Disclaimer: the authors who share this blog do not knowingly or intentionally exploit other peoples' data. We do not accept paid advertisements. We do not try to track visitors. However, our host does so. From time to time, we warn you about that.
Our host reminds us (the bloggers):
"European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used and data collected on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent.
As a courtesy, we have added a notice on your blog to explain Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense cookies, and other data collected by Google.
You are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for your blog, and that it displays. If you employ other cookies, for example by adding third party features, this notice may not work for you. If you include functionality from other providers there may be extra information collected from your users."
If you, dear readers, have the ability to go right now to check which "cookies" have dropped onto your device like deer ticks, you may see links to the participating authors' websites, and a whole raft of google urls. Clear them often. No one who monetizes "tracking" takes any notice of "Do Not Track" requests.
David Ruiz, blogging for Malwarebytes offers some helpful insights into data privacy and cybersecurity.
It's instructive reading, especially the part about the GDPR, and tracking, and collecting, and storing, using and sharing visitors' data. Ruiz also points out what this author sees as an extraordinary loophole in Californian privacy laws. It's a "data breach" if a rogue actor actually downloads your data. If he just looks at it (presumably even if he looks at it and deploys pen and paper), it is not a data "breach". With a breach, the victim must be told, and offered a lifelock-like service for a year. If the rogue took a look, not so much.
And then, there's Spokeo.com
In 2017, this author thought that she had successfully opted out of having her information monetized by Spokeo on Spokeo. Then, she read "Spokeo Update..."
Legal bloggers Scott Kelly, David N. Anthony, and Timothy "Tim" J, St.George blogging for the law firm Troutman Sanders LLP share insights into the Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit that Spokeo almost three years after the Supreme Court ruled that an individual who suffers no provable financial injury, but whose financial privacy was invaded... may sue.
Or the original
Is Spokeo selling guesstimates of your credit score? You should look into it. Even if they have a disclaimer that states that one may not use the information that they sell in order to decide if one wants to employ/lend to/rent to... or otherwise make a business decision about the subject of one's Spokeo search, a skeptic would wonder why anyone would pay $39 or whatever to discover information one will not --on one's honor-- use.
For the next three years, it ought to be relatively easy to opt out, if you do not want to be monetized on Spokeo "so lost relatives and friends can find you".
Another reason to opt out is that Spokeo may reveal --free, to all-- the names of your aunts, uncles, cousins, parents, grandparents, children, siblings. Never chose family members' names as any of the answers to those double and triple verification questions that financial institutions may think are only known to the real you.
All the best,