On the contrary to drawbacks, it benefits some companies to leak data when partnerships between corporations are made based on data swaps. And the first person to snitch on this practice gets whacked, apparently.

Preceded by, “whether it’s fair to excuse big power users from paying for the grid.”

NO, it’s not. Nobody in charge seems to know the word NO when it comes to big tech. Just say NO.

I see a ton of fake comments on polarized topics. They start off as a somewhat normal back-and-forth but if you follow it down the funnel thread eventually one commenter will stop making sense. I thought it was a propaganda/pr thing but I guess it could be bots. I’ve seen it on the privacy sub too.

Your fingerprint, voice, face, IMEI, IP address, VPN provider, geolocation, wireless service, cell signal, Bluetooth band, battery usage, browsing history, email address, email domain, access patterns, naming habits, interests, verbiage patterns, are all things that can be used to identify you. Even if you’ve limited use of those things and more, you just listed 3 other companies who all are collecting data on you and sharing it in realtime to the company who’s site you’re trying to access.

My advice to you is to either comply and ask them how to lift the ban or get away from the site and stop selling your identity for free. Then do some HARD copy book reading on privacy. I could recommend a few but I don’t want to be confused for the propaganda posts that flood this community.

This is not a verification request. If you look at the screenshot, they are explicitly asking to have access to the intimate data that my cellular carrier is willing to transfer to them, given my perpetual release of it. Probably because of an existing bargain between the two parties on how much each will bid if one takes on the other’s liability (phone company advertises they won’t release all your data forever > but phone company promotes credit company > credit company boldly requests usage data > credit company pays phone company and both win).

These are corporations who make their money by selling peoples’ data. Offering a free copy of the report is and always was just a pacifier for the privacy advocates who wanted legislation. They don’t actually have any interest in providing credit reports to the “consumer” securely or within the legally required timeframe. Their interest is in obtaining more data and in the security/validity of their own harvested datum, which are assets to them.

It’s not authentication. They are specifically requesting access to cellular information that my service provider can’t sell to them unless I give them authorization. Authorization to obtain my most intimate data (communication usage) in order to complete their data profile on me is not the same thing as authentication.

This happened on annualcreditreport.com.

That is good advice, thank you! Is there a particular brand you’d recommend (DM me if you don’t want to share publicly). I was looking into a few major retailer flip phones but they both required the retailer to scan it for activation and I wasn’t entirely sure what that does tracking-wise, so I stopped to do some more research.

The entire 485 word intro to his Wikipedia page is unsourced:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk

This is the answer I was looking for! Thank you!

The problem I have with this is that it still links to my primary number through data profiling. Seems like a good option if I just want to keep my personal number separate from my work clients. But for data privacy, idk.

Most Greyhound routes do.

I wholly believe the same. If LM used a mobile device of any kind at any point during his mission, it would be possible to trace his whereabouts and match the path of the shooter to the path of LM. I further believe that the fast food industry (specifically MDs and its associations that lobby to continue the rampant unchecks of processed food) is behind the hit. Or at the very least, is using it as a PR opportunity to deflect blame of health problems in America to the health insurance industry. They are, after all, facing another lawsuit for causing diabetes that was officially filed on the same week as the shooting: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byvrmbomype/Martinez v Kraft Heinz et al complaint 12-10.pdf

Md and Starbucks are business partners. How convenient that every mention of this case is accompanied by both their names being lauded as thee who put a “terrorist” behind bars.