Electronic Borders Corporation (EFF) and a non -profit group of privacy rights He invited several states to investigate Why is the “hundreds” of data brokers not registered in consumer protection agencies according to local laws.
An analysis conducted in cooperation with the privacy rights clearing (PRC) found that many data brokers have failed to register in all four states with the laws that require this, and to prevent consumers in some states from learning the types of information collected by these brokers and how to cancel the subscription. These results can be explained by the differences in the definition of the data broker, but they may indicate that some mediators break the law.
Data brokers are companies That collects and sells personal databases around people, including their names, addresses, phone numbers, financial information and more. Consumers do not have little control over this information, which raises dangerous concerns about privacy, and attempts to address these concerns mostly at the federal level. Last month, Lexisnexis risk solutions It revealed the data breach This may have revealed names, social security numbers, driving license numbers and communication information for more than 364,000 people.
Four states – California, Texas, Oregon, and Vermont – organize these companies by demanding their registration in consumer protection agencies and sharing details about the type of data they collect. Consumers in California, for example, can use the online database to search for different data brokers registered in the state, know contact information, and find steps about canceling the data collection subscription. Meanwhile, in Texas, data brokers must follow some security measures designed to protect consumer information.
In letters to state lawyers, EFF and PRC say they “revealed a worrying style” after ignoring the records of the data broker in California, Tixas, Oregon and Vermont. They found that many data brokers did not constantly record their work in all four states. The number of data brokers who appeared in one record but not another includes 524 in Texas, 475 in Oregon, 309 in Vermont, and 291 in California.
As I noticed, EFFs can explain the differences in how each state defines the broker of some of these contradictions. Some brokers can also collect data from people in all these states – although the industry usually receives a wide network.
On the contrary, EFf also says that this analysis will not include data brokers “ignoring state laws by failing to register in any state.”
EFF and PRC notes that California, Tixas, Oregon and Vermont are looking at companies that have failed to register through other states, and wrote that their results “can indicate a systematic failure of compliance” in every state. They add that investigation and enforcement procedures can “send a strong signal” regarding the state’s privacy commitment.
