In order to opt out of a data broker, you have to submit PII to them to tell them who you are, otherwise, they won't know who to opt out. The exception to this is if the data broker is using an anonymous identifier, like that stored in a browser cookie, in which case you would need to submit that anonymous identifier to them, or somehow give them access to it (e.g. via a browser request).
The People Search Sites we submit opt outs to all transact in raw PII, therefore, if you want to opt out, either you have to submit your own raw PII to them (or a hashed version, where you and the data broker share the key so the underlying profile can be matched) to the data broker so they can identify you, or you can utilize a third-party opt out service (such as Optery) to do this for you. In either case, submitting raw PII to the data broker for them to identify you and opt you out is required.
We only submit to data brokers the minimum amount of information necessary for them to locate your profile, and then remove it, which, in the majority of cases is: First Name, Middle Name, Last Name, City, State, and an email address. If you do a few manual searches at data brokers, you'll see all of this information is already out there.
Note that we never share our customers private email addresses with any third party, including the data brokers we submit opt outs to.
Then the TOS about my PII changes because that TOS is a one way contract subject to the whims of whichever entity owns it at some particular point in time.
And then your company starts selling my PII, despite what you say in a non-legally binding comment on hacker news.
This has happened since banks started selling investment products, wealth managers simply pull up a list of cash heavy accounts who haven't opted out of marketing where they can push investment products. Think is biz model private bankers and 'Wealth Management' arms at banks are built upon
I skipped to that part and almost closed the stream thinking I had clicked the wrong link, I was kinda annoyed someone passing of CG for the real stream, then I realised it was real
Unhinged sounds about right, the blog post started out normal but it became increasingly disconnected and unsubstantiated. It read like something someone on adderall would churn out
Without such regulation what would stop any bad actor from colluding with brokers to halt trading a moments that benefit themselves? Pretty hard to enforce or prove in practise but the idea that brokerages can prevent groups of users from accessing markets willy nilly is absurd. This is for cash products no any futures/options, even for those once they grant access it should not be taken away
Nothing in that regulation stipulates that a broker must provide access to a market in any (and therefore every) security. Specifically, it refers to any transaction Clearly, a transaction can't occur unless the broker agrees they will provide that security for trade.
As to your second point, it would not be in a broker's best interest to change access to certain securities 'willy nilly' as they will lose business and clients. Whap happened today was not an arbitrary decision.
Would you be arguing if these brokers raised the margin requirement on Gamestop, etc to 99%? That is within their rights to do so, the SEC only sets a regulatory minimum margin req, not (to the best of my knowledge) a maximum.
People seem to forget that many people "trading" Gamestop and the like are doing so on margin. As such, the broker dealer has financial risk that you will not be able to pay your loan back, ie by a close out of positions. Is it reasonable or unreasonable to expect that the eventual decline in these stocks will be rapid with sizable gaps? How many of the Robinhood traders are going to cry bloody murder when they are automatically closed out 10s, perhaps a hundred points lower from when the call was triggered?
In my comment, I specifically said trading with cash. Easy to argue it was not arbitrary when there's a whale no one know about and the stock is obscure and the whale pays the brokerage more money that is worth to risk losing a few customers in that obscure stock. That's why these rules exist, even though they are more in-principle than anything
Yes obviously which is why OP is asking the question.
And you aren't right, there are many games where there are objective scores or measures of skill like other have said golf, darts, billiards. What leads to a field being more objective is the presence of scores which can be compared and serve as the goal, and the score outcome is not based on luck or opponent play.
Maybe not obviously, since this question gets asked in some form or another fairly often.
I used a game as an example of something that permits objective and quantitative scoring. Professional and technical fields don’t work like that. Chess and darts and tennis do.
This comment is a little pointless because almost anything that need your data needs you to trust them.