the solution is to rein in the data industry and outlaw automatic opt-in data collection. Which means it will never happen, because Big Data has more money, more lobbyists, better lawyers and more friends on Capitol Hill than you.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2024, @02:59AM (1 child)
This is the analogy police issuing a warning. Introducing new analogies, such as beaver analogies are strictly forbidden. Car analogies have been grand-parented in, so those are grudgingly accepted.
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Wednesday August 21 2024, @03:38AM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RS3 on Wednesday August 21 2024, @03:21AM
When the police and (all?) other govt. agencies are buying the data, we're pretty much screwed. My only thought is to bugger up it with disinformation.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2024, @03:40AM (5 children)
Every time you interact with business and share your contact info, it will be recorded into multiple eternal databases. Undoing this is as futile as unspilling milk.
Guard your contact info same as you guard your financial credentials. Those are one and the same to business.
Pay in cash when you can. And minimize your attack surface by leaving the fewest digital messes in your wake as you can. If forced to reveal private info, give virtual info as long as its not fraud. Like if even inquiring about insurance rates, conjure up a virtual avatar to ask for you.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by RS3 on Wednesday August 21 2024, @03:51AM (4 children)
Last week a co-worker said he'd recently been stopped by a cop. I'm not sure what for, or if he got a ticket. Point is, he said cop asked him where he had been, and he gave some offhand answer. Cop says "you're lying" and pulls out a tablet with a full list of where the guy had been, and clear traffic camera images of his face in the car.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2024, @05:22AM
Where did that happen? Just so I can make sure to not go there...
There are some cams around here, but not enough to do that (at least I don't think so).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2024, @10:35AM
Cop asks me where I've been he's going to get the answer "Places". You want more than that get a fucking warrant.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 21 2024, @11:49AM (1 child)
Your friend hasn't watched the Youtube lawyer's advice. When cops ask questions, the correct answer is "I don't answer questions". It's none of the cop's business where you have been, it's none of his business where you are going, it's none of their business who you met, or are meeting. In your friend's case, giving an inaccurate answer only gives the cop ammunition in the cop's criminal investigation to use against you.
Like the AC, I'm curious where this took place. The UK is easy to believe, and much of Europe. Maybe Houston or a couple other US cities. In most of the US, they simply don't have the cameras to track people like that.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RS3 on Wednesday August 21 2024, @12:10PM
I'm not willing to give out location information, but in the US, NE quadrant. There are cameras on almost every traffic light around me, and I'm in far suburbs from a major city. It's spreading (cameras and mass surveillance).
You need to remember, and watch videos of cops taunting people to incite them to misbehave so the cop can bring out the fists, tazer, and guns.