mozilla monitor plus

it’s-not-worth-paying-to-be-removed-from-people-finder-sites,-study-says

It’s not worth paying to be removed from people-finder sites, study says

Better than nothing but not by enough —

The best removal rate was less than 70%, and that didn’t beat manual opt-outs.

Folks in suits hiding behind trees that do not really obscure them

Enlarge / For a true representation of the people-search industry, a couple of these folks should have lanyards that connect them by the pockets.

Getty Images

If you’ve searched your name online in the last few years, you know what’s out there, and it’s bad. Alternately, you’ve seen the lowest-common-denominator ads begging you to search out people from your past to see what crimes are on their record. People-search sites are a gross loophole in the public records system, and it doesn’t feel like there’s much you can do about it.

Not that some firms haven’t promised to try. Do they work? Not really, Consumer Reports (CR) suggests in a recent study.

“[O]ur study shows that many of these services fall short of providing the kind of help and performance you’d expect, especially at the price levels some of them are charging,” said Yael Grauer, program manager for CR, in a statement.

Consumer Reports’ study asked 32 volunteers for permission to try to delete their personal data from 13 people-search sites, using seven services over four months. The services, including DeleteMe, Reputation Defender from Norton, and Confidently, were also compared to “Manual opt-outs,” i.e. following the tucked-away links to pull down that data on each people-search site. CR took volunteers from California, in which the California Consumer Privacy Act should theoretically make it mandatory for brokers to respond to opt-out requests, and in New York, with no such law, to compare results.

Table from Consumer Reports' study of people-search removal services, showing effective removal rates over time for each service.

Table from Consumer Reports’ study of people-search removal services, showing effective removal rates over time for each service.

Finding a total of 332 instances of identifying information profiles on those sites, Consumer Reports found that only 117 profiles were removed within four months using all the services, or 35 percent. The services varied in efficacy, with EasyOptOuts notably performing the second-best at a 65 percent removal rate after four months. But if your goal is to remove entirely others’ ability to find out about you, no service Consumer Reports tested truly gets you there.

Manual opt-outs were the most effective removal method, at 70 percent removed within one week, which is both a higher elimination rate and quicker turn-around than all the automated services.

The study noted close ties between the people-search sites and the services that purport to clean them. Removing one volunteer’s data from ClustrMaps resulted in a page with a suggested “Next step”: signing up for privacy protection service OneRep. Firefox-maker Mozilla dropped OneRep as a service provider for its Mozilla Monitor Plus privacy bundle after reporting by Brian Krebs found that OneRep’s CEO had notable ties to the people-search industry.

In releasing this study, CR also advocates for laws at the federal and state level, like California’s Delete Act, that would make people-search removal far easier than manually scouring the web or paying for incomplete monitoring.

CR’s study cites CheckPeople, PublicDataUSA, and Intelius as the least responsive businesses in one of the least responsive industries, while noting that PeopleFinders, ClustrMaps, and ThatsThem deserve some very tiny, nearly inaudible recognition for complying with opt-out requests (our words, not theirs).

It’s not worth paying to be removed from people-finder sites, study says Read More »

mozilla’s-privacy-service-drops-a-provider-with-ties-to-people-search-sites

Mozilla’s privacy service drops a provider with ties to people-search sites

People search —

Owner of Onerep removal service launched “dozens of people-search services.”

Mozilla Monitor Plus dashboard

Mozilla

Mozilla’s Monitor Plus, a service launched by the privacy-minded tech firm in February, notes on its pitch page that there is “a $240 billion industry of data brokers selling your private information for profit” and that its offering can “take back your privacy.”

Mozilla’s most recent move to protect privacy has been to cut out one of the key providers of Monitor Plus’ people-search protections, Onerep. That comes after reporting from security reporter Brian Krebs, who uncovered Onerep CEO and founder Dimitri Shelest as the founder of “dozens of people-search services since 2010,” including one, Nuwber, that still sells the very kind of “background reports” that Monitor Plus seeks to curb.

Shelest told Krebs in a statement (PDF) that he did have an ownership stake in Nuwber, but that Nuwber has “zero cross-over or information-sharing with Onerep” and that he no longer operates any other people-search sites. Shelest admitted the bad look but said that his experience with people search gave Onerep “the best tech and team in the space.”

Brandon Borrman, vice president of communications at Mozilla, said in a statement that while “customer data was never at risk, the outside financial interests and activities of Onerep’s CEO do not align with our values.” Mozilla is “working now to solidify a transition plan,” Borrman said. A Mozilla spokesperson confirmed to Ars today that Mozilla is continuing to offer Monitor Plus, suggesting no pause in subscriptions, at least for the moment.

Monitor Plus also kept track of a user’s potential data breach exposures in partnership with HaveIBeenPwned. Troy Hunt, founder of HaveIBeenPwned, told Krebs that aside from Onerep’s potential conflict of interest, broker removal services tend to be inherently fraught. “[R]emoving your data from legally operating services has minimal impact, and you can’t remove it from the outright illegal ones who are doing the genuine damage.”

Still, every bit—including removing yourself from the first page of search results—likely counts. Beyond sites that scrape public records and court documents for your information, there are the other data brokers selling barely anonymized data from web browsing, app sign-ups, and other activity. A recent FTC settlement with antivirus and security firm Avast highlighted the depth of identifying information that often is available for sale to both commercial and government entities.

Mozilla’s privacy service drops a provider with ties to people-search sites Read More »