I find this startup rather disturbing...(spokeo.com)
spokeo.com
I find this startup rather disturbing...
http://www.spokeo.com/hr
73 comments
With Facebook news feed the data is limited by the fact that you have privacy settings and can limit the information you provide to a certain set of people which you choose.
Yes, precisely. This is how Facebook moved to address the initial news feed/mini feed issues.
The current start-up is likely to be under similar constraints; unless they're everybody's friend, only publicly accessible information should become available in the first place. And yet it still feels uncomfortable that the aggregation (basically a social-network google-ing of you) is so easy.
The current start-up is likely to be under similar constraints; unless they're everybody's friend, only publicly accessible information should become available in the first place. And yet it still feels uncomfortable that the aggregation (basically a social-network google-ing of you) is so easy.
I would say that aggregating publicly available data and making it searchable can be intrusive, even in seemingly harmless cases like Google Street View.
A couple of remarks on your second paragraph. I often read the view (Slashdot) that if you are in public, or publicly visible, you have no expectation of privacy. This is false in many legislations.
I cannot comment on U.S. law, but in Germany (and I presume in many other European countries), you need a person's consent before publishing their picture.
Exceptions:
a) You are in a public place and you are clearly not the center of the picture.
b) You participated in a public event (where it is likely that pictures are taken).
c) You are a public figure.
Note that even in the case of a public figure you would not be allowed to publish pictures of them engaging in sex.
I would be interested in how other countries handle this.
A couple of remarks on your second paragraph. I often read the view (Slashdot) that if you are in public, or publicly visible, you have no expectation of privacy. This is false in many legislations.
I cannot comment on U.S. law, but in Germany (and I presume in many other European countries), you need a person's consent before publishing their picture.
Exceptions:
a) You are in a public place and you are clearly not the center of the picture.
b) You participated in a public event (where it is likely that pictures are taken).
c) You are a public figure.
Note that even in the case of a public figure you would not be allowed to publish pictures of them engaging in sex.
I would be interested in how other countries handle this.
b.2) Or there are more than six or seven guys on the picture.
Having an argument about it is one thing, but there will be other startups that help people defend against this kind of aggregation and they are no less justified. For example, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to poison the databases of aggregators with inconsistent garbage.
The data they sell is crap anyway and there will be laws against it if only on the basis of preventing the distribution of false information about people. It's too much work to keep this data clean and that's why they are going to get crushed for spreading lies about people.
The data they sell is crap anyway and there will be laws against it if only on the basis of preventing the distribution of false information about people. It's too much work to keep this data clean and that's why they are going to get crushed for spreading lies about people.
I actually want people to see my LinkedIn page. It's designed to get me hired. I don't have a MySpace page.
With tools like this I'll probably remain unemployable indefinitely as anyone with a subscription will find my quaint short stories. Written at a time of youthful tribulation they read like PKD with a sadistic streak.
Or I could just get a new email, but then I'd have no audience and possibly miss out on some interesting conversation.
'So, the main character gags on a dildo laced with LSD?'
'Yes, sir, it's suppose to symbolize the rape and indoctrination of the indigenous people of the amazon'
Or I could just get a new email, but then I'd have no audience and possibly miss out on some interesting conversation.
'So, the main character gags on a dildo laced with LSD?'
'Yes, sir, it's suppose to symbolize the rape and indoctrination of the indigenous people of the amazon'
You do know that it's OK to have more than one email address, I suppose. But then, remaining unemployable probably has its upside too ;-).
Everyone should learn at an early age that they need at least two addresses; one for personal asshattery ([email protected]) and one for professional or semiprofessional correspondence ([email protected]). Only use the professional one for your professional correspondence (sending resumes) or signing up for mailing lists / whatever where you are going to be on your best behavior (an open source project's mailing list). Use leethaxor for whatever the hell you want.
On a similar note, use 'leethaxor' when posting your personal opinion in a comment / on a forum... if you make a comment / post in your real name, assume it will show up on the first page when someone googles your name (this actually happens a lot).
Preventing the need for your personal data to be removed is the best way of ensuring your privacy, rather than wishing you had never written that Harry Potter slash fanfic eight years ago under your real name.
On a similar note, use 'leethaxor' when posting your personal opinion in a comment / on a forum... if you make a comment / post in your real name, assume it will show up on the first page when someone googles your name (this actually happens a lot).
Preventing the need for your personal data to be removed is the best way of ensuring your privacy, rather than wishing you had never written that Harry Potter slash fanfic eight years ago under your real name.
Yup, I figured this out around 1995, when getting my first hotmail account. Keeping your normal online persona psuedonymous means never having to say "I'm sorry." Of course, it's still sorta easy to leak personally identifying information, but at least it'll take some more sophisticated data mining to connect those dots; something like what this one hosted java connection-finder whose name I can't remember does.
The downside of this approach is that you have to mess up only once and accidentally create a connection between 'leethaxor' and 'your.name'.
And because you felt safe when posting as leethaxor, the result will be much worse than if you just posted sane stuff under your real name.
And because you felt safe when posting as leethaxor, the result will be much worse than if you just posted sane stuff under your real name.
Change your email.
Finding all the places you've used your e-mail address that you forgot about: $15
Deleting your profiles from these places: Priceless
Deleting your profiles from these places: Priceless
Try deleting your Facebook profile my friend, just try.
http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_ac...
This appears to have been recently added. Of course, this being Facebook, there is no certainty they actually remove all your data. I should note this is different from the "deactivate" option which simply disables the account.
This appears to have been recently added. Of course, this being Facebook, there is no certainty they actually remove all your data. I should note this is different from the "deactivate" option which simply disables the account.
That was my point, yes :)
You can remove yourself from the site and deactivate the account, but once you sign up that data will always remain, even if not displayed.
You can remove yourself from the site and deactivate the account, but once you sign up that data will always remain, even if not displayed.
It's possible, although not easy.
Send a message to all your friends and Facebook will do it for you.
That made me laugh, but I don't think Facebook ever deletes anything. Ever. They just "disable" stuff.
No-one ever deletes things. When you "delete" your account, for example, they aren't going to invalidate their last set of backups. They aren't also going to anonymize all the comments/messages you sent that now reside in other people's profiles. Any information you give to any social networking site belongs only partially to you, partially to them, and partially to the members of your network with whom you have interacted.
No more disturbing than Google really. Today's reality is that if you put information on the internet that can be tied to your name, email, address, phone number, etc, then that information can be found and used for or against you. Improvements in search will make finding this information easier and easier.
and crucially, in a way that is currently of little but growing significance, such information will never go away or shrink.
In a way it can shrink. It can shrink by getting diluted or poisoned with crap data.
yes. this is the point - all this fuss will look quaint within months.
It tracks you by your email. Well, that was simple.
Get a professional vs personal email, if you don't have both already, and manage them both using Gmail (http://look.fo/how-to-manage-multiple-email-accounts-from-gm...).
Potentially, buy a .com/.me for yourself, and use [email protected] for your professional email.
Get a professional vs personal email, if you don't have both already, and manage them both using Gmail (http://look.fo/how-to-manage-multiple-email-accounts-from-gm...).
Potentially, buy a .com/.me for yourself, and use [email protected] for your professional email.
If you have a first-class degree from a top institution, that's called "so what?".
Spokeo fits in nicely I think, to answer the so what and offer a more rounded view on prospective candidates.
It reduces asymetry of information and reduces the risk of adverse selection by employers. In my opinion, having a good qualification is not enough of a signal to being a good employee. It therefore provides essential information that should ultimately benefit both parties.
That said, I don't think there's any substitute for a good face-to-face interpersonal interaction to determine a person's character or suitability for a role.
Spokeo fits in nicely I think, to answer the so what and offer a more rounded view on prospective candidates.
It reduces asymetry of information and reduces the risk of adverse selection by employers. In my opinion, having a good qualification is not enough of a signal to being a good employee. It therefore provides essential information that should ultimately benefit both parties.
That said, I don't think there's any substitute for a good face-to-face interpersonal interaction to determine a person's character or suitability for a role.
".... People search is “the new black” ..."
The data already exists so compiling it is a routine exercise. I wonder how this kind of service could be fooled or played or worse misattributed?
"... Spokeo fits in nicely I think, to answer the so what and offer a more rounded view on prospective candidates. ... It reduces asymetry (sic) of information and reduces the risk of adverse selection by employers ..."
It would do nothing to reduce risk. In fact I'd go further to say that organisations that hire on unverified information are open to risk of future legal action. This is information gathering at its worst. How does more information of dubious quality on a candidate rule them out distinguishing themselves at a given task? I would propose a counter application to the likes of Spokeo - a registry of potential employers. Free along the line of Craigslist. Someone looking for a job can view lists of companies by sectors and geography, rated by what matters to employees and updated.
This is an example of asymmetry.
Companies may have more money but there are more employees than companies. More data thrown at the employee allows greater scrutiny than what I guess most companies would like. A comprehensive list of companies worldwide ranking them by employee friendliness. More information in choice of companies you work for might make you think twice before you apply. The cream of companies rising to the top? For example imagine if you could view a company that you thought might be a good place to work only to find company information:
- In the press: current directors are constantly in the news for poor financial results, mismanagement or outright law breaking.
- Ethical status: encourage low wages and outsource, made no efforts to improve greenhouse gas emissions
- Enhancement: no effort to supply extra training
- Finances: public finance information reported against the rest of the market. For startups it might also have the VC's or publicly declared finance as this has implications on how a company behaves.
- Blunders: What was the last publicly acknowledged blunder? How was it handled.
- Relations: do they have induction? how do they handle various HR issues?
As you imagine if you start to put the spotlight back on companies that employ people a lot of PR companies will be getting anxious calls.
Maybe it might force change?
"... I don't think there's any substitute for a good face-to-face interpersonal interaction to determine a person's character or suitability for a role. ..."
This is one point I agree on. The problem, the best shady characters can fool all but the most thorough of vetting. I'm not sure that software can play a meaningful part in this process?
The data already exists so compiling it is a routine exercise. I wonder how this kind of service could be fooled or played or worse misattributed?
"... Spokeo fits in nicely I think, to answer the so what and offer a more rounded view on prospective candidates. ... It reduces asymetry (sic) of information and reduces the risk of adverse selection by employers ..."
It would do nothing to reduce risk. In fact I'd go further to say that organisations that hire on unverified information are open to risk of future legal action. This is information gathering at its worst. How does more information of dubious quality on a candidate rule them out distinguishing themselves at a given task? I would propose a counter application to the likes of Spokeo - a registry of potential employers. Free along the line of Craigslist. Someone looking for a job can view lists of companies by sectors and geography, rated by what matters to employees and updated.
This is an example of asymmetry.
Companies may have more money but there are more employees than companies. More data thrown at the employee allows greater scrutiny than what I guess most companies would like. A comprehensive list of companies worldwide ranking them by employee friendliness. More information in choice of companies you work for might make you think twice before you apply. The cream of companies rising to the top? For example imagine if you could view a company that you thought might be a good place to work only to find company information:
- In the press: current directors are constantly in the news for poor financial results, mismanagement or outright law breaking.
- Ethical status: encourage low wages and outsource, made no efforts to improve greenhouse gas emissions
- Enhancement: no effort to supply extra training
- Finances: public finance information reported against the rest of the market. For startups it might also have the VC's or publicly declared finance as this has implications on how a company behaves.
- Blunders: What was the last publicly acknowledged blunder? How was it handled.
- Relations: do they have induction? how do they handle various HR issues?
As you imagine if you start to put the spotlight back on companies that employ people a lot of PR companies will be getting anxious calls.
Maybe it might force change?
"... I don't think there's any substitute for a good face-to-face interpersonal interaction to determine a person's character or suitability for a role. ..."
This is one point I agree on. The problem, the best shady characters can fool all but the most thorough of vetting. I'm not sure that software can play a meaningful part in this process?
I think your range of points on security, unverified information etc are all valid.
My viewpoint is about gaining a more rounded understanding for a person's character, i.e. using all available information on a candidate to try and build a more accurate representation of them.
If Spokeo are offering some sort of verification service such as those offered by Experian et al then I find this to be a flawed model.
My viewpoint is about gaining a more rounded understanding for a person's character, i.e. using all available information on a candidate to try and build a more accurate representation of them.
If Spokeo are offering some sort of verification service such as those offered by Experian et al then I find this to be a flawed model.
"... My viewpoint is about gaining a more rounded understanding for a person's character, i.e. using all available information on a candidate to try and build a more accurate representation of them. ..."
I'm not sure more data is better trying to verify a candidate. You can infer things by viewing a candidates flickr + twitter + blog but how do you know it is not being spoofed, manipulated?
On the Internet anyone imitate a dog.
I'm not sure more data is better trying to verify a candidate. You can infer things by viewing a candidates flickr + twitter + blog but how do you know it is not being spoofed, manipulated?
On the Internet anyone imitate a dog.
How are they getting access to facebook profiles???
Quite. They have me tied by email address to Facebook and I'm 200% certain that my email address there is not "publicly-available information".
Facebook permitting this app to operate will give it serious legal trouble in the EU.
Facebook permitting this app to operate will give it serious legal trouble in the EU.
Are you sure your email address is not available on your profile -- even when a search engine finds your profile?
Supposedly you can set the visibility of your email to non-friends or non-network users. The problem here is that I have my FB email setting on private (friends only), and yet somehow this site can see it.
Methinks they may be simply attempting to log in with that email as your username... maybe Facebook returns a different error depending on non-existent username vs. wrong password. Very dumb of FB in that case, and must be fixed.
Methinks they may be simply attempting to log in with that email as your username... maybe Facebook returns a different error depending on non-existent username vs. wrong password. Very dumb of FB in that case, and must be fixed.
Email is still searchable, even if it is set to private. If someone types in your email address, they obviously already have it...
Same here. Annoying.
seriously, how are they picking up on my reddit, digg and forum accounts and what can i do for them not to?
Unless you disable it in the privacy options, your facebook profile has a special view available to non-members and search engines.
Obvious solution: put a different email address on your resume
Yeah seriously. Most of us have names that _someone_ on this planet also has too.
Or if you're really scared, don't use LinkedIn/facebook/Myspace et al. I view all of this stuff as filtering anyway. Would I really want to work at a place that is appalled because there's a picture of me drinking beer on facebook?
Or if you're really scared, don't use LinkedIn/facebook/Myspace et al. I view all of this stuff as filtering anyway. Would I really want to work at a place that is appalled because there's a picture of me drinking beer on facebook?
Spokeo used to be a social network aggregator like Friendfeed or Socialthing. http://www.minger.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/spokeo-page...
Uh.
Uh.
I find it rather inevitable. Seems like a killer business model, and it's probably 500 lines of PHP (or whatever). Pretty much just coin-operated at this point, nice steady revenue stream, wish I had thought of it.
Probably more than 500 lines. Doing information extraction on all those different sites probably involves quite a few scripts and doing search on the scale and at the speed they're doing undoubtedly involves backend services too.
When they launched, Spokeo had a really nice Flash client too for aggregating RSS news about the people you're following.
When they launched, Spokeo had a really nice Flash client too for aggregating RSS news about the people you're following.
They actually need to freemium the business model. X views for free before charging.
Isn't this similar to Spock? (www.spock.com)
For those who never visited Spock, you entered an email address and it tracked you all over the web. Now it looks like Spock requires logging in to work.
For those who never visited Spock, you entered an email address and it tracked you all over the web. Now it looks like Spock requires logging in to work.
Yeah. And Spokeo is old, old news.
Really, it's a matter of what you make available. I can't imagine "stalking" somebody ever really being a good use of time. What bad things are there to find? Drunken pictures? And that's on Facebook, behind a wall.
Really, it's a matter of what you make available. I can't imagine "stalking" somebody ever really being a good use of time. What bad things are there to find? Drunken pictures? And that's on Facebook, behind a wall.
It's always fun finding 10-year-old, embarrassing news articles or pictures of someone. :) Also, if you're one of the many people who use MySpace instead of Facebook, those drunken pictures aren't behind a wall.
The site claims that 'look beyond resume' - is the data found in MySpace, FB, Friendfeed a valuable data to any recruiter? I can see this being used only by 'snoopers'/'stalkers' - kinda thing that will bring nothing but bad name to Social Networking. I still know a majority of the people who just do not go onto eBay thinking its a congregation of fraudsters and phishers.
This site sucks.
Spokeo is pretty creepy. They index all of Pandora's public channels so you can see what kind of music your friends have been listening to.
Disturbing indeed, they betray the trust that these social networks sites gives to crawlers. Most of these sites are available to crawlers it’s hard to stop crawlers on case by case basis.
I tell all my friends (hackers and non hackers) to never post any information or picture about you online that you are not comfortable sharing with everyone. This is a great warning to everybody.
I tell all my friends (hackers and non hackers) to never post any information or picture about you online that you are not comfortable sharing with everyone. This is a great warning to everybody.
Sounds similar to Rapleaf.
except Rapleaf lets you manage your reputation before they sell it off
The first two times I read this I thought you wrote "Rapeleaf". My head was spinning.
Whatever you think about this new direction for spokeo one thing is for sure, its working.
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/spokeo.com/?metric=uv
http://www.quantcast.com/spokeo.com/traffic
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/spokeo.com/?metric=uv
http://www.quantcast.com/spokeo.com/traffic
here's the opposite -- a site where you google yourself and then comment on and reorder the search results, and then share it with potential employers. this requires you to be proactive, though. http://hitbio.com
Yeah I agree, the fact that an HR person can easily type in your e-mail and get all your personal details is a bit much. But, with that said, you honestly should be using a different e-mail address on your job applications than your personal e-mail.
[deleted]
I think the most interesting thing about them is that they switched from free to pay, overnight, without warning. Have many other software service startups done that?
When you're that tiny, does anyone notice or care? You can grandfather your favorite users into free accounts and, worse case, you piss off all 10 of your users.
How amusing would it be if this site was just a way to collect emails?
In any case, they are probably getting a whole bunch of emails right now.
In any case, they are probably getting a whole bunch of emails right now.
Rather undewhelming. I'm every hit for the first 5 pages of googling my name, and these guys have almost nothing on me.
Muahahahahaha
Muahahahahaha
I don't like work stuff on Facebook...I just changed my profile pic to sign up for a "professional" event.
...because it's an email harvester.
I entered my email, but my facebook and linkedin profile didint show up...
wow, the ultimate stalker tool is here... Ima go find my rapist/pedo glasses just for this occasion.
but you decided to spread it anyways (to the tech recruiters and HR who lurk here on HN)...
and disgusting.
Why?
Last time I checked, nobody is putting your personal information online in a public domain for you.
Last time I checked, nobody is putting your personal information online in a public domain for you.
Actually, they are. Or at least, if you've ever donated to any political campaign they are.
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/
The act of donating to a party is a public act though... unlike voting. You declare it on your tax return for goodness sake.
You don't declare them in your tax return. Donations to political campaigns are not tax deductible.
Hmm, I didn't know that. They are up here in Canada.
Too bad it didn't work on me.
This is sort of the 'see-through window' argument - If you live in a sky-scraper and you have sex in front of a window, and somebody takes a photo, is that invasion of privacy? The 'information' was technically already out there, and the photographer merely aggregated it (lets say he also found out who lived in the apartment through information publicly available) and posted it online.
Can aggregation in itself be an act of intrusion? I don't know, but its one hell of an argument to have.