This is an outrage. Only private companies like Google, Facebook, LexisNexis, Experian, Equifax, Corelogic, Nielsen, Acxiom, Datalogix, Epsilon, Spokeo, Radaris, ID Analytics, eBureau, Intelius, PeekYou, Rapleaf, and Recorded Future should profit from information about me.
I get what you're saying, and broadly agree that data brokering is dirty and gross.
But the government selling your data to the highest bidder is worse than a private firm doing it - because they have the significant advantage of being the source of truth of that data itself. Every other firm is likely needing to piece together the public data that's out there, or that they've gathered themselves, and package it up. The government can just sell the data out of its operational database and guarantee its accuracy. The incentives here are really grim.
We need to tell the government that this is not ok. They might even then think of stopping private firms from doing the same.
Importantly you also absolutely can’t avoid giving your data to the government. And if you try to lie and create a fake “DMV profile” for yourself to keep your data secure you’re gonna end up in serious trouble.
Also, google can't tell me that I'm not allowed to drive if I don't give them personal information. I can't just go to DuckDuckGo's DMV instead of giving my data to the government.
Given the general sentiment of "people shouldn't be allowed to drive once L5 driving automation is implemented" on forums like this and even among the general public, not being allowed to ride in Google (or Uber's) cars could become a particularly big deal.
Even so, it is possible for DuckDuckGo to introduce privacy-respecting self driving car services. The point still stands that nobody, ever, will be able to provide a competitive, privacy respecting, competitor to the DMV.
Here we go. Your "personal" data is (and has been for a long time) a public record, which is in practice available to anybody who wants to ask the government for it.
Even Facebook is protecting my data better than the DMV. Even back-alley shady deals that share my data with undisclosed partners are preferable to literally allowing anyone who asks to have it.
It's crazy how much information on ordinary people is considered public -- including voting information like party affiliation, which is just absurd to me. People shouldn't be able to just ask the government which party I'm registered with.
They're not selling your data to the highest bidder. It seems like they're selling it to people that appear to demonstrate a need for the data per their policies, and there is no bidding process, but rather a fee structure for all users. This is quite a bit different than providing to select groups after a winner-take-all scenario.
This kind of information is available on most if not all property and business. I'm not sure why it would be different for automobiles? Public records are public. Would you feel better if this was provided for free to anyone vs. some sort of revenue-generator for the state? The last question is not rhetorical. I'm honestly not sure which one would be practically best, though data availability for free sounds like the best option to avoid corruption.
They also have the unique ability to effectively compel you to provide that information. At least with private companies you have [the illusion of] of choice.
The government is supposed to be governing. They're the referee. If a private entity does something that is illegal, the government can punish them. If the private entity does something that we agree ought to be illegal but isn't the government can change the laws. When the government does illegal/should-be-illegal things itself, you have an entity who's incentives are to not address the problem.
