markovbot

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

I think the ask was pretty clear: not to share confidential identification information with sketchy companies that are clearly sharing that information with everyone.

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"

it's probably a train

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 bet it would change if we started locking them up :)

So the people who funded the crime should just go free?

What would that entail? Do you think their investors, who have profited off the harm they've done, should face any repercussions?