LexisNexis and ChoicePoint are two of the largest data-brokers in the world. They’re only product is information about you which they buy and sell with little to no regulation of any kind. I have always wondered what kind of information they keep about us, and now I know. In the profile I ordered from them, I found not only several pieces of my personal information, but descriptions of other kinds of information that they collect. Here is a summary:

Information they Had

• Full first, middle, and last name
• Wife first, middle, and last name
• Address history with dates and locations
• Social Security Number
• Full date of birth
• Driver’s License Number
• Vehicle VIN
• Insurance history including companies, policy details, dates of coverage, accidents, claims filed, etc.

Information they Collect, but Didn’t Have For Me

• Auto and property insurance history
• Pre-employment background report including “personal credit information” and state driving record.
• An Esteem® report which lists admitted or convicted cases of theft while visiting or working at a retail company (used by retailers for hiring).
• A ScreenNow® report which displays a ChoicePoint national criminal records search of your name and personal information (used for hiring and volunteer work).
• A Resident Data® history that includes personal credit information and a criminal record search (used for rental applications).
• A Resident Data® eviction report used for resident screening.
• FAA Aircraft Registrations
• Uniform Commercial Code filings (when securing a loan with collateral).
• Bankruptcies, Liens, and Judgments
• Professional Licenses
• Pilot Licenses
• Marine Radio Licenses
• Controlled Substance Licenses (for physicians, dentists, pharmacies).
• Firearms and Explosives Licenses
• Business Affiliations (for officers or principals of an incorporated Company).
• Significant Shareholders Search Results – If your name and address appear at the top of a corporation record.

And the most exciting part of all of this is that you never asked to be part of their profiles, they just take it. Neat huh?

It looks like a Facebook employee decided to come clean about Facebook's horrid data protection practices

Betcha never meant for that to be public

So Facebook is not exactly known for protecting people's privacy. Besides many grievous displays of poor security, they have only added decent privacy controls over time none of which matter because you can get to the pictures anyway and every installed Facebook app can get all your data too.

All that aside, assume that setting your privacy controls is still better than not setting them. Facebook pulled a real jerk move recently when it required all users when they first logged in for the day to make a decision about their privacy settings. You had to click to keep your current settings, but if you didn't, it would open your profile up using the new default settings.

Though it doesn't probably change anything in the long run, it's quite satisfying to know that Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and CEO of Facebook, fell prey to his own tactic.

In a bit of very interesting timing, Zuckerberg’s photos have been made public to the entire internet, mostly through a post from gossip blog Gawker, after Kashmir Hill at True/Slant discovered and reported that Zuckerberg was sharing photos with a wide circle — friends of friends — and his event calendar with everyone.

Serves him right.

Facebook did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment about whether Zuckerberg’s changes to his privacy settings were deliberate, leadership-by-example-style actions. But in a status update on his profile (pictured above), Zuckerberg says he sets most of his content open and “didn’t see a need to limit visibility of pics with my friends, family or my teddy bear ”

Sure… He claims that he didn't mind that they were public and that he did it on purpose. Of course it wasn't proof positive that the settings changes are confusing and designed to nudge people out of their privacy into the public eye. Still, some would claim foul.

But why did Zuck suddenly decide to be less private than two months ago, when his settings were uber-private? You couldn’t even friend him before, and you certainly couldn’t see him shirtless..

The fact that Zuck drastically reduced his privacy settings makes me think the Facebook CEO did this accidentally, and now doesn’t want to change back for fear of the resulting PR disaster.

I wonder if Zuckerberg is regretting this move now. He can't go back towards privacy without making it seem that he's a hypocrite. Still, you have to wonder if he's going to start posting less information to his event calendar and photo albums than before since it's been forced for PR reasons to remain public.

This is so wrong, I barely know what to say. I sure hope this trend doesn't start to catch on, because a lot of people would give up the information when they're pressured instead of doing the right thing and refusing.

"Please list any and all, current personal or business websites, web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc." the form reads. But Bozeman isn't simply interested in finding out where to look for potentially embarrassing personal details; the city wants full disclosure, since the form demands username and password information for each.

This is way worse than all those sickening social networking sites asking for your e-mail address password.

Update

Here is the contact information for the relevant people in the city if you want to ask them why they thought this would be a good idea. And just in case someone were to change the form, here's a copy of the original found on their website:

This is for real... they actually expect you to give up your account details!

They had it, they shouldn't have, now they lost it. Same story all over.

The funniest part of this is that they're trying to convince their public that it's a good idea to have a national ID card containing even more data and that they'll be responsible with that data.

Said someone from an anti-ID card group:

"It's inevitably good news for our campaign because it proves to people that this government, and indeed any government, cannot be trusted with this amount of information. For 25 million people this is a catastrophe but it is just a small herald of the national ID scheme which would mean a potential catastrophe for 60 million of us."

TJX has settled under charges that they had insufficient computer security protecting their systems, but the only thing TJX must do under the settlement is upgrade their security. Woo.

And this:

"By now, the message should be clear: companies that collect sensitive consumer information have a responsibility to keep it secure," said FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras. "Information security is a priority for the FTC, as it should be for every business in America."

This lady found Social Security Numbers on a state website. She's threatened to publicly release detailed instructions on how to find them like she did and to expose the SSNs of several important people in the state if they don't fix the problem.

A spokesman for the office responsible said:

The bulk of the "hundreds of thousands" of documents on the Web site are business filings, and only 5 percent or so are believed to include Social Security numbers

Why can't states realize that putting records online makes them available to the world instead of just local people? There's public information and global public information.

That aside, this lady is my hero and I hope she does post the data. I've often wondered how long it would take to solve some of our privacy woes if a few dozen members of congress had all their personal data posted on a website.