Data Sellers Claim They Want To Be Regulated
from the yeah.--right. dept
In what must be an attempt at saving some level of credibility, the chief executives of both ChoicePoint and LexisNexis are saying they would support a federal law mandating disclosure, if someone's private data was exposed. It all sounds good, considering these two firms were both recently caught exposing info, whether by selling it to identity thieves or just letting them sneak in and take the data. However, if they really believed this, wouldn't they have just done what such a law would mandate and tell people their data had been exposed? Why would they need a law to do that if they already agree it's the right thing to do? The answer is because they don't really think it's the right thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that they didn't do it in the past when they had exposed data. They're just saying this to Congress because they don't know what else to say at this point.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
Large players want government regulation because they alone can afford to comply with it. (credit to Prof. Theodore Lowi for the concept many years ago)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition
Without regulation (or other incentives, like liability), a company that spent more than necessary on disclosure would place itself at a disadvantage; it couldn't compete on a level playing field with companies that don't bother with unnecessary disclosure. The unscrupulous companies would end up taking business from the scrupulous ones, and the public would lose out.
With regulation, a company like ChoicePoint can make the sacrifices involved in full disclosure, knowing that their competitors are facing the same burdens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
If there are regulations, then a lawsuit defense would be to document how they comply with all federal regulations. Without the regulations, no matter what they do, a lawsuit can claim that they should have done something more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a pre-emptive strike
Notice all the talk in the article is about "monetizing" the information and making it available "for important purposes, including fraud detection and prevention, law enforcement." Nothing is said about empowering us to protect our own data (by removing it from the warehousing companies, placing strictures on its use, etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a pre-emptive strike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]