6 ms·

How is it legal for the banks to share this? I'm confused.

by imh 8y ago

prostoalex 8y ago
Mint and a host of other financial dashboard products allow you to plug-in account credentials and see balances in one place.
- mortenjorck 8y ago
  Most of those services are probably using Plaid to connect to customers' online banking accounts, which is always done through an explicit, user-driven auth. In fact, it has to be done this way of necessity; Plaid has traditionally used scraping to get data. Facebook, however, is trying to go in through the backdoor. From the article: "It is unclear whether bank customers would need to opt-in to the proposed Facebook services or what other privacy protections might be offered."
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- cityzen 8y ago
  So are you saying that idiots will knowingly link their bank accounts to Facebook and star in their own Black Mirror episode? Sounds amazing.
  - compiler-guy 8y ago
    "idiots" willingly and knowingly already do this with Mint. And Quicken; and other financial services sites. The only question is if Facebook develops a sufficiently compelling financial product for the mostly not concerned to share this data. You might not think it is a good idea. I don't think it is a good idea, but plenty of people will determine that the tradeoff is worth it.
    - Rjevski 8y ago
      Mint and Quicken have legitimate reasons to access your banking data though, and provide you value in exchange. I wonder what kind of value would Facebook provide you if you give them their financial data though.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - compiler-guy 8y ago
        I don't use facebook much, and what I do use is under a false name, not linked to anything real about me--I use it to access certain non-local groups). But the kind of thing they could provide would be just like any other financial service like Mint.
    - cityzen 8y ago
      Mint and Quicken are financial services so I can see how people would fall for that. You're assuming here that the "tradeoff" will be clearly presented, which we know it will not be. The "tradeoff" will only be realized when it is too late and the multi-national advertising corporation called Facebook, Incorporated is caught (again) mishandling user's data, except it will be financial. “There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.” Idiots. no quotes.
    - jonahhorowitz 8y ago
      I use Mint. I willingly and will full consent give them my data so they can provide me with a service. I'm ~okay with them having and using the data to market to me because the service is valuable enough to me. I have no reason to give FB my data. I've never consented to give them the data. There is no product they could offer that would encourage me to give them more data. It's two entirely different things.
      - compiler-guy 8y ago
        They are trying to develop a product that competes with Mint. I get that you would never consent to sharing, even if they competed well with Mint. But their goal here is at complete odds with your comment, "It's two entirely different things." They are hoping it will be "two products similar enough to be considered competitors."
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
jsoc815 8y ago
The likely argument would be that within the TOS or elsewhere there is (broad) language granting them the ability to do so. Of course, because users dutifully accept/sign the documentation placed in front of them, such practices are legal, at least until users 1) strike such language from the contracts before consummating the relationship(s); or 2) successfully challenge such practices in court. However, users have most likely also agreed to settle their disputes in arbitration, thus waiving their right(s) to sue (in court). So, really the should be reverting to option 1 if they are going to "use" such services.
- inetknght 8y ago
  Please tell me how to strike such language from any electronically-presented contract whatsoever.
- mortenjorck 8y ago
  I am approximately 100% certain that attempting to modify the contract you sign with a retail bank (short of being a private-client customer) will be met with an offer to consider other banks that might have a contract you agree with.
- jsoc815 8y ago
  Ah, down voted for provided facts again. Excellent. To mortenjorck and inetknght, I've not said that the typical individual user would have an easy go of things. What I did do was present options for userS to employ, en masse, in attempts to effect the changes they desire. It's funny to me how people bother to coordinate efforts for all sorts of essentially meaningless events, but when it comes to things that they profess are important they suddenly decide that they'll wait around for someone (who probably doesn't have their best interests at heart) to swoop in and do the hard work for them. To borrow from a post above "don't ask me how I know" but, your elected officials and "regulators" are unlikely to change these things unless business needs or public sentiment require it. That leaves the onus on you to make it happen. If you don't like the terms presented to you by a service provider, try to negotiate them anyway. If the provider is unwilling to accommodate, go elsewhere. Worst case scenario, create your own solution. Isn't that one of the big things about this whole tech/hacker scene, creating solutions to unaddressed pain points? And to the simpler question about striking language from electronic contracts, try paper(?) or making a PDF and amending it(?) You'd be surprised what serves as a passable solution because, as someone mentioned in another thread, a lot of people just don't put much effort into their work. I now humbly await your down votes.
throwaway2048 8y ago
It isn't in countries with sane privacy laws.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

How is it legal for the banks to share this? I'm confused.

by imh 8y ago

How is it legal for the banks to share this? I'm confused.

Mint and a host of other financial dashboard products allow you to plug-in account credentials and see balances in one place.

mortenjorck 8y ago
Most of those services are probably using Plaid to connect to customers' online banking accounts, which is always done through an explicit, user-driven auth. In fact, it has to be done this way of necessity; Plaid has traditionally used scraping to get data. Facebook, however, is trying to go in through the backdoor. From the article: "It is unclear whether bank customers would need to opt-in to the proposed Facebook services or what other privacy protections might be offered."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
cityzen 8y ago
So are you saying that idiots will knowingly link their bank accounts to Facebook and star in their own Black Mirror episode? Sounds amazing.
- compiler-guy 8y ago
  "idiots" willingly and knowingly already do this with Mint. And Quicken; and other financial services sites. The only question is if Facebook develops a sufficiently compelling financial product for the mostly not concerned to share this data. You might not think it is a good idea. I don't think it is a good idea, but plenty of people will determine that the tradeoff is worth it.
  - Rjevski 8y ago
    Mint and Quicken have legitimate reasons to access your banking data though, and provide you value in exchange. I wonder what kind of value would Facebook provide you if you give them their financial data though.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - compiler-guy 8y ago
      I don't use facebook much, and what I do use is under a false name, not linked to anything real about me--I use it to access certain non-local groups). But the kind of thing they could provide would be just like any other financial service like Mint.
  - cityzen 8y ago
    Mint and Quicken are financial services so I can see how people would fall for that. You're assuming here that the "tradeoff" will be clearly presented, which we know it will not be. The "tradeoff" will only be realized when it is too late and the multi-national advertising corporation called Facebook, Incorporated is caught (again) mishandling user's data, except it will be financial. “There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.” Idiots. no quotes.
  - jonahhorowitz 8y ago
    I use Mint. I willingly and will full consent give them my data so they can provide me with a service. I'm ~okay with them having and using the data to market to me because the service is valuable enough to me. I have no reason to give FB my data. I've never consented to give them the data. There is no product they could offer that would encourage me to give them more data. It's two entirely different things.
    - compiler-guy 8y ago
      They are trying to develop a product that competes with Mint. I get that you would never consent to sharing, even if they competed well with Mint. But their goal here is at complete odds with your comment, "It's two entirely different things." They are hoping it will be "two products similar enough to be considered competitors."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

jsoc815 8y ago

The likely argument would be that within the TOS or elsewhere there is (broad) language granting them the ability to do so. Of course, because users dutifully accept/sign the documentation placed in front of them, such practices are legal, at least until users 1) strike such language from the contracts before consummating the relationship(s); or 2) successfully challenge such practices in court. However, users have most likely also agreed to settle their disputes in arbitration, thus waiving their right(s) to sue (in court). So, really the should be reverting to option 1 if they are going to "use" such services.

inetknght 8y ago
Please tell me how to strike such language from any electronically-presented contract whatsoever.
mortenjorck 8y ago
I am approximately 100% certain that attempting to modify the contract you sign with a retail bank (short of being a private-client customer) will be met with an offer to consider other banks that might have a contract you agree with.
jsoc815 8y ago
Ah, down voted for provided facts again. Excellent. To mortenjorck and inetknght, I've not said that the typical individual user would have an easy go of things. What I did do was present options for userS to employ, en masse, in attempts to effect the changes they desire. It's funny to me how people bother to coordinate efforts for all sorts of essentially meaningless events, but when it comes to things that they profess are important they suddenly decide that they'll wait around for someone (who probably doesn't have their best interests at heart) to swoop in and do the hard work for them. To borrow from a post above "don't ask me how I know" but, your elected officials and "regulators" are unlikely to change these things unless business needs or public sentiment require it. That leaves the onus on you to make it happen. If you don't like the terms presented to you by a service provider, try to negotiate them anyway. If the provider is unwilling to accommodate, go elsewhere. Worst case scenario, create your own solution. Isn't that one of the big things about this whole tech/hacker scene, creating solutions to unaddressed pain points? And to the simpler question about striking language from electronic contracts, try paper(?) or making a PDF and amending it(?) You'd be surprised what serves as a passable solution because, as someone mentioned in another thread, a lot of people just don't put much effort into their work. I now humbly await your down votes.

throwaway2048 8y ago

It isn't in countries with sane privacy laws.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]