Talk:Intelius/Archive 1

Controversial Cell Phone Directory & Verizon Lawsuit
Recently intelius unveiled a controversial program that had possibly 90 million personal cell phone number ad maybe 70 million in the near future, should this be entered in the article?

I have entered this into the article, however wikipedia will not accept my sources for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.141.197 (talk) 09:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it should, in the interests of accuracy and the very integrity of wikipedia. I'm very very troubled that this section is mussing as it relates to an extremely important national controversy.

If there aren't any reasonable objections, I'm putting back some elements of the following statements made by the Verizon Wireless CEO.

... Verizon Wireless wasn’t a customer, but earlier this week called on Intelius to “halt the mining and sale of these numbers.”

“Stop it,” said Steve Zipperstein, vice president and general counsel of Verizon Wireless, in a statement. “This is a violation of Americans’ privacy. People expect their cell phone numbers to remain private.”

“Trolling the Internet, using data mining techniques and simply buying lists to create a directory are actions that clearly violate a consumer’s right to privacy,”Verizon Wireless said. “Verizon Wireless has long refused to release our customers’ numbers and we call on legislators and policy makers to ensure that what a consumer wants to be private stays that way.”

these quotes are taken from the following article in msnbc, a very reputable news source:

Cell phone directory rings alarm bells, Customers, privacy activists raise doubts about Web service

Pasted from  By Alex Johnson Reporter, msnbc.com updated 6:37 a.m. PT, Wed., Jan. 30, 2008 --Consultitute (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Restoration
In the absence of any discussion, I reverted pretty much everything but the categories at the bottom and the improved reflist template. Hopefully I haven't ruined the work of minimalist editors who have acted in good faith... but I can't assume so, therefore you have my apologies. GOING FORWARD, please notate well and ACCURATELY all edits in good faith, DISCUSSING ALL CHANGES. I'll drop back by occasionally to add a character or two just to provide restore points. ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * as per me, I've restored a redlink... lead(marketing) became leads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudeReigns (talk • contribs) 12:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete personal records?
Is it possible to have your personal information removed from their database? If so, how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrcousert (talk • contribs) 07:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal records can be removed by faxing a copy of your driver's license and a notarized letter to the company. Include either of these with your opt-out request form and then fax it to Intelius at (425) 974-6194.As for finding the opt out form, not sure how to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.141.197 (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But, of course, when they get access to a new public record under the name that was deleted, all the information is restored. As a result, you need to spend the rest of your life watching the site, sending faxes, and waiting two months. Unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.0.84 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing Vandalism
It seems like the vandalism here has 1) Removed all references to all other founders besides Naveen Jain 2) Updated statistics about the company without providing new references 3) disidentified Intelius as an online data broker in the infobox 4) Added a bunch of webportals without citation 5) removed all discussion of InteliSign 6) ***Removed all criticism*** 7) Substituted ambiguous term "data verification services" for "telemarketing leads" although the source article could have changed (It's Intelius itself) 8)Removed specifics of the Paul Cook discussion with Bloomberg 9) Deleted the awards section in favor of a bunch of links about Naveen Jain.

It seems like someone affiliated with the company might be making edits. Rather than simply revert to my last edit, I thought I'd observe WP:OWN and do something no one else was doing when making these sweeping changes, namely, USE THE TALK PAGE. From now on, as I correct the extreme vandalism that has plagued this page, please assume that I do not share consensus for any changes except for reverts to correct the vandalism. WHICH SHOULD ALSO BE DISCUSSED. Please and thank you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems there is no criticism or room for discussion on this page, reading more like a product placement for Intelius. The page needs a criticism/privacy concerns section,

I added a section, referencing information from the company's local Better Business Bureau, and it was summarily deleted within hours. I have reinstated the information, along with a more formal reference. I concur, it does seem like someone affiliated with the company is making edits. Fshepinc (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I did a little exploring, and found that the person who deleted my post is, or at least was at one time, an Intel employee. That appears to be a grave conflict of interest, or at least a least a threat to the neutrality of the article.Fshepinc (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the section about a potential criminal customer base, the link cited was a sample search report showing that a random person (in this case, Intelius sample subject Lori Ortiz) could have their address history purchased for a very small fee (a current promotion will reveal all of the information provided in the link for $2.95). When posted, the link reverted to the Intelius homepage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.141.197 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it great how some self-proclaimed anti-vandalism czar calling himself User talk:Someguy1221 just comes in, without any discussion on the talk page, and categorically removes any references to impropriety or factual information which may be construed as negative information from this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.247.33 (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The edits are obscene violations of no original research and the neutral point of view. The ability to reference a website acting as a mere mouthpiece for alleged angry customers is not an loophole in these policies. Such edits will be reverted with extreme prejudice until some actual reliable sources are presented. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would consider the Better Business Bureau a reliable, neutral source. It facilitates communication between businesses and their customers. It is not "a mere mouthpiece for alleged angry customers."Fshepinc (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Where have all our 'barnstars' gone? In the face of this type of vandalism of wikipedia entries, is there recourse to maintain the integrity of information? --Consultitute (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Foundation
Some of the information in the foundation could not be verified by the provided links (or any other information I could locate in news articles on Intelius), and was altered to fit the information I was able to gather (such as Jain's removal from the CEO position in December 2002, instead of being CEO in January 2003), nor could I find verification that Jain was still employed by InfoSpace in 2003, considering he was removed from his post in December, although one article mentioned he remained a board member until June. The concept of the Non-Compete clause does not only restrict currently employees, it places time constraints on when a person can leave one job and begin a similar corporation using training and skills acquired through the first job. Thereby, Jain did not have to be Employed by InfoSpace when he began Intelius in order to be sued by InfoSpace. Unless someone can locate a source stating that he was in fact still an employee of InfoSpace in January of 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.141.197 (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A valuable source which describes and illustrates with images one of this company's current (June 2008) unconscionable practices
Link to an article in "Tech Crunch" which is a must read.Maryyugo (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a good article and while I believe that portions should be incorporated into the main article, there are more sources, which make the same point, but are less subject to criticism. Techcrunch, could by some be downplayed as a source because it could by some be considered a blog. Here is one more source which also contains a similar account:

Intelius and the Dubious Art of “Post-Transaction Marketing” A checkered success during the dot-com bubble, Naveen Jain has come charging back with a new venture—and the complaints are rolling in. By Nina Shapiro Published on March 17, 2009 at 8:08pm http://www.seattleweekly.com/2009-03-18/news/intelius-and-the-dubious-art-of-post-transaction-marketing/1

Is there any interest in synthesizing congruent information from these sources. The Controversy section appears to have been vandalized repeatedly. --Consultitute (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Intelius consistently ranks in the top ten B2B (business to business) advertisers.
This item appears under market and traffic with a link to a search engine. The engine returns results in 2004 and 2005 which indeed rank Intelius in the top ten B2B by Neilsen/Netratings. The problem being that the results are from a search engine, and only show a small fraction of time, argues against "consistently ranking". I have not been able to back up the results or find more recent ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.145.72 (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
An anonymous user is currently editing the article removing information critical of Intelius using the IP 63.231.16.57, which has previously been identified as belonging to CEO Naveen Jain. Ragan651 (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Better Business Bureau as a source
Some of the article is sourced by the BBB, which in the past was linked and removed as an unreliable source. Does this need to be removed again, or is the BBB considered a reliable source? Ragan651 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Employer Background Checks
This section's references no longer exist outside of Intelius.com, so without refs, it's useless. Ragan651 (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Link error for John Arnold
I work with Intelius and there are two link errors in the company info box to the right hand side of the page. John Arnold's name, which appears twice, links back to an 18th century watchmaker. We tried to fix this mistake ourselves (and, of course, would've posted our changes here), but couldn't find the link to remove. Can anyone help with this? I can do it myself with a bit of guidance.

I'll check back here if anyone has any questions or comments. Thanks in advance for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikita1792 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Intelius Company Summary
I'm concerned that the wording used to describe Intelius may be misleading. I would like to propose that it be ammended to improve accuracy. The first line reads that

"Intelius, Inc. is a public records business..."

It seems to imply that Intelius deals only in information which is publicly available. Publicly available would imply that any individual could find this information without using Intelius.

Here is what is stated in the companies S-1 SEC filing, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2008. http://ipo.nasdaq.com/edgar_conv_html%5C2008%5C01%5C10%5C0000891020-08-000014.html#V28895ORSV1_HTM_101

This can be found in various places. Here is another link to Hoover's presentation of the latest amendment (called a S-1/A) filed on 05/19/2008 http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/secdoc.xhtml?ID=159534&ipage=5946258-8117-18279

(the sources both have the same information, as this is a publicly available SEC document. Hoovers seems to have a slightly easier presentation of SEC filings. Also, as an fyi, the amendment as it pertains to this section is negligible)

In sectionj entitled "PROSPECTUS SUMMARY" under the subsection "Sources of Information" Intelius lists 3 primary sources of information. Two of these sources termed "Public Records." and "Publicly Available Information." are in fact 'public',

However, the third source list below, obviously is not: "Commercial Records.  Commercial records consist of records maintained by enterprises that are available for purchase, such as mailing and telemarketing lists, phone connect and disconnect information, and business profile data."

From an earlier part of the same section, the company does not specify that it is a public records company or that the sale of Intelius ®  is a leading online Information Commerce company that provides intelligence services and search and marketing services to consumers and enterprises...We generate revenues primarily from consumers who purchase our intelligence services on a  pay-per-use  basis and from online merchants, directory services companies and others that provide targeted and relevant offers to our customers.

It does

I propose that the new summary be:

"Intelius is an online broker of personal data that provides online background checks and search & marketing services to consumers and enterprises."

Maybe this is still too ambiguous, but the point is that two things need to be corrected here: Intelius does not gain its information entirely from public records, as stated by Intelius in its S-1 SEC filing. Secondly, it is not a 'public records company' as also stated in its SEC filing it deals in data that is not public, acquired at cost from private sources, and the services it offers, does not include its target advertising market, nor does it account for its primary means of income. Although the latter point is somewhat ambiguous given the current financial information being reported. --Consultitute (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Intelius co-founder arrested
So it turns out that this edit is verifiable. One source is here. I'm not going to add it myself, however, as this seems to me tangential to the company itself. Arnold was arrested amidst an investigation of a club with no relation to Intelius other than having an employee as a patron. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with not-adding. If it's not in relation to Intelius itself, it's off-topic here. Need to avoid WP:COATRACK. But more importantly, need to avoid suggesting that there is a connection (which we would be doing if we put it here) when there is not. DMacks (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and Veracity of Intelius Data
I've known several people who have complained about the veracity of Intelius. Apparently the company simply assimilates public records based on similar names and places that information into report format regardless of errors and with a fine print disclaimer stating that the information may not be accurate. Could a section discussing how Intelius validates or fails to validate people's personal information be added? I am somewhat biased in this regard as Intelius erroneously associated over 50 bad debts and criminal actions and a dozen incorrect addresses with my name, so I refrain from posting about it other than suggest or ask that someone please elaborate on the veracity of Intelius background reports. When I contacted Intelius the person I spoke with said, 'if the name and address matches then it is the same person'; their data failed meeting that criteria as well. Their customer service representative then stated, 'send a photocopy of your driver's license and a signed letter stating that you want your information removed from the database'. Has anyone attempted to litigate or file criminal charges against Intelius for libel or defamation or slander due to their unethical business practices and thier egregious failure to verify the data they provide while publishing false and misleading information scraped from nonvalidated public record searches?

It seems rather foolish to provide a photocopied driver's license and signature to a company that appears to operate on the periphery of ethics and responsible business conduct. That would be similar to handing a thief one's wallet and identity.

HopefulRomantic (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Content about ethics/business/legal issues need to stay
I for one actually was very pleased that this information was available in such an easy to locate way. On a gut instinct to do some check and balance on the validity of the services provided, I went looking around and had a very difficult time locating much. I almost went back to intelius to enter in the digits in the course of looking for a childhood friend from 25 years ago, when someone suggested Wikipedia as a possible resource - they were right, and I'm glad I listened. IMO anything that stops scams and obfuscation attempts for sloppy data collection needs to be allowed to proliferate, within reason. If everything is reliably cited, it needs to stay. --72.218.81.192 (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Intelius
Consumer complaints The Better Business Bureau of Alaska, Oregon, and Western Washington has catalogued numerous complaints about customer service, including a continual refusal to provide refunds to customers who claim not to have received the services they paid for. Additional complaints have been made about misleading advertising, and that background information provided by the company is inaccurate or has not been updated. According to the BBB, the company is not a member, and does not always respond when contacted by them.[14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.102.54 (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Automatic enrollment
I removed this section since it uses a blog (Michael Arrington's TechCrunch), and as such it has no accountability or verifiability of the material in it. So it should not be used as a source in this community. If the information cited from that blog is true, then there is bound to be some publication of it in an acceptable reliable source. 173.160.205.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC).
 * I believe it meets WP:RS criteria, but you're welcome to take it to WP:RSN to get broader viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it does not meet WP:RS criteria, but if you wish to force the issue, you can take it to WP:RSN, or provide a previous discussion that accepted it as a reliable source that will fit in this context. 173.160.205.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC).
 * RSN discussion started here --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion here, where the argument appears to be that the source shouldn't be used because it contains information that we're not using and shouldn't use. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No one agreed that the source is not reliable at RSN. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope my edit is not deleted as my PayPal account is charged a total of $83.85 since 9/09 because Intelius signed me up for checking a reverse phone number and doing a background check on an individual. I will contact PayPal to get as much as a refund as allowed, then use my long paper trial and report it to the IC3 (Internet Crime Complaint Center). If this company is ranked among the top 100 commerce sites on the Internet and is contemplating going public, these unfair business practices need to be shut down. Muskdial 13:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muskdial (talk • contribs)


 * Your edit has been deleted because it did not cite reliable sources. All your sources demonstrated is that complaints have been made, and a lawsuit has been filed. Neither is significant enough to include in the article without secondary reference from a reliable source, as is the case with all other accusations in the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Close Connection Tag
The "Close Connection" tag was added to this page in August 2009. Is it still valid or can it be removed? Jheditorials (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed it. We haven't had serious problems in some time. I'm guessing most of it was fueled by the pending ipo. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the Jan 2008 COIN discussion. Also, was blocked in Oct'09 for a year for continuing the improper editing. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Thanks! Jheditorials (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputed summary sentence
Ronz dropped a dispute tag on "A majority of Intelius' revenue comes from selling background reports." From whence does the majority of Intelius' revenue now come if not selling background reports? ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears they were at one time receiving significant revenue from their partnering programs that resulted in the lawsuits.
 * I simply don't believe the sentence belongs in the lede at this point, and nowhere in the article without properly representing the sources by citing exactly when those sources claim the revenue was occurring. --Ronz (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems that they also have revenue from selling data harvested from social networking sites. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Philanthropy
I removed the section. It consisted of two press releases, a profile on Singularity University's website, and an obviously localized press release. Absolutely nothing here than demonstrates merit for inclusion in an encyclopedia article on the company. --Ronz (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What, in your view, would warrant its inclusion in namespace? ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Pulled section
{{talkquote|text =

Philanthropy
In 2011, Intelius awarded two Singularity University Scholarships for the Graduate Studies Program to African leaders in business and science to solve poverty and gender disparity. Naveen Jain is a trustee on the board of Singularity University.

In June 2011, the company awarded five scholarships to high school students via the Intelius Essay contest. }} Additional references found: Granted, we may not want to say in namespace what was said. However, I think there is sufficient sourcing to state something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudeReigns (talk • contribs) 06:03, 19 November 2012‎
 * University of Washington
 * University of Washington
 * University of Washington
 * University of Washington
 * University of Washington
 * University of Washington
 * University of Washington
 * University of Washington
 * | University of Washington
 * Washinton State University
 * Billings Gazette
 * Montana Business
 * Bakersfield Californian
 * Close-Up Media via the National Library of Australia


 * with respect to the company, awarding 7 scholarships  is too trivial for the article ; it in any case is more public relations than philanthropy. It is not necessary for us to supplement their PR efforts--they do enough  by themselves. On the other hand, Naveen Jain 's trusteeship is the sort of significant contributions we generally do include,, but it is personal, and belong in the article about him, not the article on the company.  DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

inome
Looks like Intelius was renamed "inome" in 2012, and at the same time the Intelius name was given to the division focusing on online background checks. http://www.geekwire.com/2012/inome-naveen-jains-latest-entrepreneurial-pursuit/ Can we find more information to update this article properly about these changes? --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So, it looks like this article should be renamed "inome", the name change should be made clear, and the assignment of the Intelius name to the division of inome should be clarified as well. I don't believe there's any need for a separate article on Intelius the division of inome. --Ronz (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to give it a try... --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am concerned, however, that the corporate websites have not been updated to make the changes clear. I hope this wasn't rolled back... --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed ref

 * --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Outdated
I've tagged the article as outdated. We've almost no information on inome the umbrella company, and lots of information on inome/Intelius leading up to the 2012 renaming. I've quickly updated the lede, history, and infobox. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So what type of organization is Intelius now?
Can anyone find a source? It's not clear if it is a separate corporation, or just an entity within inome. Maybe there are some legal or business filings we can use to figure it out? --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible that the Intelius/inome reorg didn't happen?
Worth looking into, given the websites not being updated to indicate the reorgs, and the ip with a coi not being aware of the situation. --Ronz (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like it happened according to the Washing State corporations registry: http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=602263378 --Ronz (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Bold editing
I made some bold edits, cleaning up primary sources, promotion, and converting the dedicated "Controversy" section into a more concise sub-section. Any complaints?

Regarding the PR contact's desire to see Wikipedia distinguish between a "new Intelius" and the "old Intelius", I wanted to clarify if this was regarding the re-organization in 2012, or if it had to do with being acquired in 2015, what sources were provided to support the argument and so on. Ronz pinged me on my Talk page, but I didn't see at-a-glance where the original discussion had taken place. CorporateM (Talk) 20:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The more I think about it, we need to move this article back to inome and then decide what to do about the new Intelius. There's been no discussion yet, just my comments above documenting what little I'd found (starting at Talk:Intelius), and my asking Ksylvester for clarification. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As with almost all things on Wikipedia, we should look towards the sources to make our decisions.
 * Unfortunately however, doing a few quick searches for "Intelius inome" doesn't reveal any better sources than this Geekwire source in the current article.
 * Geekwire says that Intelius became a division of Inome, which is a new corporate umbrella under which Intelius now operates. So I think we should follow suite with the sources, with an article on Intelius that describes it as a division of Inome. Unless better sources are found that contradict Geekwire. For example, the Lead may start out with "Intelius is a division of Inome that..." CorporateM (Talk) 21:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Move this back to inome, create a new article about Intelius that mentions it being a division within inome before its recent sale.
 * I expect we should go through the information about inome specific to the Intelius division and duplicate it to some extent in both articles, being careful to avoid WP:OR problems. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is Inome notable enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGVANITY as a separate article? CorporateM (Talk) 01:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. Everything about Intelius prior to the renaming in 2012 applies to inome. I was concerned if Intelius, the spun-off division of inome, is notable, but I think it is given it continues with some of the notable products of inome. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I would just stick with one page on Intelius. They are the ones covered by sources. If everything about Intelius applies to inome, then why create a second page with all the same information? The two orgs are not synonymous and we would really need a great deal of high-quality sources to justify a separate article on the parent corporation, where the sources are focused on Inome, rather than Intelius. CorporateM (Talk) 03:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So then move the article back to inome (the notable corporation that changed its name and has had little notability since), explain the name change clearly, and make a separate section for the spin-off company (a company that doesn't appear notable beyond having some of the products for which the original company is notable). --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)