3 ms·

Then why drop a steaming pile of shit on the company who's not directly at fault via the title? For clickbait? I've used privacy.com for years. Never had an is

by junon 4y ago

Then why drop a steaming pile of shit on the company who's not directly at fault via the title? For clickbait? I've used privacy.com for years. Never had an issue. Never had to validate my identity. Never had any issues with support. If used as prescribed (setting limits on cards etc) it fits in directly to where it belongs in my threat model. What a strangely charged article.

croes 4y ago
So it wasn't privacy.com who chose Onfido? If your contractor chooses a bad subcontractor, who do you blame?
- junon 4y ago
  Privacy.com is not a contractor, firstly. IMO that's a weak analogy at best. I've asked elsewhere - what do you want privacy.com to do differently?
  - croes 4y ago
    To use another service to do the user identification or at least to offfer an alternative.
withinrafael 4y ago
Not directly at fault? Privacy.com chose to use Onfido. I don't think the author's complaint is misplaced.
- junon 4y ago
  Using a company and having proper contracts and agreements with them to be properly protected is not malice, especially since the company is well known and assumedly adheres to regulation. I'm not sure what you want privacy.com to do differently.
  - markovbot 4y ago
    I think the ask was pretty clear: not to share confidential identification information with sketchy companies that are clearly sharing that information with everyone.
    - junon 4y ago
      So you're saying Privacy should reinvent the wheel with an incredibly difficult, terrible-to-manage process, itself requiring an entire company worth of people and a huge support staff, laden with insane amounts of red tape, just to perform a small function of their business, instead of contracting out another company that specializes in doing this exact thing? This seems like a larger security/privacy surface area than the latter approach.
      - markovbot 4y ago
        No, i didn't say that, nor did the post. You keep making these absurd leaps. Privacy.com advertises themselves as being private. I expect them to be private. They're the ones who chose to hinge 100% of their marketing strategy, all the way down to their name and domain, on how very private they were.
      - bluehatbrit 4y ago
        OP's original point is that a company marketing themselves as a privacy tool are forcing customers to use a 3rd party for processing very personal identification data. That 3rd parties TOS, which binds customers of privacy.com, says they can and will share data with anyone they want for any reason. That's nearly the antithesis of the privacy the company is marketing itself on. Privacy.com don't have to use Onfido, there are other options out there. There could be a myriad of reasons why they chose Onfido over the competition but the TOS bind the privacy.com users and they don't offer any alternative. For a company leaning on "privacy" as their primary marketing tool, this is a double standard. It doesn't mean Privacy.com is a bad company with horrible people building a terrible product. They're just calling out a company for doing something seemingly opposite to their marketing, and saying that's why they personally aren't using the product. You can disagree with OP but doesn't make their point wrong, invalid, or stupid.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by junon 4y ago

croes 4y ago

So it wasn't privacy.com who chose Onfido? If your contractor chooses a bad subcontractor, who do you blame?

junon 4y ago
Privacy.com is not a contractor, firstly. IMO that's a weak analogy at best. I've asked elsewhere - what do you want privacy.com to do differently?
- croes 4y ago
  To use another service to do the user identification or at least to offfer an alternative.

withinrafael 4y ago

Not directly at fault? Privacy.com chose to use Onfido. I don't think the author's complaint is misplaced.

junon 4y ago
Using a company and having proper contracts and agreements with them to be properly protected is not malice, especially since the company is well known and assumedly adheres to regulation. I'm not sure what you want privacy.com to do differently.
- markovbot 4y ago
  I think the ask was pretty clear: not to share confidential identification information with sketchy companies that are clearly sharing that information with everyone.
  - junon 4y ago
    So you're saying Privacy should reinvent the wheel with an incredibly difficult, terrible-to-manage process, itself requiring an entire company worth of people and a huge support staff, laden with insane amounts of red tape, just to perform a small function of their business, instead of contracting out another company that specializes in doing this exact thing? This seems like a larger security/privacy surface area than the latter approach.
    - markovbot 4y ago
      No, i didn't say that, nor did the post. You keep making these absurd leaps. Privacy.com advertises themselves as being private. I expect them to be private. They're the ones who chose to hinge 100% of their marketing strategy, all the way down to their name and domain, on how very private they were.
    - bluehatbrit 4y ago
      OP's original point is that a company marketing themselves as a privacy tool are forcing customers to use a 3rd party for processing very personal identification data. That 3rd parties TOS, which binds customers of privacy.com, says they can and will share data with anyone they want for any reason. That's nearly the antithesis of the privacy the company is marketing itself on. Privacy.com don't have to use Onfido, there are other options out there. There could be a myriad of reasons why they chose Onfido over the competition but the TOS bind the privacy.com users and they don't offer any alternative. For a company leaning on "privacy" as their primary marketing tool, this is a double standard. It doesn't mean Privacy.com is a bad company with horrible people building a terrible product. They're just calling out a company for doing something seemingly opposite to their marketing, and saying that's why they personally aren't using the product. You can disagree with OP but doesn't make their point wrong, invalid, or stupid.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]