5 ms·

I work in this space for a competitor to Persona, so take my opinion as potentially biased, but I have two points: 1. just because the DPA lists 17 subprocessor

I work in this space for a competitor to Persona, so take my opinion as potentially biased, but I have two points: 1. just because the DPA lists 17 subprocessors, it doesn't mean your data gets sent to all of them. As a company you put all your subprocessors in the DPA, even if you don't use them. We have a long list of subprocessors, but any one individual going through our system is only going to interact with two or three at most. Of course, Persona _could_ be sending your data to all 17 of them, legally, but I'd be surprised if they actually do. 2. the article makes it sound like biometric data is some kind of secret, but especially your _face_ is going to be _everywhere_ on the internet. Who are we kidding here? Why would _that_ be the problem? Your search/click behavior or connection metadata would seem a lot more private to me.

junon 8mo ago
> Why would _that_ be the problem Because it should still be my choice as to what you do with it, which data you associate with it, and how you store it. Removing that choice is anti-privacy.
- johndhi 8mo ago
  It's way less your choice what happens with a photo of your face in pretty much every other situation. When your face is on your LinkedIn profile, anyone can download it and do whatever they want with it. Legally. Here, the vendor has to tell you how they use it.
  - junon 8mo ago
    Someone downloading it randomly is not the same as me volunteering information said random person wouldn't otherwise have and having that information be stored next to my image in a database that can be breached. All for a checkmark next to my profile that says I'm a real human.
troupo 8mo ago
> We have a long list of subprocessors, but any one individual going through our system is only going to interact with two or three at most. So, in aggregate, all 17 data leeches are getting info. They are not getting info on all you users, but different subsets hit different subsets of the "subprocessors" you use. And there's literally no way of knowing whether or not my data hits "two" or "three" or all 17 "at the most". > but especially your _face_ is going to be _everywhere_ on the internet. Who are we kidding here? Why would _that_ be the problem? If you don't see this as a problem, you are a part of the problem
- laszlojamf 8mo ago
  I agree that DPA:s, as they are written today, aren't good. I was just pointing out that the reality probably isn't as bad as the article made it sound. > If you don't see this as a problem, you are a part of the problem I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm just saying that there are way bigger fish to fry in terms of privacy on the internet than passport data. In the end, your face is on every store's CCTV camera, your every friends phone, and every school yearbook since you were a kid. Unless you ask all of them to also delete it once they are done with it.
  - fainpul 8mo ago
    But it makes a big difference if some CCTV camera captures my face and comes up with "unknown person" or if it finds my associated passport and other information. By the way, ever since facebook was a thing I always asked my friends not to tag me in any photos and took similar measures at every opportunity to keep my data somewhat private.
  - troupo 8mo ago
    > I agree that DPA:s, as they are written today, aren't good. That is, multiple regulations already explicitly restrict the amount of data you can collect and pass on to third parties. And yet you're here saying "it's not that bad, we don't send eggregious amounts of data to all 17 data brokers at once, inly to 2 or 3 at a time, no big deal" > In the end, your face is on every store's CCTV camera, your every friends phone If you don't see how this is a problem already, and is now exacerbated by huge databases cross-referencing your entire life, you are a part of the problem
pavel_lishin 8mo ago
> your _face_ is going to be _everywhere_ on the internet. Why is that your assumption?
- laszlojamf 8mo ago
  Unless you have friends without phones and live in a city without cameras, I think that's a pretty fair assumption
  - 18061235 8mo ago
    [dead]
  - Aldipower 8mo ago
    Those records are not connected to your ID and personal data.
ataru 8mo ago
The problem with anyone using my face to identify me is that it's hard for me to leave home without it.
- laszlojamf 8mo ago
  yes, that's why people _can_ identify you by it. Identification was the _purpose_ here.
einrealist 8mo ago
Why not show a summary of who actually received the data? It should be easy to implement. You could also add what data is retained and an estimate of how long it is kept for. It could be a summary page that I can print as a PDF after the process is complete. I'd consider that a feature that would increase trust in such a platform. These platforms require trust, right?
testing22321 8mo ago
So they’ll send the data to whichever of the 17 pay them for it. Obviously our faces are public, but there’s no easy way to tie it to all my PII unless I give it to them.
18061235 8mo ago
[dead]
egorfine 8mo ago
> I work in this space for a competitor to Persona So that means you are participating in the evil that KYC services are.
tryauuum 8mo ago
> your _face_ is going to be _everywhere_ on the internet. Who are we kidding here? Why would _that_ be the problem? It's a strange logic. "Evil thing X will happen anyway so it's acceptable for me to work in a company doing evil thing X". You should be ashamed of building searchable databases of faces
hackable_sand 7mo ago
_Your_ _opinion_ _is_ _definitely_ _biased_ _,_ _not_ _potentially_ _._

junon 8mo ago

> Why would _that_ be the problem Because it should still be my choice as to what you do with it, which data you associate with it, and how you store it. Removing that choice is anti-privacy.

johndhi 8mo ago
It's way less your choice what happens with a photo of your face in pretty much every other situation. When your face is on your LinkedIn profile, anyone can download it and do whatever they want with it. Legally. Here, the vendor has to tell you how they use it.
- junon 8mo ago
  Someone downloading it randomly is not the same as me volunteering information said random person wouldn't otherwise have and having that information be stored next to my image in a database that can be breached. All for a checkmark next to my profile that says I'm a real human.

troupo 8mo ago

> We have a long list of subprocessors, but any one individual going through our system is only going to interact with two or three at most. So, in aggregate, all 17 data leeches are getting info. They are not getting info on all you users, but different subsets hit different subsets of the "subprocessors" you use. And there's literally no way of knowing whether or not my data hits "two" or "three" or all 17 "at the most". > but especially your _face_ is going to be _everywhere_ on the internet. Who are we kidding here? Why would _that_ be the problem? If you don't see this as a problem, you are a part of the problem

laszlojamf 8mo ago
I agree that DPA:s, as they are written today, aren't good. I was just pointing out that the reality probably isn't as bad as the article made it sound. > If you don't see this as a problem, you are a part of the problem I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm just saying that there are way bigger fish to fry in terms of privacy on the internet than passport data. In the end, your face is on every store's CCTV camera, your every friends phone, and every school yearbook since you were a kid. Unless you ask all of them to also delete it once they are done with it.
- fainpul 8mo ago
  But it makes a big difference if some CCTV camera captures my face and comes up with "unknown person" or if it finds my associated passport and other information. By the way, ever since facebook was a thing I always asked my friends not to tag me in any photos and took similar measures at every opportunity to keep my data somewhat private.
- troupo 8mo ago
  > I agree that DPA:s, as they are written today, aren't good. That is, multiple regulations already explicitly restrict the amount of data you can collect and pass on to third parties. And yet you're here saying "it's not that bad, we don't send eggregious amounts of data to all 17 data brokers at once, inly to 2 or 3 at a time, no big deal" > In the end, your face is on every store's CCTV camera, your every friends phone If you don't see how this is a problem already, and is now exacerbated by huge databases cross-referencing your entire life, you are a part of the problem

pavel_lishin 8mo ago

> your _face_ is going to be _everywhere_ on the internet. Why is that your assumption?

laszlojamf 8mo ago
Unless you have friends without phones and live in a city without cameras, I think that's a pretty fair assumption
- 18061235 8mo ago
  [dead]
- Aldipower 8mo ago
  Those records are not connected to your ID and personal data.

ataru 8mo ago

The problem with anyone using my face to identify me is that it's hard for me to leave home without it.

laszlojamf 8mo ago
yes, that's why people _can_ identify you by it. Identification was the _purpose_ here.

einrealist 8mo ago

Why not show a summary of who actually received the data? It should be easy to implement. You could also add what data is retained and an estimate of how long it is kept for. It could be a summary page that I can print as a PDF after the process is complete. I'd consider that a feature that would increase trust in such a platform. These platforms require trust, right?

testing22321 8mo ago

So they’ll send the data to whichever of the 17 pay them for it. Obviously our faces are public, but there’s no easy way to tie it to all my PII unless I give it to them.

18061235 8mo ago

[dead]

egorfine 8mo ago

> I work in this space for a competitor to Persona So that means you are participating in the evil that KYC services are.

tryauuum 8mo ago

> your _face_ is going to be _everywhere_ on the internet. Who are we kidding here? Why would _that_ be the problem? It's a strange logic. "Evil thing X will happen anyway so it's acceptable for me to work in a company doing evil thing X". You should be ashamed of building searchable databases of faces

hackable_sand 7mo ago

_Your_ _opinion_ _is_ _definitely_ _biased_ _,_ _not_ _potentially_ _._