3 ms·

Audited is fine. Published on the internet, less so. E.g. if there's something wrong with the ID. I can imagine a story "website posts details of user's false i

Audited is fine. Published on the internet, less so. E.g. if there's something wrong with the ID. I can imagine a story "website posts details of user's false identification, user sues because can't get a job". I'm not defending what they did [1], just saying it's not clearcut that they should publish the specifics of what they were unhappy with about his ID process. [1] See where I'm obviously against their behaviour here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7658177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7658177

rhizome 13y ago
You're bending over backwards, why would the OP make up a story about sending in their driver's license? If, as speculated, the ID was photographed poorly, the support person could have just said "we need a clear scan" straight off. No muss, no fuss, no disclosure of sensitive details. I think it's apparent that the CEO is lying in their excuse here.