Most people don't actually require ID.me to deal with the IRS, even if e-filing.

I mean yeah, I'm extremely uncomfortable with commercial ID solutions when accessing government services. When I can I even avoid government websites that have captchas or other third party resources on them but that's becoming increasingly unworkable. It's absurd that I should be required to leak my personal information to third parties in order to make use of a government service (ie something with no competition that I am legally obligated to use).

For the IRS it doesn't even make sense because I can drop paper forms in the mail. Don't need any ID whatsoever for that.

You can't avoid it, but you can choose to refuse unless there is a legitimate need for it. Very few brick and mortar interactions require it, and at least historically a copy wasn't retained but rather verified on the spot by the business agent.

We really don't need a standard for sharing it online, at least nothing easy for businesses to implement. There are very few legitimate scenarios for an online service to ask for that. Online pharmacy, online signup with a bank, and online government interactions are the only that immediately come to mind.

I'm not even sure that the pharmacy case is legitimate now that I think about it. I don't need ID when I go in person. The prescriber can validate the mailing address for them.

Sure, if I'm applying for a mortgage, or boarding an airplane.

Just to register for one-more-app / one-more-webboard? Nope.

You use judgement. I’d upload my id to a passport renewal site provided by the govt.

Some private app for rating other human beings? Nope.

This is a great question.

I dislike it to such a degree that I try to avoid services that require it.

Sometimes, however, it's worth trying to access services without giving the ID and just saying oh I'd like to keep that private or just not providing it and submitting an application for services without it.

Additionally, try to apply in person as often they'll accept paper.

It doesn't work in the majority of situations but it's worth a try.

All I can find is this magnet link: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:brl45s3ysyotj6ljolmtnrlvfmyv4y7s&dn=tea&xl=59368985613&fc=57794 but this is not 200gb one...

The poet? Murti-bing pills?

That’s how I see it. There’s so much negativity surrounding this entire app - best to avoid interacting with it in any way on either side.

I don't look down on the leakers any more than I would with any other security breach being released (I certainly didn't hear people using this same language of disgust over say 4chan being hacked or back in the day when Ashley Madison was hacked).

For me the only people I'm looking at with disgust is those who were using said app... it was a gossip cesspool with no way to verify any of the claims being said and a breeding pool for hateful posts against people you dislike.

The meme floating around of "I joined a site to dox and spread personal info about people got hacked and now my personal information is being spread around waahhahaaa" is pretty damn accurate and makes me not feel bad for them at all.

Absolutely. Its funny when people on HN unironically claim this site to be a tiny miraculous exception.

s/Sometimes/By default/

It's to this kind of quality engineering that they want me to entrust my ID so I can watch pr0n or insult a politician online. Jesus.

bro going to university is so overrated, just start vibe coding xD

/s btw

My naive understanding is that is the same approach taught in introductory law school.

No, hazardous defaults can be a source of fault for the entity providing them.

I blame Firebase, this is the 2nd app I saw get owned this way in the last 2 weeks, similar complete break-in including user data

You're completely right, sorry, I meant more for authorities, not you or me.

Even private written communications can be libel if they are false and injure the reputation of the subject.

because news articles and media are putting out this narrative that the site was a "safety tool" that was critical in allowing women to "protect themselves", instead of what it actually was: a gossip and hate-spewing site with zero oversight/recourse for anyone who is being slandered.

The app stores haven't pulled it because they are waiting for this to flow out of the news cycle and reduce the impact of this subset of our culture freaking out at them.

They wouldn’t protect it if it were a male oriented dating safety app.

<tinfoil>Google is invested in ratcheting up the war behind the sexes, because it atomizes people and makes them prime targets for an upcoming companion AI product.</tinfoil>

Yes! haha! But hopefully I have a good enough support group and connections that I'll be ok if that happens, I just really wanted to prove that they were not being honest when they said it was data prior to 2024.

They're anonymous usernames the app had them make and they were told don't use anything shared elsewhere and I googled and there's not any uniquely identifiable people from any of them.

They seem generic enough that I think it's okay, but you're right there is no need in including them and I should've caught that in the AI output, thank you!!