# Remove Privacy.com **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/remove-privacy-com/40992 **Category:** Tool Suggestions **Created:** 2026-09-24T23:32:14Z **Posts:** 14 ## Post 1 by @DeftPanda79 — 2026-09-24T23:32:14Z ### Website > **[Privacy.com Virtual Cards – Secure, Temporary Cards](https://www.privacy.com/)** > > Protect your financial life with Privacy.com Virtual Cards. Create secure, temporary card numbers to prevent fraud and control your online spending. ### Short description The company is now scanning people’s IDs using Persona ### Why I think this tool should be removed > **[revoking my endorsement of privacy.com](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P1y5YhMHXs)** > > https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Persona ### Section on Privacy Guides Financial Services --- ## Post 2 by @redoomed1 — 2026-09-24T23:43:39Z Related threads: > [@Privacy.com uses identity verification service Persona, which will keep biometric information for "up to" 3 years](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/privacy-com-uses-identity-verification-service-persona-which-will-keep-biometric-information-for-up-to-3-years/40991): > > I think it’s time to stop recommending it (Separate thread for discussing the YouTube video linked in this #Site Development > Tool Suggestions thread) * * * > [@Persona ID Verification with Privacy.com -- Making Sense of Recent News](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/persona-id-verification-with-privacy-com-making-sense-of-recent-news/35731): > > I’m a new user to [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com) for virtual credit cards, as recommended by Privacy Guides. I’ve previously been a victim of credit card fraud and multiple data breaches, so it felt refreshing to make use of this service to protect my information. It’s often recommended throughout the online privacy community. The service obviously requires KYC, which was done via Plaid and Persona Identities, Inc via selfie / ID identification. I should have listened to my instincts, but I proceeded with the veri… > [@Privacy.com without Persona?](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/privacy-com-without-persona/38345): > > Does using Plaid instead of linking a debit card let you skip the Persona biometric check for new [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com) accounts? --- ## Post 3 by @kabob3801 — 2026-09-25T00:08:01Z So.. Alternatives? Halocard? --- ## Post 4 by @Lukas — 2026-09-25T18:45:31Z Yeah, this should be removed ASAP. --- ## Post 5 by @fria — 2026-09-25T19:11:43Z Yeah I view this as unacceptable, we need to look at removing this now [@team](/groups/team) --- ## Post 6 by @privacy.slouchy — 2026-09-25T19:27:03Z I’m not necessarily arguing against, but there’s a larger discussion to be had regarding this category of KYC-compliant private payment tools: [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com) was never an anonymous payment service. It was a tool meant to keep your payment information private from vendors specifically. And to be clear, it does still do that - using [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com), I can make card purchases without giving any personal information. But [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com) is a legal business beholden to KYC laws, and thus collects & retains PII. Even Halocard may require biometric KYC verification (through Sumsub, not Persona), as Ed describes [in the Halocard thread](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/halocard-virtual-credit-cards/35880/38): > …using AI to detect fraud, extracting facial features to match your selfie against your ID, and the liveness check where you blink or smile appear in every single providers’ privacy policy in one form or another because that’s how modern identity verification is evolving… So the larger question to ask: is Persona a particularly evil KYC provider? Is there a privacy-friendly KYC provider? Does any private payment tool that requires KYC compliance have a place in PG recommendations? --- ## Post 7 by @anon67953901 — 2026-09-25T19:49:21Z @ed-halocard may have some input. Obviously take it with a grain of salt because they are direct competitors but he seems to have done a lot of research and actually interacts with the KYC and banking industry. --- ## Post 8 by @ph00lt0 — 2026-09-25T20:43:12Z 2 posts were merged into an existing topic: [Halocard (Virtual Credit Cards)](/t/halocard-virtual-credit-cards/39189/34) --- ## Post 9 by @ph00lt0 — 2026-09-25T20:58:48Z I personally also hate these KYC platforms. But all of them are quite bad (and often not so secure). Problem is that banks went online, governments force banks to verify identity and governments in many countries do not have way to proof identity online for commercial purposes. This just let to some crazy opportunity for all kinds of shitty companies that offer identity verification services. Must be said that Perona seems to be a rather bad and questionable choice here. --- ## Post 10 by @privacy.slouchy — 2026-09-25T21:19:09Z I’ve thought about this a little more. I believe this is, at its core, a question of threat models. A few thoughts to hopefully spur some more discussion: \_\_\_\_ For those who live under a high-risk model, who fear targeted attacks or government persecution, any tool that uses ID verification is unconscionable. These users need anonymity, to minimize total PII exposure. There are also users with much more forgiving threat models. Many are only focued on mitigating surveillance captialism, preventing megacorpo overlords from monitoring you & building a targeting ad profile \_\_\_\_\_ Private purchases are insanely difficult The only truly private currency is crypto. But crypto isnt mainstream. Relying on crypto alone closes off much of today’s market For brick-and-morter stores, cash is king. Close to anomymous & untrackable. This is a strong option when possible Most purchases today are in online stores that don’t accept crypto. You need credit, debit, or some online payment service. And you need to provide enough PII to verify the payment: name, address, etc \_\_\_ Without these KYC payment tools, there is not really a way to make clearnet purchases without disclosing PII directly to every vendor you do business with. The cost of using them is to provide a TON of PII to the tool directly & allowing it to be stored and processed by a questionable, opaque third-party KYC service. Is this a worthwhile value proposition? --- ## Post 11 by @ed-halocard — 2026-09-26T01:47:57Z _Disclaimer: I’m the founder of a virtual card platform, so weight this post accordingly._ > [@DeftPanda79](#): > > The company is now scanning people’s IDs using Persona I think they may have been using third party verification providers as a fall-back for a few years now. See [this thread from Feb 2025](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/privacy-com-asking-me-to-verify-identity-through-biometrics-and-photo-id/25247). > [@anon67953901](#): > > @ed-halocard may have some input. Obviously take it with a grain of salt because they are direct competitors but he seems to have done a lot of research and actually interacts with the KYC and banking industry. There is unfortunately no other way to do it. The [ID requirements within US financial regulations](https://halocard.co/us-cip-for-banks) are concrete. If you issue a card on behalf of a bank, you must verify every customer using either: - a non-documentary method i.e. Running your SSN against a database/credit bureau and verifying existing banking data (this is where Plaid comes in), or - a documentary method i.e Scanning your identity document If you can’t fulfil the obligations using a non-documentary method, or that check was done some time ago, a documentary check may be required. It’s important to note, the regulations don’t strictly require a selfie or liveness check (where the biometric data comes in). This is a fraud control used to confirm the person making the request is the one on the identity document. Without it, anyone could just submit a photo of a stolen ID and verify on someone else’s behalf, which would be… in a word… undesirable. > [@kabob3801](#): > > So.. Alternatives? Halocard? We also require identity verification, albeit with a different vendor, and none of them are outstanding. They all largely face the same threat from AI producing near flawless, falsified digital images (deepfakes). The only way to stay ahead is to constantly evolve how their own AI algorithms identify genuine vs fake applications based on biometric data. > [@privacy.slouchy](#): > > I’ve thought about this a little more. I believe this is, at its core, a question of threat models. Agree wholeheartedly. If your objective is **private payments** to protect your primary card details and personal information online, the convenience of having virtual debit or credit cards that work everywhere you need them has to, unfortunately, be traded off with the legal requirement to verify your identity. If your objective is **anonymous payments** then gift cards, crypto (monero) and cash are the best options, however they’re less convenient and/or not accepted ubiquitously. --- ## Post 12 by @ed-halocard — 2026-09-29T01:56:18Z For those interested, I’ve added some commentary to Louis’ video here: > **[Louis Rossmann Cancels Privacy.com | Halocard CEO Reacts](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsy0JmWlun8)** > > Louis Rossmann (@rossmanngroup) no longer recommends using virtual card provider Privacy.com after being asked to contribute biometric data to Persona, a thi... --- ## Post 13 by @anon67953901 — 2026-09-29T17:21:20Z > [@ed-halocard](#): > > If your objective is **private payments** to protect your primary card details and personal information online, the convenience of having virtual debit or credit cards that work everywhere you need them has to, unfortunately, be traded off with the legal requirement to verify your identity. > > If your objective is **anonymous payments** then gift cards, crypto (monero) and cash are the best options, however they’re less convenient and/or not accepted ubiquitously. You’re right, obviously, that identity verification is legally required. But that’s not really my problem with virtual cards. **My problem is the lack of transparency in tracking of every purchase afterward, which your description of the trade-off leaves out.** Removal of this tracking is what Monero and cash give you. While sometimes I want anonymous payments, the vast majority of the time I just want private payments. Payments where my data isn’t disclosed beyond the merchant. While Monero and cash can be used for anonymous payments (with significant effort on top of them), they are also the best ways to do private payments. I don’t like how you frame Monero as for anonymous payments and virtual cards as for private payments, when Monero is the way to do private payments and virtual cards are only private if you understand and intend who sees your data. I don’t think most people intend for every purchase to be tracked and analyzed. Virtual cards do more to provide pseudonymity from your merchant than privacy. The virtual card company and its bank see every transaction, tied to your verified ID. Of course, card networks and payment processors see every transaction with a regular card too. So for tracking, virtual cards are a side grade against regular cards. They hide your details from the merchant, but add the virtual card company as another party. I’m not saying privacy or merchants isn’t important, this is a marketing issue. Yes, I know, convenience, acceptance. But introducing anonymity here is just muddying the water. Anonymity is not a more extreme form of privacy. Anonymity could be where you’re disclosing your data freely but your identity is concealed. That’s anonymity and not privacy. Cash does not always provide anonymity. A local florist who knows you still knows your identity when you buy flowers in cash, therefore you’re not anonymous. But no bank or payment processor learns about the purchase. The only party that sees it is the florist, the one you intend to see it, so it’s private. This is not a critique of virtual cards. I don’t think virtual card companies can improve the privacy of their services beyond minimizing their data collection, due to regulations. It’s a critique of your marketing in this post. By marketing I mean you calling virtual cards private payments. I made a [separate post about accurate marketing](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/add-an-accurate-marketing-criteria-for-payment-masking-services/41070) for payment masking services, inspired by this comment. but that’s about the websites. --- ## Post 14 by @jonah — 2026-09-30T15:07:52Z > [@anon67953901](#): > > Virtual cards do more to provide pseudonymity from your merchant than privacy. Going back to the discussion in terms of our website here, I feel like we are fairly clear about this, and so no change to our recommendations is needed. I am not sure Persona is significantly worse than IDology (used by MySudo) or Sumsub (used by Halocard), enough to warrant removal of [Privacy.com](http://Privacy.com) on that basis alone.