Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

ersei.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 172 posts

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#31

Post by vorpalhex »

_8j50 wrote: post #23

Ahhh FFS, this post is complaining about third party KYC providers. Give me a break, in what world can you get a visa or mastercard without KYC? They provide privacy not anonymity, payment privacy that is not hiding your identity privacy. Your payments are private. Your payment info can't be easily tracked across the different cards you create. That's it.

It's not the existence of KYC, it's that their KYC provider is slimey and not privacy respecting. Selling your data to potential bidders is a no go.

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#32

Post by smachiz »

public_defender wrote: post #29
_8j50 wrote: post #23

Ahhh FFS, this post is complaining about third party KYC providers. Give me a break, in what world can you get a visa or mastercard without KYC? They provide privacy not anonymity, payment privacy that is not hiding your identity privacy. Your payments are private. Your payment info can't be easily tracked across the different cards you create. That's it.

I agree that most of the comments here amount to handwringing (or not understanding what amount of "privacy" is legal), but also, what KYC is really necessary for a company like this? If I understand correctly, all they do is pass through transactions. They don't hold customer deposits or provide credit. Isn't all this third party verification a little much?

The point of KYC is to make money laundering harder (and other transactions that the various governments want to track/police). To that extent, yes, they need to be able to show a regulator who was making those transactions.

The actual funding source/bank behind them won't see any detail beyond "privacy.com".

Any card issuer (or virtual card issuer) has to do this.

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#33

Post by tempsy »

I have the Apple credit card.

If you just want to generate 1-time credit card numbers to use once it's the best experience imo - can easily do it in the Wallet app.

Also lots of these subscription websites now detect card generated from something like a Privacy.com is prepaid and will prevent you from using it which defeats the purpose. Not the case with Apple.

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#35

Post by darknavi »

tempsy wrote: post #33

I have the Apple credit card. If you just want to generate 1-time credit card numbers to use once it's the best experience imo - can easily do it in the Wallet app. Also lots of these subscription websites now detect card generated from something like a Privacy.com is prepaid and will prevent you from using it which defeats the purpose. Not the case with Apple.

I didn't realize that Apple CC could do this. I really wish Chase could.

The main reason I don't use Privacy any more is because you can't back it with a credit card (only debit/bank) and I want the CC points.

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#36

Post by sholladay »

tempsy wrote: post #33

I have the Apple credit card. If you just want to generate 1-time credit card numbers to use once it's the best experience imo - can easily do it in the Wallet app. Also lots of these subscription websites now detect card generated from something like a Privacy.com is prepaid and will prevent you from using it which defeats the purpose. Not the case with Apple.

Privacy.com also allows setting monthly/yearly spending limits, or even setting the card as single-use. Does Apple have anything like that?

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#37

Post by CharlesW »

sholladay wrote: post #36
tempsy wrote: post #33

I have the Apple credit card. If you just want to generate 1-time credit card numbers to use once it's the best experience imo - can easily do it in the Wallet app. Also lots of these subscription websites now detect card generated from something like a Privacy.com is prepaid and will prevent you from using it which defeats the purpose. Not the case with Apple.

Privacy.com also allows setting monthly/yearly spending limits, or even setting the card as single-use. Does Apple have anything like that?

> Does Apple have anything like that?

Not that I can find, which is why I use Privacy.

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#38

Post by ineptech »

Sooner or later we're going to need a federal dept of is-this-guy-who-he-says-he-is. No startup can solve this; it's not profitable enough to do right. The last resort for authentication will always be "go to a place and talk to a human" and the gov't is the only entity who is willing/able to staff a brick-and-mortar office in reach of everyone in the country.

I know some people are afraid of the feds having a centralized and accurate registry of citizens, but the alternative (that every company who takes payments must have their own separate, partial, and inaccurate registry) causes a lot of problems.

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#39

Post by solumos »

public_defender wrote: post #29
_8j50 wrote: post #23

Ahhh FFS, this post is complaining about third party KYC providers. Give me a break, in what world can you get a visa or mastercard without KYC? They provide privacy not anonymity, payment privacy that is not hiding your identity privacy. Your payments are private. Your payment info can't be easily tracked across the different cards you create. That's it.

I agree that most of the comments here amount to handwringing (or not understanding what amount of "privacy" is legal), but also, what KYC is really necessary for a company like this? If I understand correctly, all they do is pass through transactions. They don't hold customer deposits or provide credit. Isn't all this third party verification a little much?

> what KYC is really necessary for a company like this? If I understand correctly, all they do is pass through transactions.

Products like this are particularly susceptible to fraud, especially given that they're charging your bank account directly. Without any KYC, if I as a fraudster get access to your bank login, I can basically drain your account. That opens up a ton of liability to Privacy. Also, the card networks tends to be pretty risk-averse with allowing issuing products access to their networks if there's a lot of fraud going through their services.

So, it's much easier to put KYC in place in order to avoid the headache of dealing with fraud/AML/etc

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#40

Post by public_defender »

smachiz wrote: post #32
public_defender wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that most of the comments here amount to handwringing (or not understanding what amount of "privacy" is legal), but also, what KYC is really necessary for a company like this? If I understand correctly, all they do is pass through transactions. They don't hold customer deposits or provide credit. Isn't all this third party verification a little much?

The point of KYC is to make money laundering harder (and other transactions that the various governments want to track/police). To that extent, yes, they need to be able to show a regulator who was making those transactions. The actual funding source/bank behind them won't see any detail beyond "privacy.com". Any card issuer (or virtual card issuer) has to do this.

My point is that privacy doesn't need to do KYC because there is no possibility of the customer evading regulators. Assuming that privacy answers subpoenas, they would be able to give the government detailed transaction info and a bank account which would identify the customer. KYC at this level of abstraction doesn't seem to solve any kind of legal problem. I'm glad to be educated by an expert, though.

Edit: A sibling explains a good liability reason for this, which makes sense but would not imply any legal reason.

Post reply on HN