Data & Privacy
The Strangers Who Know More About You Than Your Best Friend Does
Somewhere right now, a company you have never heard of is selling a file about you — your age, income bracket, health conditions, political leanings, and the route you drove to work last Tuesday.
The Idea
Data brokers are companies whose entire business model is the collection, packaging, and resale of personal information — not as a side effect of some other service, but as the product itself. They sit mostly invisible in the commercial ecosystem, which is precisely what makes them so consequential. The information they hold is not just scraped from social media. It comes from loyalty cards at supermarkets, public property records, voter registration rolls, court documents, app location data sold by developers, purchase histories, and hundreds of other streams — then merged, cross-referenced, and enriched into profiles of startling granularity. A broker's file on you might include your estimated household income, your likely health conditions (inferred from what you buy), your political affiliation, your relationship status, how often you move house, and whether you are considered 'financially stressed'. What most people miss is the inference layer. Even if you share very little directly, brokers can reconstruct a remarkably accurate picture of you by combining innocuous data points. Buying certain supplements, visiting particular zip codes, and streaming certain genres of television can, in combination, predict things you have never disclosed to anyone. There are thousands of these companies globally. Some sell to marketers. Others sell to insurers, employers, landlords, bail bondsmen, and — more controversially — law enforcement agencies who use them to sidestep the warrant process. The marketplace is largely unregulated in most countries, and most people have no practical way to audit what is held about them, let alone correct it.
In the World
In 2023, a journalist named Kasimir Hill at the New York Times — building on earlier groundbreaking work she had done at Gizmodo — investigated a data broker called Near Intelligence. Near had collected location data from hundreds of millions of mobile devices and built what it marketed to clients as 'the world's largest dataset of human movement'. What made the Near case particularly stark was not just scale, but specificity. Researchers demonstrated that the location pings in datasets like Near's were precise enough to track individual people to specific medical clinics — including abortion providers — and then follow them home, revealing their residential address. The data had been legally purchased from app developers whose users had consented (in theory) to 'location sharing for service improvement'. None of those users had meaningfully consented to appearing in a commercial surveillance product sold to anyone willing to pay. Near was not a rogue actor. It was publicly listed. It pitched itself to investors as a legitimate analytics company. This is the uncomfortable reality: the most invasive data collection in history is mostly legal, mostly mundane, and mostly conducted by companies processing your information in office parks you have never thought about. Near eventually filed for bankruptcy in late 2023, but its data — and the data of competitors very much still operating — did not disappear. Data, once collected and sold, tends to persist long after the company that gathered it is gone.
Why It Matters
The instinct is to think 'I have nothing to hide', but that framing misunderstands the risk. The harm is rarely about exposure of secrets — it is about the power asymmetry that the profile creates. When a landlord, an insurer, or an employer can access a detailed dossier on you before you have exchanged a word, you are negotiating blind. They know things about your pattern of life that you may not have consciously registered yourself. There is also a chilling effect that operates even when no harm has yet occurred. People who know they are being observed — or suspect they might be — modify their behaviour. They visit fewer controversial websites. They avoid certain neighbourhoods. They self-censor searches. The freedom to think freely and move freely is quietly compressed. Practically, it is worth knowing that in some jurisdictions you can submit opt-out requests to major data brokers directly, or use a service that does it on your behalf. It is laborious and imperfect, but not nothing. The more important shift, though, is perceptual: recognising that your digital behaviour is not just data exhaust — it is a raw material with a market price, being refined and traded right now.
A Question to Ponder
If you could see the complete file a data broker holds on you today, what would you most want to challenge — and what does the fact that you cannot challenge it tell you about where power actually sits in this system?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable