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

141–150 of 172 posts

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#141

Post by jrochkind1 »

badRNG wrote: post #101
flutas wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 transac…

I have never had to actually pay for any fraud, the bank's fraud detection alwasy catches it, it's never even showed up on my bill.

But I end up having to cancel and get a new credit or debit card about once a year. And this actually is really inconvenient, when you think of all the places you have stored a CC that have to be updated.

I guess my bank doesn't do automatic updates of any recurring subscriptions, I've always had to deal with it manually. (And in charitable contributions, amazon, paypal, stripe, grubhub, etc etc etc).

That was making me consider privacy.com instead... but if I'm doing it cause of that fraud inconvenience, which right now is just an inconvenience which I have no worry whatsoever would result in actual $$ (cause it's happened so many times now and it's never even been a threat), and switching to privacy.com may eliminate having to update card numbers everywhere when fraud happens but actually increases my risk of actually being out the $$ (or increases the amount of time I have to spend dealing or fighting with customer service or fraud recovery support anywhere) -- forget it.

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#142

Post by drexlspivey »

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…

Estonia government issued electronic IDs have a computer chip that can digitally sign data.

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#143

Post by Kiro »

markovbot wrote: post #122
Kiro wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's why you shouldn't trust a random blog. They completely misrepresented that paragraph. Here's the full quote: "As part of a business transfer. Onfido may disclose your personal information to an actual or potential buyer, investor or partner (and its agents and advisers) in relation to any actual or proposed divestiture, merger, acquisition, joint venture, bankruptcy, dissolution, reorganization, or any oth…

how is that different from what the blogpost said? edit: to be clear, the blog post has listed, among other complaints: > Onfido may disclose your personal information to an actual or potential buyer (note "potential") which you seem to be confirming from your own review of their policy. What did the blog post misrepresent?

Omitting the context very clearly makes it sound like they sell your personal information, when the paragraph is actually referring to disclosing the data in an M&A transaction. The "buyer" here is not a buyer of data but the buyer of the company. Even you said "from reading this blog post it seems like yet another evil company trying to suck up PII from unsuspecting victims and sell it".

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#144

Post by rachel_lithic »

Rachel here, I lead Operations at Privacy.com. Wanted to clarify our data collection and retention process, and our position on privacy.

Our goal is to make sure that customer data spends as little time as possible with third-party providers like Onfido. Onfido’s general policy is that they will not save customer data longer than a year but they set up different contractual agreements based on what customers stipulate. We've stipulated that they delete data after 30 days.

The "Privacy" in our name is about making sure our customers’ personal and payment information is kept private from merchants and from fraudsters.

We offer a financial service that comes with legal and regulatory requirements and we have to gather details like address, social security number, and phone number to authenticate a user’s account. If you know of other KYC providers that have more privacy-forward policies, we’re open to exploring.

Happy to discuss more. You can drop me a note at rachel@lithic.com.

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#145

Post by junon »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #132
fragmede wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's how they use the credentials afterwards that's core to the disagreement over your use of the word phishing. Which is to say, you don't like or trust them, fine, but Plaid isn't a scam that's going to try and steal your money with those credentials it's gotten. Which makes it not phishing. Phishing involves an attacker trying to get those credentials in order to steal yo shit. Plaid is trying to perform a ser…

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.

Plaid does none of that. They don't trick you. Having used plaid software before, it's pretty clear what's happening.

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#146

Post by junon »

DerekBickerton wrote: post #89
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.

This. You have to waive your privacy to privacy.com to get privacy on vendors/merchants. If I lived in the US I would happily waive it to privacy.com, since I buy stuff on e-commerce sites a lot . Enough times that I would be pissed if my personal info got leaked. Also being able to manage my card and lock it to specific vendors is sorely needed and should be a feature on all CC providers.

Privacy is not binary though. It's not "either you have complete privacy, or none".

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#147

Post by no-reply »

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 cards are now credit cards[0]. So no, they won't get stuck at "We don't accept prepaid cards". [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32585893

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#148

Post by jrochkind1 »

twelve40 wrote: post #103
jrochkind1 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't know, what's in it for the big banks either? Probably the same thing as what's in it for smaller banks and their vendors? Apparently nothing, or not enough? Unless customers are going to use the feature to choose their bank? Or it saves the bank money from avoiding fraud? Maybe one or the other will be so eventually.

When it is, the vendors/platforms that "junky credit unions" use will add it, same thing as when big banks will add it. A vendor that small banks and credit unions use for their online platform probably has the same order of magnitude of aggregate consumer customers as a big bank has, I don't see why it wouldn't be about as do-able for one of those vendors as a big bank.

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#149

Post by markovbot »

Kiro wrote: post #143
markovbot wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how is that different from what the blogpost said? edit: to be clear, the blog post has listed, among other complaints: > Onfido may disclose your personal information to an actual or potential buyer (note "potential") which you seem to be confirming from your own review of their policy. What did the blog post misrepresent?

Omitting the context very clearly makes it sound like they sell your personal information, when the paragraph is actually referring to disclosing the data in an M&A transaction. The "buyer" here is not a buyer of data but the buyer of the company. Even you said "from reading this blog post it seems like yet another evil company trying to suck up PII from unsuspecting victims and sell it".

It actually wasn't that particular line that made me think they were selling personal information, it was mostly the other three points in that list which you seem to be ignoring:

* Each of Onfido’s and/or Provider’s third-party vendors may have access to the facial scan data

* Onfido is in no way linked to or responsible for the practices of other Providers. Onfido encourages you to read Company’s privacy policies and terms and conditions, as well as those of other Providers, which may apply to the use of facial scan data extracted from photos and videos.

* Onfido may disclose your personal information... or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary... to protect your vital interests or those of any other person

Re: “Privacy”.com–Yeah Right

#150

Post by rachel_lithic »

flutas wrote: post #25
nine_k wrote: post #3

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 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. In my experience even that can fail. I had a card number stolen from them, charged to the tune of $200+, and their support refused to even entertain the idea of it being fraud, and when I mentioned a chargeback they basically said "we don't do those, because we have contrac…

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.
Post reply on HN