Mozilla adds paid-for data-deletion tier to Monitor, its privacy-breach radar

Mozilla on Tuesday expanded its free privacy-monitoring service with a paid-for tier called Mozilla Monitor Plus that will try to get data brokers to delete their copies of subscribers' personal information. Mozilla introduced Monitor in 2018 as a way to make people aware when their personal info may have been stolen, leaked, …

[elDog]

The genies have escaped the bottles; the crap is everywhere

Just like trying to rein in "AI" it's impossible to stop the flow of data/information once it is in the wild.

Huge penalties might work if you can catch the perps. But many of these types live in countries that don't exactly care what other nations think.

We need to look towards a future where all known data points are public. Every person, every location, every bank account, every personal interaction, etc. If it isn't this, then it'll be massive state firewalls blocking data transfers.

What will our world look like then?

[ecofeco]

Re: The genies have escaped the bottles; the crap is everywhere

Nueromancer.

[Zibob]

Re: The genies have escaped the bottles; the crap is everywhere

Then perfect blend of technology and magic.

[Yorick Hunt]

"What will our world look like then?"

George Orwell had a pretty good premonition of what it'll look like.

What we need to do is engage in offence rather than defence - poison the buggery out of their sewers, stuff them with so much invalid data that nobody will ever want to buy their ill-gotten information.

[CatWithChainsaw]

I'm in favor of fines for repeatedly collecting deleted data, with the fines going up an order in magnitude each time by default. To make it really onerous, the fines could work like student loans do in the US. Attach it to a person rather than a company, they can't escape the fine using bankruptcy or shell companies or anything, people will be getting their fine money even if the CEO croaks and they have to raid the "estate" of the surviving family.

[Michael Wojcik]

It's difficult to get legislatures or courts to agree on laws that pierce the corporate veil, both because they enjoy the spoils of capitalism, and because that would run counter to the liberal (in the technical sense) ideology which has dominated European-derived politics throughout the Early Modern and Modern eras, with the exception of the temporary successes in some areas of Communism and Fascism.

The concept of institutional legal personhood is older than the stock corporation, and well entrenched.

That doesn't mean the veil is never pierced, of course; but broadly speaking it happens in specific cases, and is not applied against a general class, except where the state can make an argument of egregious violation — for organized crime, for example. I don't see any realistic hope of it being leveled against data brokers as a class, even if their business were made illegal. (And that's not a trivial proposition, at least because of difficulties in defining it.)

[very angry man]

Oh yes please

[Michael Wojcik]

George Orwell had a pretty good premonition of what it'll look like.

Parts will, sure. Other parts will look like Huxley's Brave New World, which is a far more economically effective way of controlling the populace. Just as capitalism is more economically efficient than slavery,¹ subornment is cheaper and more effective than repression. It's typically clumsy, precarious totalitarians who institute repressive surveillance regimes; consumer-capitalist leaders (who are generally not the notional political leaders) get the people to enjoy their subjugation and participate willingly.

On the plus side, if you're in a rich country, you have a good shot at a higher quality of life because of this distinction. That's part of the trap, obviously.

¹Perhaps most famously argued by Eric Williams, though CLR James claimed to have given him the thesis when they were at university. Williams, of course, later placed James under house arrest, so perhaps the accusation had some sting.

[Charles Ghose]

The Need for Fair Compensation in Data Broker Practices

Even though it is commendable that Mozilla is entering the realm of offering a paid tier service called Mozilla Monitor Plus, allowing subscribers to request their personal information be deleted from data brokers' databases, it is disappointing that the public has to resort to these paid services in the first place. This is due to the complex and time-consuming process presented when individuals attempt to make the requests themselves, especially considering the multitude of data broker companies out there. It is high time for other states to follow in the lead of California, which has taken a stance to protect consumers' personal details with the California Delete Act and other privacy measures.

What I find outrageous is that these data brokers are profiting from people's personal details that are not their generated content or personal property. Isn't it about time that each person whose personal details are in a data broker's database receives payment? They should receive a percentage of the profits that these data broker companies make, or at least some sort of compensation from the sale of their personal information.

[ecofeco]

Re: The Need for Fair Compensation in Data Broker Practices

The only fair thing is make personal data brokering illegal.

[Neil Barnes]

Re: The Need for Fair Compensation in Data Broker Practices

That's it: a person should not need to juggle different jurisdictions and chase down every (likely unknown) third party that might have their data in order to 'request' them to delete it.

Far simple: stop gathering the data in the first place. Make it as illegal as stalking someone in person is: it seems remarkably similar.

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: The Need for Fair Compensation in Data Broker Practices

How would such a law distinguish between these scurrilous "data brokers" and, oh, credit-reporting agencies? Yes, the latter are fairly horrible too, but they serve a critical function in consumer credit, and a significant blow to consumer credit here in the US (for example) would precipitate economic meltdown and huge damage to consumers and businesses alike.

My county has property records online. Would such a law forbid those? How does it make the distinction? Would the law conflict with the public registry of voters that's also required by law? Would it conflict with "sunshine laws", for people in local government? Would it conflict with online directories? Would Google be required to scrub all PII that might end up on it? Would the Internet Archive?

People love to toss out proposals to outlaw this and that. Even when they're ethically justified and represent an arguably appropriate action by the state, it's generally far more difficult to craft a law that's appropriately specific and effective.

Outrage makes for bad legislation.

[ecofeco]

Better than nothing?

So at least us plebes can somewhat have our stuff deleted?

Better than nothing, I suppose.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh hi, I’d like all my data deleted please

Who are you?

Please complete this extensive survey…

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Oh hi, I’d like all my data deleted please and I'm willing to pay at lot of money for that

We can help you again and again and ...