Other than violating social norms, would there be any problem with purposefully making the data socially poisonous (not Bobby Tables, more like saying your name is Mao or Stalin and you on 101 Legalize Murder Avenue... and this is a tame example compared to what the internet could come up with)?
For the consumer, it's a pain to have to manage several identities just to have a shred of privacy when using the internet.
For the company, they always want the most accurate data, so that it can be cross-referenced and properly analyzed (specific aged males like X product better than Y).
I assume that most customer data is accurate, at some companies I've done some verification of customer databases just to identify the "95% accurate" verses the "mostly inaccurate or unverifiable" data, so that it can be excluded in certain instances.
Me personally, I have a wide variety of methods of obscuring data and confusing LexisNexis type companies, I'm not sure how fruitful it is, but it would be foolish to not at least try.
Many places required a verifiable address, which can be difficult to obscure (UPS store works for many things).
If you see a random form online, don't enter your real info dummy. If you see a website offering to lookup someones information, don't give that site your information and credit-card info (I've seen it happen many times).
You also don't want to make it obvious that you are using false data. Using an alternative version of your name and slightly different numbers will do more to confuse data-correlation efforts.
Just for the record, US national security is a completely different issue and I do not support attempting to provide misleading data to those relevant organizations. I've always been on the fence about the data-privacy topic. Humans can do bad things, 7+ billion humans with increasing influence and power slightly worries me. If you order lots of a uncoated fertilizer and do not have a garden or any land, then yes, in my opinion it is acceptable to build a system that raises a red flag on that person to be subject to an unbiased and transparent investigation.
Typically it's hard to do that when companies check against registered billing addresses for cards, or indeed card holder names, etc etc.
In general I've started just saying "No". I mean, I went to get my eyes tested and three different people tried to get my email/mobile for their records. I'm not even that bothered about surveillance it's just i'm sick to death of twats phoning me at work to claim compensation/buy something/ give feedback.
I've adopted the same method of dealing with this. Let me provide another anecdote: I went to a new dentist a few weeks ago and greatly confused the staff when I requested they didn't take a picture of me to attach to a personal file. They were equally confused when I told them I didn't want to watch anything on the TV during my appointment and would prefer instead that they turned it off.
I wasn't trying to be difficult or prove a point, I just really didn't want/feel comfortable with either of those things. As they did not impact the office's ability to perform their dentistry, it seemed perfectly reasonable for me to opt-out of them. The strangest part was, based on their confused reactions, it seems I may have been one of the first to deny one or both of those options.
Since it would be nearly impossible to universally "poison" your footprint the most like scenario would end up being that Lawton Fogle is tied to an alias of Hitler Manson that lives on Sodomy Lane and has a fake social security number with strangle biblical references. Not a good way to stay off somebody's radar.
Haven't people already been doing that for years? Am I just unusually paranoid? I always lie to companies I'm buying from when I can find some way to pollute their database.
