captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org
on 02 Oct 15:15
nextcollapse
I wonder if someone is trying to cast shade on TMobile as an ISP who is monitoring content and violating consumer rights? Unless it’s a precursor to a follow-up extortion campaign for these customers, it seems like by itself it does more potential damage to TMobile then to the consumers.
mesamunefire@piefed.social
on 02 Oct 15:33
nextcollapse
Its scary some entity got the data. But its also kinda funny.
ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Oct 17:13
collapse
T-mobile customer names and addresses…maybe even more, who knows
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Oct 18:10
collapse
This info isn’t difficult to get.
ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Oct 19:35
collapse
It sure isn’t legally public available either.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Oct 20:49
nextcollapse
The names and addresses of people using T-Mobile? I’ve not dug into it, but there are definitely databases out there with phone number => provider, and plenty of databases with phone number => name and address. I assume there are multiple out there than combine them.
Are those lists complete? Absolutely not. But complete enough to send out a bunch of fake warnings to some randos.
It’s available for, legally (unless they’re a Senator or House Representative), for anybody with money.
There are no privacy laws in the US, there’s no law that they can violate by selling data about you and since that data is worth money then it gets sold openly.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 03 Oct 14:07
collapse
It’s amusing that people assume their data is private just because they don’t think it should be public.
That isn’t to say I don’t think it should be private, but it simply isn’t.
WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
on 02 Oct 19:49
collapse
Basic Consumer Data Lists: £40 to £120 per 1,000 records.
Verified Consumer Data Lists: £120 to £240 per 1,000 records.
Highly Targeted Consumer Lists: £240 to £400+ per 1,000 records.
It’s about that order of magnitude.
TachyonTele@piefed.social
on 02 Oct 16:52
nextcollapse
And yet, there are no attempts to defraud the customer. No wording that asks for a ransom/payment, not even an email address that could possibly go to the bad actor. In fact, the email address in the letter is a real email address for T-Mobile’s legal department.
Hopefully it’s just for good old fashioned shits and giggles.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social
on 02 Oct 17:43
nextcollapse
About my browsing history: this was for a novel I am writing about terrible terrible people who should never do that
🙄it’s not from T-Mobile, it’s a forgery. And, unless the letters are actually cake, we can infer that “fake” in this case means just that.
Please spare us the reddit pedantry. There are much more intelligent discussions to be had around this topic without avoiding it entirely to inject some grammar nitpicking.
Maybe pedantry is not your cup of tea, but I listen to technology connections.
And the best type of correct is technically correct.
The whole reason to be precise about language is because it is confusing when you read something and go “that does not make sense” and then think about it for a minute and then realize what it means.
We don’t call them “fake emails” for a reason. It’s confusing. Spam email, spurious email, fake sender address, phishing, etc., are less confusing. Same with physical mail. Don’t be mad just because I want to read stuff nice.
BillBurBaggins@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 14:27
collapse
It’s not imprecise at all and it’s only confusing if you deliberately misinterpret it to be pedantic.
Fake ID claims to be valid proof of id but is not.
From the headline I couldn’t tell if the letter was purporting to be from tmobile or just somebody razzing people. I did not read the article. My brain fried on what a “fake letter” was.
People are not just smart on one dimension only. You can be smart and still get confused processing language. Asshole.
BillBurBaggins@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 15:44
collapse
My brain fried on what a “fake letter” was.
Fake : adjective Having a false or misleading appearance; fraudulent.
threaded - newest
I wonder if someone is trying to cast shade on TMobile as an ISP who is monitoring content and violating consumer rights? Unless it’s a precursor to a follow-up extortion campaign for these customers, it seems like by itself it does more potential damage to TMobile then to the consumers.
Its scary some entity got the data. But its also kinda funny.
What data?
T-mobile customer names and addresses…maybe even more, who knows
This info isn’t difficult to get.
It sure isn’t legally public available either.
The names and addresses of people using T-Mobile? I’ve not dug into it, but there are definitely databases out there with phone number => provider, and plenty of databases with phone number => name and address. I assume there are multiple out there than combine them.
Are those lists complete? Absolutely not. But complete enough to send out a bunch of fake warnings to some randos.
It’s available for, legally (unless they’re a Senator or House Representative), for anybody with money.
There are no privacy laws in the US, there’s no law that they can violate by selling data about you and since that data is worth money then it gets sold openly.
It’s amusing that people assume their data is private just because they don’t think it should be public.
That isn’t to say I don’t think it should be private, but it simply isn’t.
If you’re curious for the price of data: source
Basic Consumer Data Lists: £40 to £120 per 1,000 records.
Verified Consumer Data Lists: £120 to £240 per 1,000 records.
Highly Targeted Consumer Lists: £240 to £400+ per 1,000 records.
It’s about that order of magnitude.
Hopefully it’s just for good old fashioned shits and giggles.
About my browsing history: this was for a novel I am writing about terrible terrible people who should never do that
Ah, you’re going for the Pete Townshend defence…
Sounds like someone purchased, or otherwise gained access to, T-Mobile’s targeted customer advertising and marketing profile data.
Or, the kind of information that data harvesting applications gather, and then sell to data brokers.
I wonder if they have a grudge against T-Mobile, this is an early stage of a larger plan, or if it’s just for the lulz?
Honestly, with some tweaks, sounds like not a bad way to start getting your random corporate social media enjoyers to care about privacy.
How isit a fake letter? Sounds like a physical tangible thing.
🙄it’s not from T-Mobile, it’s a forgery. And, unless the letters are actually cake, we can infer that “fake” in this case means just that.
Please spare us the reddit pedantry. There are much more intelligent discussions to be had around this topic without avoiding it entirely to inject some grammar nitpicking.
Is there a possibility they’re cake? I could go for some cake.
Maybe pedantry is not your cup of tea, but I listen to technology connections.
And the best type of correct is technically correct.
The whole reason to be precise about language is because it is confusing when you read something and go “that does not make sense” and then think about it for a minute and then realize what it means.
We don’t call them “fake emails” for a reason. It’s confusing. Spam email, spurious email, fake sender address, phishing, etc., are less confusing. Same with physical mail. Don’t be mad just because I want to read stuff nice.
It’s not imprecise at all and it’s only confusing if you deliberately misinterpret it to be pedantic.
What do you call a fake ID then?
Are you telling me that my confusion was on purpose?
I’m telling you I was confused.
Don’t believe me if you’re so smart. Not going to argue.
Either it was on purpose or you’re not nearly smart enough to be arguing about grammar and definitions on the internet.
Also you didn’t answer my question.
Fake ID claims to be valid proof of id but is not.
From the headline I couldn’t tell if the letter was purporting to be from tmobile or just somebody razzing people. I did not read the article. My brain fried on what a “fake letter” was.
People are not just smart on one dimension only. You can be smart and still get confused processing language. Asshole.
Fake : adjective Having a false or misleading appearance; fraudulent.
You’re confusing “fake” with “imaginary”.
They hating, but his got a chuickle outta me