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

101–110 of 172 posts

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#101

Post by badRNG »

flutas wrote: post #94
jrochkind1 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah, that is concerning. Making it harder, rather than easier, to chargeback fraudulent uses is not what I'm looking for.

> Making it harder, rather than easier, to chargeback fraudulent uses is not what I'm looking for. Honestly I'm still confused by the whole thing. I told them that it was a fraudulent transaction that I didn't approve, they then kept asking me for tracking numbers and finally closed the support ticket, and would close any further ones instantly on me with this reply. https://i.imgur.com/EyjCGiU.png Never mind the fac…

>is a complete disregard for visa's rules

Visa is probably easier to deal with in the case of fraud than what it sounds like privacy.com is like.

I use a single CC for everything (that I'm willing to pay with a CC for.) It's been compromised to the point that charges went through 2-3 times over the past decade and a half. CC company caught the fraud each time, automatically charged-back each of the fraudulent transactions, and overnighted me a new card. They also moved all of my recurring charges to my new card (somehow.) From what I understand, all of the big 4 CC companies operate more or less the same in this regard.

This thread has eliminated the chance of me using Privacy.com in the future. If they can't make dealing with fraud at least as easy as a regular CC (which is quite painless, there's no reason to use them.

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#102

Post by cmeacham98 »

junon wrote: post #82
cmeacham98 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be some weird semantic angle where because Plaid is audited that makes what they're doing not phishing? I'm not sure I agree with that definition or that it is particularly common. That said, if it makes you feel better, pretend my comment read "Plaid pretends to be the users' banks in order to trick users into giving Plaid their bank credentials and stores those credentials without their knowledge or c…

That is the definition of phishing. This is why "vishing" is "voice phishing", etc. Phishing is stealing information. It's not a "semantic angle" - it's the definition of phishing. You're free to consulting a dictionary to fact check me. Plaid is not phishing, by any true definition of the word.

Like I said, pretend I said "Plaid pretends to be the users' banks in order to trick users into giving Plaid their bank credentials and stores those credentials without their knowledge or consent" if it makes you feel any better.

I'm content with my comment if you agree Plaid's behavior matches phishing with the only exception being how they use the credentials afterwards.

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#103

Post by twelve40 »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #86
twelve40 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because there are close to 20000 of them in the US, and while chase has the resources to do oauth properly, not every junky credit union can afford that

Few/no small credit unions (or banks) have their own bespoke online portal they developed just for them. They use a vendor. I bet a few vendors would cover a pretty large % of those 20K banks.

what's in it for them anyway?

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#104

Post by [deleted] »

flutas wrote: post #94
jrochkind1 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah, that is concerning. Making it harder, rather than easier, to chargeback fraudulent uses is not what I'm looking for.

> Making it harder, rather than easier, to chargeback fraudulent uses is not what I'm looking for. Honestly I'm still confused by the whole thing. I told them that it was a fraudulent transaction that I didn't approve, they then kept asking me for tracking numbers and finally closed the support ticket, and would close any further ones instantly on me with this reply. https://i.imgur.com/EyjCGiU.png Never mind the fac…

[deleted]

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#105

Post by RVRX »

They actually don't let me use my primary email as they specifically don't allow accounts to use a Yandex email. They said the reasoning was to prevent non-US citizens from creating accounts, and that I would have to use another email address...

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#106

Post by croes »

junon wrote: post #66
croes wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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?

To use another service to do the user identification or at least to offfer an alternative.

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#107

Post by aorth »

Privacy.com is great. I've been using it for years on the free plan. I use short-lived, vendor-specific cards a few times per month.

The author is complaining about the service's name not matching their expectation of what the service is supposed to do. I don't think that's fair. The Privacy.com homepage summarizes the service very well in my opinion. You give Privacy.com your financial information so you don't have to give it to a dozen other companies, and you get to control when and how those companies use that information by setting limits on spending or card duration.

The author was expecting this to be a cryptocurrency tumbler or what?

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#108

Post by fragmede »

public_defender wrote: post #70
smachiz wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you validate that they own the bank accounts if you don't know who the user is?

They only verify control. They do the method of making two small deposits and asking what they were.

Which is why KYC is required. Two small deposits just means you have access to someone's bank account, not that you're actually them. Money launderers will pay mules to use their bank account to move money around.

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#109

Post by fragmede »

throitallaway wrote: post #58
ineptech wrote: post #38

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 centra…

It's definitely a problem in the US. When setting up an account with treasury.gov there's a good chance you'll have to verify your identity, and the only way to do that is to go to a bank that you do business with that has a "Medallion Guarantee." I wish we could get to the point of having government issued smart cards for verifying identity. I would be elated if my US passport also functioned as a smart card.

ID.me's trying, but it should really be a government run service and not a private corporation.

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#110

Post by prophesi »

junon wrote: post #77
twelve40 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. You have to go through KYC with them, give them your address, last 4 of social, dob, and yes, I got stuck on identity check too. Just because it didn't happen to you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You misread my comment. When I check out on a website using a card generated by Privacy.com , I can put any billing information into the checkout form on the site.

Huh, I've been using privacy.com and had no idea about this. Thanks! Keeping the blast radius of leaked billing info to privacy.com instead of a myriad of merchants sounds like a good deal.
Post reply on HN