161–170 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've (been conned into) using Plaid too! Here's the login screen I saw: https://d1hzvs60s6jsjg.cloudfront.net/IMAGES-1/208624076/pla... Please describe to me how I can figure out from this that my bank credentials will be sent to and stored by a third party that isn't my bank.
I'm not clicking on your janky link, sorry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey @flutas, I'm sorry to hear about your experience. Send me a note at rachel@lithic.com and I'll look into this further for you.
As somebody who doesn't use any of these services, your request for somebody to contact you at a lithic.com address in response to concerns about privacy.com issues is uh.... well, it reads like the 3rd slide in a corporate SCORM annual "phishing awareness" training.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ahahahaha man who do you think is the one who added all this KYC shit and who scares companies into over compliance... and you want more regulation as a solution. we could start by removing all KYC requirements and fighting crime as crime instead of imputing some criminality to a financial transaction. like even if it's part of a criminal enterprise the transaction itself isn't the "wrong" part.
Umm. Removing KYC requirements just makes it easier to launder dirty money. Why would we do that? As it is the US is considered a safe-heaven for dirty money - google South Dakota trusts. “Fighting crime as crime” is meaningless.
fighting crime as crime isn't meaningless, it's how we're supposed to do things.
Privacy.com is not about hiding your identity from authorities. It's mostly about hiding the fact that the same person, you, are paying to merchant A and merchant B. It allows you to easily have a card per merchant, and lock it to the merchant so that when its number is stolen, it can't be used anywhere else. The domain name is a bit lofty, yes.
>It's mostly about hiding the fact that the same person, you, are paying to merchant A and merchant B. What merchants out there are cross-correlating credit card numbers to deanonymize people? Can you even do it in a way that's PCI compliant? If you're actually interested in preventing random merchants from tracking you, I think credit card numbers are the least of your worries. Your billing/shipping information, whi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what the post is complaining about, but the problem is quite deeper. The KYC bit is actually ok IMO -- you're giving your identity to places that likely already have it. What this kind of article should be about is the same thing that VPN is about. privacy.com actually removes privacy. Now, instead of VISA being the only aggregator of your purchase data, privacy.com is also. Either way, the merchant and VISA k…
> Either way, the merchant and VISA know your purchase history. Now, so does "privacy".com. how does the merchant know your purchase history if you're using virtual cards with bogus info?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Author here. My concern wasn't that Privacy.com knows who is using their service, but with rather how they choose to know that information through a third party (Onfido) and how terrible Onfido's privacy policy is.
Recently I've signed up with Paddle, and they have opted to verify user identities with Onfido, so they have asked for a government ID and a selfie. I have contacted Paddle and refused to provide a selfie, so they eventually asked me to upload my ID too in place of a selfie and manually approved the submission. Paddle has no excuse for collecting selfies, they are providing services to businesses that can be verified…
The image of your face and the image (NFC capture) of your ID are stored to prove to auditors that you were indeed verified to required standards.
No one wants your mugshot, it’s a legal requirement they are having to satisfy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think OnFido is sketchy? It’s a pretty popular platform for ID verification. 3rd party verification has become a standard in the fintech/insuretech industries since its very hard and risky to do KYC on your own. Also personally I don’t trust having all the random companies I transact with maintain my KYC info. At least in theory, the experts at ID verification have strong enough incentives, motivation…
Check the article. It has quotes from their ToS that can be roughly summarized as "we'll sell all your data to whoever pays and you have no control over this".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Umm. Removing KYC requirements just makes it easier to launder dirty money. Why would we do that? As it is the US is considered a safe-heaven for dirty money - google South Dakota trusts. “Fighting crime as crime” is meaningless.
umm removing KYC requirements also allows people to transact privately. yes bad people can do bad things with freedom, news at 5. i'm aware of south dakota trusts and intend to use one in the next few years to protect my assets and operate privately. fighting crime as crime isn't meaningless, it's how we're supposed to do things.
Oh, and newsflash - a SD trust is an absolute red flag, and will just mark you for “Enhanced Due Diligence”, where you will be asked to prove the source of funds. And chances are that info will be then shared with your local financial crimes agency - and without your knowledge. And if you think your lawyer or accountant don’t make those reports… heh.
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.
Lets break this abysmal post down into what appears to be the point: Privacy.com flagged you for some unknown reason and asked you to verify your identity. You learned that Onfido exists and googled the name and (LOL) decided you would spend 45s on Wikipedia and then read a privacy policy written not-for-you, and then post yourself on HN so you can "inform others." Lets not even bother with the fact that flagging for…
