In the Middle Ages in Britain, if a baker sold underweight bread, he was punished, which is why we have the saying "a baker's dozen" which includes a 13th loaf.
Nowadays, Data brokers seem to get away with selling inaccurate information about a property, a person, their contact information, and their associates. According to EFF, even "information" about your footwear preferences may be for sale.
As writers of fiction, we expect that readers know that they are paying for entertainment, not for strictly factual information. Not so with data brokers.
Who pays for garbage information? It is more serious than you might suppose.
For example, it is alleged that 90% of landlords use data brokers to make decisions about potential tenants, and this can have life-changing consequences for the tenant, and perhaps for the landlord.
There are all sorts of studies and statistics about the GIGO information that data brokers sell. (Garbage In, Garbage Out.) A 2022 study for the FTC found that 40% of data brokers' data was inaccurate. It got worse in 2023, when a report confirmed by NATO found that approximately half the data provided by brokers could be regarded as accurate.
Much of their information is incorrect, incomplete, based on "inferences". (The figure of speech is "alliteration", when multiple words begin with the same letter... unless a lot of words begin with "s" in which case, it is "sibilance".)
Inferences are what happens when algorithms are used to create information that may or may not be accurate. For example, if you look up "health benefits of cranberries", the algo might infer that you have a lot of UTIs. From that inference, they might arrive at other conclusions about the length of your urinary tract, the location of its opening. And more.
If you buy a lot of baby wet-wipes online, the algo might assume that you are a new parent, whereas you might simply like the superior butt-cleaning power of a wet wipe but not identify as a "Dude" wipe-user.
You might share internet service with several family members, and the data brokers might infer that all the associated phone numbers work for the head of household. This can be trying when a Democrat family member receives texts intended for a Republican family member.
Allegedly, all these lies are compounded because data brokers sell their lies to other data brokers, and so, lies breed like flies.
You can look yourself up, and find the names and ages of all manner of complete strangers who are alleged to be close personal friends. I'm guessing, but possibly your use of Facebook might have something to do with that. Apparently, a reporter looked herself up, and discovered that a good half of the information about her was untrue.
Maybe calling it a "good half" is irony -- if the difference between irony and sarcasm is that irony involves falsehoods or contradictions, and sarcasm is about something basically true but said in a hurtful way. Definitions change over time, and vary by country.
One problem for the automated collection of data is that several people have the same name. Apparently, there are at least three people named "Rowena Cherry". Two own or rent property in the Louisville KY area. One may live in California. One also owns property in Michigan.
No wonder, then, that a married, childless individual might be confused by data brokers with a single mother of multiple children. Such misinformation could indeed cause a landlord to believe that a tenant applicant was not being truthful on their application.
Ditto, perhaps, for a banker trying to decide whether to accept or reject a loan or mortgage or credit card application.
Why would you buy a product that might have a probability of being only 60% accurate at best? I know these companies do so: Progressive Insurance, T-Mobil, Political parties.... I know this because, through the postal service, I receive an alarming quantity of solicitations addressed to complete strangers.
This mail causes me to wonder if I am the victim of identity theft or home title theft. I write "Return to Sender" or "Not At This Address", which is the proper thing to do, but the same senders don't stop, which worries me even more. It is also bad for the environment owing to all the destroyed trees, wasted paper, wasted dye, wasted energy.
Apparently, the USPS makes around $15 billion dollars a year from junk mail, and the average household received between 20 - 40 pounds of junk mail (marketing mail or bulk business mail) every year.
Conclusion: the selling of lies is too profitable to stop.
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment