11–20 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think this one is bad: look at Plaid, which literally phishes users bank credentials as "fintech".
“Phishing” implies fraudulent deception.
“Plaid will store your plaintext password and use it to periodically access your bank account.”
Burying truth deep in a TOS is seen by some as deceptive.
I never expected them to provide any privacy of any sort, but I don’t think they could make matters worse. Privacy.com has been extremely convenient for me, private or otherwise.
The use of third party KYC services like Onfido is widespread in the cryptocurrency space as well, where over-compliance is the norm right now. Consumers are given little choice as to which provider stewards their ID scans, bank statements, biometric data, etc. This user experience has trained the most vulnerable, non-tech-savvy audiences to provide just about anything requested when asked for ID verification. Includ…
If you think this one is bad: look at Plaid, which literally phishes users bank credentials as "fintech".
I think Plaid's stance was that if the host service (the one asking you to use Plaid) wanted to be invasive then it's up to them, or if this host would be upstanding and maintain your privacy, that could happen, too. It was up to the customer to check their policies. But this limitation was not spelled out nor promised that I could see.
Their policy may have changed since then.
Privacy.com was a perfect expression of “Your business is our feature”. Practically every major card issuer provides native virtual numbers now.
When you're allowing strangers to perform financial transactions - you're taking on risk that the money that is sent needs to actually be funded. They need to conform to KYC laws like all fintech providers - so yes, they will require knowing a little bit about you to operate in the United States like all financial institutions.
Privacy.com was a perfect expression of “Your business is our feature”. Practically every major card issuer provides native virtual numbers now.
2) For a knowledgeable consumer, there is huge incentive to use services like this to prevent the credit companies from being a single point of financial data aggregation. But—and here I guess I'm talking to amex again—if disposable or per-merchant card numbers are widely offered by card providers, I'd expect most people would just use those instead of a more robust provider like privacy.com.
Anyways, they're probably harvesting your payments and selling that info. I've noticed that since the card issuers have such high security requirements, and audits, a lot of little businesses have cropped up who are trying to act as middlemen to your payments. Because they just found a backdoor to getting all your payment history without hacking your card issuer. I believe privacy.com is one such business.
I worked in domain registrations in the early 2000s and it's funny how we used to put stock into what sort of TLD a domain used. Like .com would clearly be a commercial entity, while .org would be more non-profits, open source, public domain and stuff like that. Anyways, they're probably harvesting your payments and selling that info. I've noticed that since the card issuers have such high security requirements, and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think this one is bad: look at Plaid, which literally phishes users bank credentials as "fintech".
“Phishing” implies fraudulent deception.
Here's an example: https://d1hzvs60s6jsjg.cloudfront.net/IMAGES-1/208624076/pla... Does this look like it's going to be shipping your credentials off to be stored by a third party?
It is a hard problem, and using a 3rd party service is more cost effective than staffing a department to do manual verification.
