John Oliver buys congress members information from data brokers to leverage policy change

So John Oliver revealed on his show that he bought information on congress members from online data brokers and claimed to get an alarming amount of content. In a carefully worded segment, he alluded to holding onto it until some policy change made it to where he couldn't use it.

I'm going to include a quick tidbit from the Guardian Piece explaining what could possibly be included in what he has, though I think it's important to note that's speculation. This blurb also briefly explains the aim to the industry, but the article goes into a little more detail, though the practice is a large rabbit hole I'm sure many of us are familiar with.

The main tools are cookies, which enable websites to remember you and have evolved to include third-party cookies, which track where else you are going on the internet. “I don’t know about you but I don’t want a whole crowd of strangers watching what I search for on the internet,” he said. “Not because it’s gross, but because it’s private.”

The process takes breadcrumbs of where we have gone and what we have done online, and packages it to share with marketing firms. Users are then sorted into groups, such as couples with clout, ambitious singles, boomers and boomerangs and kids and cabernet.

Now onto his actions and the policy itself.

His actions go a little past journalism IMO. The reason I say this is because it flirts with blackmail. From an ethical standpoint, he's leveraging a situation expecting a response. Maybe some view that as activism, but that's a debate of its own.

On the policy side, I agree this unregulated mess needs to be addressed for a host of reasons.

Mainly, my data should be my property. If I interact with a business or service, the implied consent is that they have access to what I give them, and my trust is with them, not third parties. If they sell my data, why don't I get informed and paid? And while someone may say it's in the terms and conditions, many people are required to have services like a cell phone, email, and even social media for some jobs. So that makes the debate of choice more complicated.

From a security stance, this makes it to where citizens and officials can be blackmailed like the subject of this thread. But it could go to corporate and foreign espionage as well.

On an economic stance, people becoming products is what has fueled big tech, an unfortunate cornerstone of Wallstreet. The S&P500 is (IMO) propped up by bad practice, and the gains or robustness of the market is a facade. Better to address it now than become completely dependent on that for the image of American prosperity.

I have a lot more opinion on the matter, but in the interest of keeping the OP semi short I'll just add that to discussion later in the thread.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Here's the video for those who want to watch it.



Another take on the show's data purchase.

Last Week Tonight host John Oliver just blackmailed Congress

But it seems they were able to not only identify more than one specific lawmaker from the data obtained. They also got their hands on “potentially problematic search histories.” Making this all even more eyebrow-raising, Oliver kind of, sort of, seemed to blackmail Congress by suggesting that they really ought to pass a law making this kind of thing illegal.

Otherwise — oops, right?

HAHA! I love it!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I think it's hilarious at a personal level and may even be legal. I'm sure the lawyers got paid overtime to let this one air. It is however a bit dodgy if I'm being honest.

While part of me hopes it works... I imagine they will just earmark legislation shielding themselves while letting the plebs continue to be corporate products.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
If I interact with a business or service, the implied consent is that they have access to what I give them, and my trust is with them, not third parties. If they sell my data, why don't I get informed and paid?

do you remember reading what you "Agreed" to when you signed up for various online goodies?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
If I interact with a business or service, the implied consent is that they have access to what I give them, and my trust is with them, not third parties. If they sell my data, why don't I get informed and paid?

do you remember reading what you "Agreed" to when you signed up for various online goodies?

Sure.

But how many jobs need you to have a Gmail to share Google docs and Google meetings?

Is that a true agreement?

Or how about the IRS moving to ID.ME, is that consent on my part?

I get there are T&Cs, but I think we're entering an age where the question of choice or free will is coming into question.

It's been going on for a long time, and it gets worse by the day.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

"If its free, you are the product."

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: CriticalStinker

"If its free, you are the product."

Even if it's not free. Some of these companies have horrible Financials and are on the equivalent of paycheck to paycheck. Easy stream to just unload some of that data.

And even if you didn't sign up in the case of credit reporting agencies. They even have socials and with bad practice like equifax can leak your data (which they had little to no punishment over).

In our current state, it's just something everyone has accepted. And whether or not someone believes it's all by choice, or government regulation would somehow hurt the industry.... Make no mistake, this will be a problem soon, a big one at that.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

By replying to my post you have agreed to JinMI's terms and services. You are now under contractual obligation to any and all of my whims.

To opt out, kindly send me your name, address, phone number, SSN. Photos of you and your family along with any possible associates. Also, labeled blood samples.

a reply to: JinMI

Lol, love the bit.

The latter part about blood samples blows my mind on people sending off their DNA to companies with equally as troubling privacy policies as Facebook.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I mean we know im joking but have you read the TnCs of some sites? Cookie access and such.

Its not far from the truth.

On topic. Blackmail is what this looks like.

However it may be cheaper to pay the fine than to pay a lawyer for a court filing!