Where do you see anyone saying anything about punishing people based just on accusations? That's not something anyone in this thread is advocating for.
>>> One may even wonder why a police officer accused of rape was not only still on duty, but even training other officers.
>> Because accusations are cheap enough to be weaponizable as a denial-of-service attack.
> Police officers are not held accountable commensurate to the incredible amount of power and influence they enjoy. They should be held to much much higher standards
Surely the context of this exchange is whether a police officer who has been accused of a crime still should be on active duty? Also I didn’t say ”punish”, I said ”get rid of”, which is effectively what happens if a cop is taken off duty pending investigation and potential court case.
Then why do they have all those incredibly questionable things in their privacy policy? What makes them "trustworthy"? I've never heard of them, but from reading this blog post it seems like yet another evil company trying to suck up PII from unsuspecting victims and sell it.
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 other similar transaction or proceeding"
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
And I replied to "how is that different from what the blogpost said?", not the other points but you got me curious so here goes:
* "Each of Onfido’s and/or Provider’s third-party vendors may have access to the facial scan data"
This is actually "Each of Onfido’s and/or Provider’s third-party vendors may have access to the facial scan data to store the data, to maintain backup copies, and to service the systems on which such data is stored.".
Completely standard and another misrepresentation by the blog trying to paint it like they send the stuff everywhere when it's just about their storage and backup solution.
* "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."
Nothing strange whatsoever. Again completely standard in GDPR that you need to have to to acquit yourself.
* 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
This is actually "To comply with laws. Onfido may disclose your personal information to any competent law enforcement body, regulatory, government agency, court or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary (i) as a matter of applicable law or regulation, (ii) to exercise, establish or defend our legal rights, or (iii) to protect your vital interests or those of any other person; and"
Wow, probably the worst misrepresentation. This blog is straight-up misinformation and slander. Thanks for highlighting it.
I think the ask was pretty clear: not to share confidential identification information with sketchy companies that are clearly sharing that information with everyone.
So you're saying Privacy should reinvent the wheel with an incredibly difficult, terrible-to-manage process, itself requiring an entire company worth of people and a huge support staff, laden with insane amounts of red tape, just to perform a small function of their business, instead of contracting out another company that specializes in doing this exact thing?
This seems like a larger security/privacy surface area than the latter approach.
OP's original point is that a company marketing themselves as a privacy tool are forcing customers to use a 3rd party for processing very personal identification data. That 3rd parties TOS, which binds customers of privacy.com, says they can and will share data with anyone they want for any reason. That's nearly the antithesis of the privacy the company is marketing itself on.
Privacy.com don't have to use Onfido, there are other options out there. There could be a myriad of reasons why they chose Onfido over the competition but the TOS bind the privacy.com users and they don't offer any alternative.
For a company leaning on "privacy" as their primary marketing tool, this is a double standard. It doesn't mean Privacy.com is a bad company with horrible people building a terrible product. They're just calling out a company for doing something seemingly opposite to their marketing, and saying that's why they personally aren't using the product.
You can disagree with OP but doesn't make their point wrong, invalid, or stupid.
No, i didn't say that, nor did the post. You keep making these absurd leaps. Privacy.com advertises themselves as being private. I expect them to be private. They're the ones who chose to hinge 100% of their marketing strategy, all the way down to their name and domain, on how very private they were.
They should just verify identities without selfies, like most payment providers. This trend of using selfies comes from shady crypto companies that were eager to pretend that their users have been verified, while also benefiting from the collected biometric data.
which is probably why the person you're replying to didn't say "July 4th only occurs in the US of A" but instead said "July 4th is only celebrated in the US of A"
the author of this blog post appears to be disagreeing with some people's attitude and explaining another view of the situation. They are not imposing on anyone's freedom of speech or (as far as I can tell) intending to. They are also just offering words, perhaps in the hopes of changing some people's minds.
I wonder, what makes this "useless" in your mind?
> “You didn’t pay for it so shut up you entitled free user” is one of those ideas that just don’t work in practice.
I agree with this, but not for any of the extremely dumb "reasons" you've provided.
I’m not saying that the author is imposing on people’s rights.
I’m just saying that free users and frankly non-users have such a right, and are acting in accordance with what they are fully entitled to do.
The act of complaining has nothing to do with payment. It’s you see something you disagree with, you can complain about it. Whether the target has a preexisting contract with you is irrelevant.
No need to do that. Just liquidate the company, and give nothing to the investors. The threat of corporate death penalty and a 0% yield on your investment (not a good track record) will help CEOs think twice before they do something stupid on behalf of their investors.
They should never be allowed to own or invest any business again, in part of full, for the rest of their lives (including as an indirect beneficiary via family or friends). On top of a hefty personal monetary penalty... bring them back down to the level of us filthy peasants so they can reap what they sow.
This would help dissuade people from using companies as proxies to do evil things for profit without consequence. Since it puts you at high personal risk of burning your one lifetime chance at entrepreneurship.
Or maybe fix capitalism somehow i duno (yes this is hard).
If the company is shut down, then they lose any investment that they've made in the company. Most investors have little knowledge of the day to day operations of a company.
Roll back the game. Identify when the crime took place. Every transaction after that point is invalid. All profits made must be paid back. The corporation may resume its operations under new leadership after the rollback is complete.
If that's too hard then just wipe out the company. They're not humans, they don't have rights, they don't feel pain.
This is pretty transparently a law to keep people from collecting evidence of bad police behavior. There's been entirely too much of that and people are starting to question the unaccountable armed gangs that roam our cities. To fix people noticing that this might be bad, Arizona is enacting laws to ensure the police can continue to brutalize without repercussions.
It's unfortunate that this thread is full of bootlickers doing mental gymnastics to justify what is clearly an unjust law, but this is HN after all
