Disclosure: I own a competitor to Mint. I agree that most of the article is FUD, though the author does have some valid points in the “Security Posture” sectio

Disclosure: I own a competitor to Mint. I agree that most of the article is FUD, though the author does have some valid points in the “Security Posture” section (e.g. Mint ought to validate your email address before they depend on it for recovering an account). The author suggests the use of challenge questions; I think on the surface that sounds like a great idea, but most challenge questions can be guessed based on what friends/family know or what a person writes online, and the testing I did with user-provided questions showed that users will write obvious questions or even write a question with an answer that is the question itself. I’m surprised that the author didn’t write more about who has access to the information. I think that’s a very valid question regarding their security and privacy. Additionally, while their data-retention policies seem reasonable (backups and aggregate data), some guidance as to how long those backups are kept and what aggregate data is collected would be informative. In short: the article is a good attempt to review Mint’s security policies, but I think the author should have done a little bit more investigation.