CFPB Launches Long Overdue Probe Of Unaccountable Data Broker Market

from the belated-and-likely-doomed-efforts-to-competently-regulate dept

We’ve noted for a while that the performative histrionics surrounding TikTok are really just a distraction from our corrupt failure to police dodgy data brokers or pass even a basic privacy law for the internet era. U.S. companies don’t want to lose money by empowering consumers or being ethical, and the U.S. government doesn’t want to get warrants for data it can buy cheaply from brokers.

As a result, story after story after story showcases how the intentionally convoluted data broker market now routinely traffics in all manner of sensitive consumer data, whether it’s your daily movements (say, the last time you visited an abortion clinic), your granular browsing habits, or even your mental health data. Any efforts to change this dynamic are quickly dismantled by data broker lobbyists, forcing the dwindling number of policymakers who actually care about this stuff to get creative.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), one of numerous privacy-adjacent regulators industry giants have attempted to lobotomize, has announced that it’s going to finally start conducting an inquiry into the data broker space, and whether any of these companies are violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act:

“Modern data surveillance practices have allowed companies to hover over our digital lives and monetize our most sensitive data,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “Our inquiry will inform whether rules under the Fair Credit Reporting Act reflect these market realities.”

Whether this actually results in anything substantive remains to be seen. Like most of the regulatory state, the CFPB has been under relentless attack by policymakers who like to pretend that letting giant, predatory companies and industries run amok results in near-mystical Utopian outcomes, despite two straight generations’ worth of data violently debunking the concept.

For decades data brokers have been hoovering up vast troves of sensitive consumer data, and selling it to any nitwit with a nickel. That’s resulted in just a steady parade of ugly scandals U.S. policymakers do little to nothing about. Post-Roe, it’s a problem that’s only going to get dumber and more dangerous, yet, by and large, federal leaders have proven too corrupt and captured to do literally anything about it.

Since there’s no meaningful U.S. privacy law for the Internet, and government regulators have pretty widely been lobotomized via corruption, most data brokers really don’t see much in the way of actual oversight or scrutiny. As such it’s fairly easy for them to brush off complaints simply by claiming that the sensitive data they collect is “anonymized” (a meaningless term).

Given that this data can easily be sold to any number of global governments (including Chinese intelligence), the myopic fixation on TikTok as somehow the most pressing of all tech policy issues, continues to be a massive distraction from the actual problem.

This is just the opening phase of a CFPB inquiry, and any substantive action could be years away, assuming it arrives at all. And like most such pursuits, any actual fine will likely be a pittance compared to the money made by being unethical. The CFPB says its request for information will be published in the Federal Register, and the public will have until June 13, 2023 to submit their comments.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “CFPB Launches Long Overdue Probe Of Unaccountable Data Broker Market”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
25 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The 5th circuit issued a ruling that said the CFPB funding is unconstitutional and the case is now heading to the SCOTUS.

If the funding of CFPB is found to be unconstitutional, then the funding for the Federal Reserve, US Postal Service, US Mint, Federal Deposit Insurance, Social Security and Medicare are also most likely unconstitutional since they are all dependent on mandatory spending and not annual appropriations.

The above points is something that Matty here conflated into “it was setup specifically to act in an unconstitutional manner and be unaccountable” which it wasn’t – but the fallout of a ruling of unconstitutional funding means everything it has done becomes unconstitutional and that ruling will affect every other agency funded by the same mechanisms.

And if the funding for all those government agencies is found to be unconstitutional, expect a meltdown of markets and financial institutions. It wont be pretty and even Matty will probably regret his glee.

I’ll just note that as usual he just blurt things out without links or citations abut a subject that perhaps isn’t widely known/debated and expect everyone to have read up on the subject prior to him making his comment. He is essentially setting himself up to appear smart but he always comes across as a smartass because he can’t stop himself from behaving like an ass.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

The above points is something that Matty here conflated into “it was setup specifically to act in an unconstitutional manner and be unaccountable”

Actually, no, you’re just uninformed and misunderstood what I was getting at. The blatantly unconstitutional bit was that it was setup so that it’s director would be unfireable.

which it wasn’t

It was, as ruled by SCOTUS in Seila Law v. CFPB

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf

Fucking dumbass.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Classic Matty, changing his argument when someone calls him on it.

You said:

it was setup specifically to act in an unconstitutional manner and be unaccountable

Acting in an unconstitutional manner and being structured in an unconstitutional manner are not the same thing. So you were either lying or wrong in your first post.

Also, “it was setup specifically to…” implies intent. I’d like to see your evidence that it was intentionally set up to violate the separation of powers.
No, the lawsuit in which it was ruled that it violated the separation of powers doesn’t prove that intent.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Classic Matty, changing his argument when someone calls him on it.

Incorrect

Acting in an unconstitutional manner and being structured in an unconstitutional manner are not the same thing.

Incorrect, they are exactly the same thing:

it was setup specifically to act in an unconstitutional manner and be unaccountable

You highlighted the wrong bit.

You give an org Director that can’t be fired (oh, and independent funding, I did actually forget about that bit) specifically so that when it goes rogue no one can stop it. (By “rogue” I mean “What the people who created it wanted it to do” — act as an anti-capitalist harasser of big business to which there was no recourse)

So yeah, it was setup to act in an unconstitutional manner by being unaccountable.

Look, I know you don’t read so good and critical thinking isn’t your strong suit, but your lack of reading comp isn’t my moving goal posts.

Also, “it was setup specifically to…” implies intent. I’d like to see your evidence that it was intentionally set up to violate the separation of powers.

Lol, OK. The intent is obvious, there’s only one reason to set it up that way, but let me go and pour through congressmen comments from 12 years ago so that you can quibble over them, yeah? Nah.

I do like that by writing this you were attempting to construct a fall back position, tho….because you knew your first objection was meaningless.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Seem the chap you are responding to was spot on describing your behavior.

He insulted me and my intelligence, based on a bad assumption as to what I was talking about (he’s also doesn’t understand the funding issue he mentioned, but whatever) and all that is easily refuted by a single citation……and your takeaway is how dare I swear at someone who insulted me first?

Super hot take.

It’s a wonder you haven’t blown out your knees carrying that massive amount of chips on your shoulder.

I am but a happy warrior.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

and your takeaway is how dare I swear at someone who insulted me first?

My takeaway is that he has your behavior 100% pegged. I couldn’t care less about your swearing or if you are right or wrong. I guess that reaction comes from the fact that you call everyone dumbass who doesn’t agree with your particular version of reality from what I’ve seen.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

T.L. (profile) says:

At least, some government entity is doing something to address the risks posed by data brokers. Of course, the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal should have been the moment investigations into data broker firms were launched. Literally, it would take mass pressure or someone pulling a John Oliver and buying user data on politicians, but unlike John, actually released info on what they’re accessing online (however potentially embarrassing or incriminating) to the public to get Capitol Hill to pass legislation regulating them.

They could do the bare minimum and draft privacy legislation squarely focused on how foreign companies collect American consumers’ data and limiting brokers’ ability to sell data to overseas entities, if they’re allegedly so concerned about other countries having access to it. The U.S. government is seemingly more concerned about not having access to data collected from foreign firms for itself.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

If I created said data then I automatically own the copyright upon same.

But you didn’t. Your phone did, automatically, and phones (like macaques) cannot own copyrights. Not that a simple list of location data is copyrightable in the USA, anyway.

Laws are not gonna fix a thing here. There were actual privacy laws guarding telephone data, which the phone companies were caught breaking, and look how that went: they got retroactive immunity, and the laws were amended to allow what they and the NSA had been caught doing. Almost every law has an explicit exception for law enforcement, which would include investigations of illegal abortions. At best, one could argue state vs. federal jusisdiction, probably after being caught. But really, this data needs to not exist in the first place. Something like Pretty Good Phone Privacy (PGPP) could make it infeasible for phone companies to collect.

(Laws with meaningful fines could help, in that they might make phone companies decide it’s too risky to store or sell data. But they could still be compelled to pass future data directly to law enforcement.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Guess I can not be held accountable for anything the phone does.

Yeah, that’s generally correct… When’s anyone been held accountable for something their phone did against their wishes? Who’s in jail for butt-dialing 9-1-1? Has anyone been charged with arson for those exploding Samsung Galaxy Note 7 phones? You probably won’t even get kicked out of a movie theater or library if your phone loudly announces an emergency alert.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ECA (profile) says:

how many apps,

On your Phone, ask to use Geo information? Location data FROM YOUR PHONE.
And you ask yourself, WHY?
Then you say no, and it wont work. WHY?

Why in hell does my exercise program Need to know what part of the world Im in? Does a jogging app REALLY need the Geo, to track me? Not really. It would show me the route I took, but would it be better then Just Measuring my calorie use.

Then you wonder Why, your phne used to last 4-5 days on power, and now you have to charge it every NIGHT. How many apps does it take to sit int he background and use GEO and track everything you do?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...