Here are a few reasons that I hope you find somewhat convincing: - Single point of failure. It's ran by one person who can be bribed or manipulated. I've never

Here are a few reasons that I hope you find somewhat convincing: - Single point of failure. It's ran by one person who can be bribed or manipulated. I've never met Troy Hunt, and from what I can tell he looks like a great upstanding guy[1], but $5 wrenches will work on my kneecaps too. - What's the process for reporting and publishing? Appeals? There's no transparency here, aside from a list of 5 one-sentence steps in the FAQ[2]. How do we decide what data are "sensitive"? My guess is that there's not too much review. - As hinted above, with a publicly available shame list, there would exist new incentives to get competitors and enemies on the list. How does this play with a loosely documented review + publish process? With a user interface that might oversimplify the issue? Please don't misunderstand these points as hostility. I really really like Have I Been Pwned and think it's amazing what Troy is doing. It's just that if we're building new web infrastructure, it's important that we get it right. I think where we can agree is that web users deserve more control over their data by default and shouldn't have to learn how to install and use several fringe programs to do so. [1] https://haveibeenpwned.com/About https://haveibeenpwned.com/About [2] https://haveibeenpwned.com/FAQs https://haveibeenpwned.com/FAQs