I might be missing the point but I think the issue is that the WSJ (and others) are able to extract 'sensitive data' from sites like Rapleaf. So that might be

I might be missing the point but I think the issue is that the WSJ (and others) are able to extract 'sensitive data' from sites like Rapleaf. So that might be contrary to Rapleaf's policy but in reality their business model enables the dissemination of so-called sensitive data. I read another blog post on Rapleaf's site about how they are solving the problem of personal information being moved around the internet mistakenly. Are they not simply devising a solution for a problem they are helping to create? Again, I might be missing the point...?