Comment by qingcharles
5 months ago
One big privacy issue is that there is no sane way to protect your contact details from being sold, regardless of what you do.
As soon as your cousin clicks "Yes, I would like to share the entire contents of my contacts with you" when they launch TikTok your name, phone number, email etc are all in the crowd.
And I buy this stuff. Every time I need customer service and I'm getting stonewalled I just go onto a marketplace, find an exec and buy their details for pennies and call them up on their cellphone. (this is usually successful, but can backfire badly -- CashApp terminated my account for this shenanigans)
<< find an exec and buy their details for pennies and call them up on their cellphone. (this is usually successful, but can backfire badly -- CashApp terminated my account for this shenanigans)
Honestly, kudos. The rules should apply to the ones foisting this system upon us as well. This is probably the only way to make anyone in power reconsider current setup.
<< As soon as your cousin clicks "Yes, I would like to share the entire contents of my contacts with you" when they launch TikTok your name, phone number, email etc are all in the crowd.
And people laughed at Red Reddington when he said he had no email.
It's odd that of the two replies referencing people, both got their names obviously wrong. Is that a new phishing tactic?
Russian bot tactic? Guessing it’s an easy way to farm interaction as people comment back to correct the mistake.
2 replies →
Which are those comments? Aha, "Make Cuban" is one such comment and Mr Oliver someone
New AI tactic.
1 reply →
There was a post from someone a long time ago who has an email address and name similar to Make Cuban but not quite. He got quite a few cold call emails meant for Cuban. A lot of them were quite sad (people asking for money for medical procedures and such).
Where do you buy their details from?
Right now, my goto is signalhire
9 replies →
> The rules should apply to the ones foisting this system upon us as well. This is probably the only way to make anyone in power reconsider current setup.
Unless your problem is with the company doing the privacy violations, this doesn’t make any sense.
Pretty much all companies are doing the privacy violations. You think your doctors office doesn't sell their contact list?
10 replies →
Exactly this was tried by the likes of James Oliver and journalists/comedians of that caliber running ads and gathering data from politicians in Washington.
It was some years ago and resulted in nothing
Do you mean John Oliver?
1 reply →
LOL!
>One big privacy issue is that there is no sane way to protect your contact details from being sold, regardless of what you do.
>As soon as your cousin clicks "Yes, I would like to share the entire contents of my contacts with you" when they launch TikTok your name, phone number, email etc are all in the crowd.
Fortunately this is changing with iOS 18 with "limited contacts" sharing.
https://mobiledevmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image.p...
The interface also seems specifically designed to push people to allow only a subset of contacts, rather than blindly clicking "allow all".
The far bigger issue is the contact info you share with online retailers. Scraping contact info through apps is very visible, drawing flak from the media and consumers. Most of the time all you get is a name (could be a nickname), and maybe some combination of phone/email/address, depending on how diligent the person in filling out all the fields. On the other hand placing any sort of order online requires you to provide your full name, address, phone number, and email address. You can also be reasonably certain that they're all accurate, because they're plausibly required for delivery/billing purposes. Such data can also be surreptitiously fed to data brokers behind the scenes, without an obvious "tiktok would like access to your contacts" modal.
On android you can choose whether to grant access to contacts. And most apps work fine without.
GrapheneOS, which I use, also has contact scopes, so troublesome apps that refuse to work without access will think they have full access. You can allow them to see no contacts or a small subset.
There's also multiple user profiles, a "private space", and a work profile (shelter) that you can install an app into, which can be completely isolated from your main profile, so no contacts.
It surprises me how far behind iOS is with this stuff. Recently I wanted to install a second instance of an app on my wife's iPhone so she could use multiple logins simultaneously, there didn't really seem to be a way to do it.
The point is that it doesn't matter whether YOU grant access to your contacts. As long as anyone who has you in THEIR contacts decides to just press "share contacts" with any app, you are doxxed and SkyNet is able to identify you for all practical purposes.
2 replies →
You have two different points in your comment. Firstly, iOS has not been behind on having apps work if they don’t get access to a specific sensor or data. It’s on Android that apps refuse to work if they’re not given contacts access or location access and so on. Comparing the same apps on iOS and Android, I have found that Apple’s requirements for apps not to break when a permission is not granted is well respected and implemented on iOS apps. The same apps on Android apps just refuse to work until all the permissions they ask for are granted. YMMV.
I do agree that iOS is behind by not providing profiles and multiple isolated installations of apps, and it would be great if it did.
It would be useful to pick which details we share, not just contacts.
E.g.: I might be okay with sharing a friend's phone number or email, but I don't want to share their photo, dob, home address, etc.
I think it's not properly appreciated that Apple fully endorses all of this. For two reasons: (1) the provision of the output of billions of dollars of developer time to their users for no up front cost (made back via ads) is super valuable to their platform; and (2) they uniquely could stop this (at the price of devastating their app store), but choose not to.
In light of that, perhaps reevaluate their ATT efforts as far less about meaningful privacy and far more about stealing $10B a year or so from Facebook.
>I think it's not properly appreciated that Apple fully endorses all of this. [...] they uniquely could stop this (at the price of devastating their app store), but choose not to.
A perfectly privacy respecting app store isn't going to do any good if it doesn't have any apps. Just look at f-droid. Most (all?) of the apps there might be privacy respecting, but good luck getting any of the popular apps (eg. facebook, tiktok, google maps) on there.
>In light of that, perhaps reevaluate their ATT efforts as far less about meaningful privacy and far more about stealing $10B a year or so from Facebook.
What would make you think Apple's pro-privacy changes aren't "about stealing $10B a year or so from Facebook"? At least some people are willing to pay for more privacy, and pro-changes hurts advertisers, so basically any pro-privacy change can be construed as "less about meaningful privacy and far more about stealing".
6 replies →
People will share their whole list because it’s simpler
Or because they were tricked. eg. LinkedIn’s “Connect with your contacts” onboarding step which sounds like it’ll check your contacts against existing LinkedIn users but actually spam invites anyone on your contact list that doesn’t have an account.
11 replies →
How about a no/limited internet setting? So many apps spy on you and they don’t need network at all to function.
Fully denying internet access for an app is actually in iOS and has been there for many years.
But it's only available in China.
https://tinyapps.org/blog/202209100700_ios_disable_wifi_per_...
Grapheneos lets you pick this for apps before they even launch. You can revoke their network access, as well as define storage scopes for apps at a folder level, so if an app needs access to photos, you can define a folder, and that is the only folder it can scan for photos.
I used that when submitting parental leave at work. I didn't want to provide full access to all my photos and files for work, so all they got was a folder with a pic of a birth certificate.
6 replies →
Until the app's devs get wise to this, and do not allow the app to function without the network access. It could be as simple as a full screen, non-closable screen that says the app requires network access with a button to the proper setting to correct the issue.
9 replies →
I would love an iOS setting that blocks all network access for certain apps
GrapheneOS has that. It asks every time you install a new app whether it should have network permissions.
Android can do this
>Fortunately this is changing with iOS 18 with "limited contacts" sharing.
Its not. Apple still owns your stuff. There is no difference between Apple and other 3p retailers. Apple just wants more of your money.
>Its not. Apple still owns your stuff. There is no difference between Apple and other 3p retailers.
That could be taken to mean anywhere between "Apple controls the software on your iPhone, therefore they control your contacts" and "Apple gives out your data like the data brokers mentioned in the OP". The former wouldn't be surprising at all, and most people would be happy with, and the latter would be scandalous if proven. What specifically are you arguing for?
4 replies →
Doesn’t help against your cousin who shares your data.
Useless without limiting the kind of data I want to share per contact. iOS asks for relationships for example. You can set up your spouse, your kids, have your address or any address associated with contacts. If I want to restrict app access to contacts, I also want to restrict app access to specific contact details.
Interesting thing is that security practices mention that you should always grant the minimal set of permissions.
So in case Apple allowed for “share all” it means that they did it by design and are changing it now only because of backlash.
> (this is usually successful, but can backfire badly -- CashApp terminated my account for this shenanigans)
When I was at a medium-sized consumer-facing company whose name you’d recognize if you’re in the tech space (intentionally vague) we had some customers try this. They’d find product managers or directors on LinkedIn then start trying to contact them with phone numbers found on the internet, personal email addresses, or even doing things like finding photos their family members posted and complaining the comments.
We had to start warning them not to do it again, then following up with more drastic actions on the second violation. I remember several cases where we had to get corporate counsel involved right away and there was talk of getting law enforcement involved because some people thought implied threats would get them what they wanted.
So I can see why companies are quick to lock out customers who try these games.
I realize why this is bad. Full stop.
I wonder if it ever evoked an dive into exactly what happened to leave these customers with thinking this was the most likely avenue for success? Hopefully in at least some cases their calls with CSRs were reviewed and in the most optimistic of best cases additional training or policies were put into place to avoid the hopelessness that evokes such drastic actions.
That would require empathy from someone who is, right now, bragging about how they sicced their lawyers and the cops on customers they were fucking over.
I'm going to guess that the answer would be "nope, didn't care." That Cirrus isn't going to pay for itself, friend...and you can't retire at 40 without breaking a few eggs.
I remember when Google was locking accounts because people had the audacity to issue a chargeback after spending hours trying to resolve Google not delivering a working, undamaged phone they'd paid well over half a grand for. Nobody at Google cared, but when the money (that Google never fucking deserved in the first place) was forcibly and legally taken back, the corporation acted with narcissistic rage...
1 reply →
> So I can see why companies are quick to lock out customers who try these games.
Most of the companies who customers try these "games" against are places like Google and Meta that literally do not provide a way for the average customer to reach a human. None.
Those have got it coming for them, the megacorps' stance on this is despicable and far worse than the customers directly reaching execs who could instantly change this but don't because it would cut into their $72 billion per year net profit.
This is a case where laws simply did not catch up to the digital era. In the brick and mortar era it was by definition possible to reach humans.
I get that your company was smaller and probably did allow for a way to reach a human but that's not generalizable.
Regarding the evolution of the law:
Long ago when Google tried to launch its very first phone somewhere in Europe I can distinctly remember that it was initially not allowed to because of some regulation that mandated a company selling telephones to have a customer service.
Can't remember if they eventually found a loophole or if the regulations were changed.
> but that's not generalizable.
You only referenced two companies...
7 replies →
I think the sort of desperate mailing works better when you reach out to execs and VPs, not PMs and managers. Some founders had well-known emails and it was common to hear stories about escalating (eg jeff@amazon). It’s a well documented technique that many people have had great success with.
I’m not an exec, but I work on a major product in a major company. A significant portion of Americans use my work. My corporation has a reputation for poor customer support ATM. If I started getting personal emails or phone calls, I’d contact corporate security or lawyers just out of fear and confusion. That said, I’d be peeved on behalf of my customers if that same treatment was applied to messages directed at our household-name-CEO.
Honestly not condoning people crossing the line of threats/abusive behavior, but it sounds like you worked at one of those companies that make it impossible to get ahold of someone, don’t respond to customers, or other poor customer service issues, and then are surprised people resort to this
[dead]
> CashApp terminated my account for this shenanigans
Did you call to complain about the termination?
What's funny is that the exec I got on the phone was super supportive and helpful and was genuinely amused to hear from me and hear what was happening. He put me in touch with their "Executive Support Team" and it was after this that I guess someone realized they didn't like the route I had taken.
I feel somewhat vindicated after this announcement (though it does nothing to bring my account back):
https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/cfpb-fines-block-175m...
> Accessing any kind of customer service for Cash App was a challenge, too, according to the CFPB. Block included a customer service number on Cash App cards and in the app's Terms of Service, but calling it would it ultimately lead users to "a pre-recorded message directing consumers to contact customer support through the app."
As a result of sales drones getting hold of my number, I have to put my phone on silent and never pick up unless I recognize the number. Very unfortunate. What if there is an emergency with my kids?
If you're using iOS you can set certain contacts to bypass silent mode so that you still hear their notifications/calls. I know it doesn't help with unknown numbers, but just saying in case you're not aware. I'd be surprised if you can't do the same on Android.
Yes, thanks, I've configured that for kids and other loved ones. But I can't pick up anything else, even sales people from India manage to use a number that appears local (in The Netherlands for me), so I might miss a call from the kid's school.
2 replies →
The emergency call may not be coming from their phone.
I am in a similar predicament - if there’s an emergency call from an unknown number I won’t heat it.
You can. There's DND mode and Favorite contacts. I use auto-DND scheduling option too.
> What if there is an emergency with my kids?
Hopefully rather than just stupidly giving up, they'll send an accompanying text message.
> And I buy this stuff. Every time I need customer service and I'm getting stonewalled I just go onto a marketplace, find an exec and buy their details for pennies
The article author claims that you can't get this stuff for under $10k. Where do you find it for pennies?
Try cold outreach software like Apollo.io
As a test I downloaded it and got my wife’s full email and cell phone number easily from their free trial. And the full price would be on the order of pennies per contact.
Right now I use SignalHire most of the time
Thanks for sharing this approach. I gotta say that I’d love to hear more about how/where you are buying this data, and the CashApp story too.
So your data is only as private as the least privacy-conscious person in your social circle.
The thing is...contact details aren't really private information, basically by definition.
The distinction is contact details privacy is based on the desire not be interrupted by people you didn't agree to be interrupted by - i.e. it's a spam problem - and realistically to solve this requires a total revamp of our communications systems (long overdue).
The basic level of this would be forcing businesses to positively identify themselves to contact people - i.e. we need TLS certificates on voice calls, tied to government issued business identifiers. That would have the highest immediate impact, because we could retrain people not to talk to anyone claiming to be a business if there phone doesn't show a certificate - we already teach this for email, so the skill is becoming more widespread.
A more advanced version of this might be to get rid of the notion of fixed phone numbers entirely: i.e. sharing contacts is now just a cryptographic key exchange where I sign their public certificate which the cellphone infrastructure validates to agree to route a call to my device from their device (with some provisioning for chain of trust so a corporate entity can sign legally recognized bodies, but not say, transfer details around).
This would solve a pile of problems, including just business decommissioning - i.e. once a company shuts down, even if you scraped their database you wouldn't be able to use any of the contact information unless you had the hardware call origination gear + the telecom company still recognized the key.
Add an escrow system on top of this so "phone numbers" can still work - i.e. you can get a random number to give to people that will do a "trust on first use" thing, or "trust till revoked" thing (i.e. no one needs to give a fake number anymore, convention would be they're all fake numbers, but blocking the number would also not actually block anyone you still want to talk to).
EDIT: I've sort of inverted the technical vs practical details here I realize - i.e. if I were implementing this, the public marketing campaign would be "you can have as many phone numbers as you want" but your friends don't have to update if you change it. The UI ideally would be "block this contact and revoke this number?" on a phone which would be nice and unambiguous - possibly with a "send a new number to your friends?" option (in fact this could be 150 new numbers, one per friend since under the hood it would all be public key cryptography). I think people would understand this.
Check out Simplex chat. I just read about it from this HN submission yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42904966
What definition of contact details makes them not private?
Contact details (your phone number, email or address) are definitively private information, you should be the one that decides who gets them and who doesn't.
Literally explained in the second paragraph there.
You can't have private information which is meant to also be shared widely. It is the distinction between Access and Authorization.
4 replies →
I think this could be one of the more legitimate uses of blockchain - distributed communications, contacts, and a refundable pay-per-call system to make spam calling uneconomical. Communication in general does desperately need an overhaul, phones are effectively useless as phones nowadays.
> find an exec and buy their details for pennies and call them up on their cellphone
There is a vendor for this very thing in relation to business and government position called “zoominfo”
can we request our data deletion in these vendor????
>> And I buy this stuff. Every time I need customer service and I'm getting stonewalled I just go onto a marketplace, find an exec and buy their details for pennies and call them up on their cellphone.
I find it funny how easy it is to find scammy websites which promise to remove your data (right...), but how hard it is to find the actual marketplaces where people trade this data. It also makes you think about what other systems have similar asymmetric interfaces for the public and the ones in the know (yes, I know there are plenty).
can we request deletion of our private data in this vendor???
Assuming these marketplaces operate within the bounds of the law, would it break HN’s ToS to post them? I’d be interested in pursuing the same strategy.
Most online forums ban "doxing" even if it's theoretically legal.
Technically it's one step removed from doxxing, but I'll take your point.
1 reply →
Could you please tell me how to buy this stuff? This sounds like a great way to get customer service when normal channels fail.
And the combination of contacts are also unique enough to identify you. Even though they change over time. Some fuzzy matching, take in another few bits of fingerprint like device type and country and voila no advertiser ID required.
Ps smart idea to use it for that purpose. If I failed to get proper service I'd just review bomb the company everywhere and soon enough I'd get a call fixing my problem and asking to remove them :)
> there is no sane way to protect your contact details from being sold
I can think of one: make it illegal to buy, sell, or trade customer data. All transfer of data to another party must have a record of being initiated by the individual.
I'm not familiar with these marketplaces. Could you name a few examples?
I'm using SignalHire most of the time recently
Actually this could prove very useful for a resistance movement. Take them down with with their own medicine.
Yeah, I wonder if it might help to create a little newsletter for politicians and regulators. Send emails telling them exactly where they are, what apps they use, and so on. And send them the same information about their children.
They would make adjustments so that their details are protected, but the regular user is not.
2 replies →
I’m relatively sure they would bring the hammer down on the sender.
4 replies →
It is possible to just not use a phone number.
I mostly connect through Signal. I do technically have a phone number that my close friends and family have, but its a random VoIP number that I usually change every year or so. Surprisingly no one has really cared, I send out a text that I got a new number and that's that.
How? Most of the services I use, from Walgreens to banks to retirement accounts, require a phone number either for 2FA or just to verify that you’re you when signing up. After changing my phone number this year and having to go through the rigamarole for each service, I decided never again.
I've had limited luck feigning ignorance with a bank recently. "I don't know why I'm not getting a code" "No, I don't have another phone number" "I still can't log in to the web portal". They dropped the phone number requirement in favor to sending the OTP to email in the end, but it took way more effort than is reasonable. I tend to include a request to the CS person to pass along a request for TOTP/authenticator apps but given the request for a phone number is likely intentional I doubt the feedback is getting too far. In my naive mind, if enough people do the same, maybe they'll get the message.
Never give a phone number to anyone.
Phone number is the gold standard identifying for third party data collation services.
This is why so many companies demand it.
One solution is a burner phone and burner SIM, for SMS only.
I have a few services that require a phone number for 2FA, maybe 5 or 6?
I just change those when I get a new number, its usually just a matter of getting a text confirmation code from them to verify the new number.
I change passwords every year or two. That's really a pain, at this point its somewhere around 30 or so accounts I have to go through and update.
Yeah, companies are not dumb, and they know when you have VoIP number vs a full account with an "accepted" company.
I can kind of see why not allowing 2FA to a number that could be easier to loose, but that's weak argument. Of course they don't want someone from .ru to get a US number with all of the baggage that would entail
1 reply →
Changing your number every year could mitigate as it would introduce entropy and stale data into the system. When done at scale, data lifetime would behave similar to the automatic deletion of messages on whatsapp. Somewhat mimicking an in person verbal conversation where only people's memories remember what was said and even their version gets changed every time memory recall takes place. Systems already exist in real life that protect privacy, it's just that we do a poor job of reproducing them with tech.
Changing your telephone number every year could be an artificial holiday like valentines day or halloween. It can be done if people deem it's important.
I already do this. It gives me an opportunity to trim the contact list to people I actually talk to regularly which I send the new number too. Also shows me my footprint online since I have to update the number. I only change it for places I actually use regularly or are important.
I just block all unscheduled calls and calls from unknown numbers. If there isn't a calendar event and it isn't coming from a known family member or close friend, the call doesn't go through.
I also have multiple cell and virtual numbers and give different ones out to businesses, banks, friends, and family. Businesses that don't need to ship me stuff also get a different address than ones that do.
I don't register to vote anymore because they leak my residential info. When they can agree to stop leaking it, I will participate again.
I have done this as well. I once got an travel insurance claim rejected by some outsourced handler and found out who the CEO of the insurance startup was. I emailed him and magically it got resolved
> CashApp terminated my account for this shenanigans
The audacity of these people. They probably do far worse things to their customers on a daily basis.
What marketplaces do you use?
Im also curious about this. Is it just a website you place an order or do you have to go through some kind of agent?
If you're US based, there's tons of data broker sites, and you can glue together the information for free as various brokers leak various bits (E.g. Some leak the address, others leak emails, others leak phone numbers). And that's by design for SEO reasons, they want you to be able to google someone with the information you have, so they can sell you the information you don't have.
Some straight up list it all, and instead of selling people's information to other people, they sell removals to the informations owner. Presumably this is a loop hole to whatever legislation made most sites have a "Do Not Sell My Info" opt out.
What you do is look up a data broker opt out guide, and that gives you a handy list of data brokers to search. E.g.
https://inteltechniques.com/workbook.html
1 reply →
Lately I've been using SignalHire
I'm curious about this too.
2 replies →
I stopped keeping a mobile number many years ago.
Phone is wifi only.
In particular, I do not use the contacts functionality built into the phone.
(This is /e/OS, which helps, but I'll be moving to Mobian as soon as it is viable.)
You are very lucky. In China, virtually all websites are required by law to use your phone number (verified by SMS) to register and/or to use. And all numbers must be linked to your ID.
What do you do when the car repairman wants to call/text you when the car is finished? Or any other similar situations?
No car.
But in general, email.
I can make calls from my phone/laptop, using VOIP.
I could receive as well if I wanted to, but I rarely need to be called, so I do not normally keep a number, and I could not be called when out and about anyway, because wifi-only, but you do get an answerphone, so people can leave a message.
I use VOIP numbers for that. One per business.
How do you do online banking?
Laptop, running over Tor.
I use cash for all physical payments; never the card. I use the card to withdraw cash, once a month.
I very rarely buy on-line, because I stopped using Amazon (treatment of warehouse staff) and buying off of Amazon is hell on toast.
Given the rampant privacy abuse on phones, I use a laptop.
Where are you buying this? Might be handy for a job search. Zoominfo basically doesn't have a b2c offering and I am not paying several thousand for an experiment in improving my career
I can relatively easily skip trace people but where are you buying specific peoples information? Do you mean youre skip tracing or buying directly from data brokers?
What kind of marketplace do you use?
How do you do this? This is genius
That’s a textbook „surveillance capitalism” move.
Any chance of a tutorial or some materials on doing exactly this sort of thing?
[dead]
[dead]
You may be committing some type of violation of privacy laws if you're contacting them via phone and they're on the do not call list. Because they work at a company does not mean that you and the employee have a business relationship.
Don't do not call laws apply to marketing companies? OP isn't marketing or selling anything.
you can call anyone for any reason if you aren't doing it for your own business
Is it his business if it’s for customer support?
I'll call anyone I please, thank you very much!