Add sponsor RemoveMyPhone to organizations list. #2110

jonah · 2020-10-29T01:50:26Z

dngray commented

2020-10-29 01:50:26 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Description

Add RemoveMyPhone sponsor to list. They made a $250 donation.

Netlify preview for the mainly edited page: https://deploy-preview-2110--privacytools-io.netlify.app/sponsors/

## Description Add RemoveMyPhone sponsor to list. They made a $250 donation. * Netlify preview for the mainly edited page: https://deploy-preview-2110--privacytools-io.netlify.app/sponsors/

blacklight447 (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2020-10-29 01:50:26 +00:00

freddy-m (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2020-10-30 11:15:00 +00:00

davegson commented

2020-11-02 16:58:42 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

https://www.removemyphone.com/ seems rather fishy after I took a look. Obviously not a team member, but here are my 2c:

the website is only up for a few months, which makes me question them more
they claim to be partners of EFF, Mozilla, ... without showing how they are partners
same applies to their 240+ 4.9 Star reviews, no link anywhere to prove that claim
their PP sends all data to the US and makes Europeans and others consent to this transfer which is not what privacy enthusiasts want to happen
their FAQ states to the question Is my data secure with you?:

We use industry-leading PayPal for billing, so all of your billing information is always 100% secure and private.

This is a misleading claim as no service is 100% secure. Even the NSA got hacked.

their 1000 Twitter followers made me raise an eyebrow. As I scrolled through the first ~200, none of them had anything with privacy or security in their profile, let alone technology. Compare this when scrolling through Safing's followers

So a team of 12 popped out of nowhere with little previous Internet presence, makes misleading security claims, claims to be partner of Mozilla, EFF & others. Yeah no, that rings the bell for me.

Notice you mention:

We reserve the right or deny all sponsors from receiving the benefits detailed below if we believe that your organization or product is not aligned with our key values.

I question why you should consider associating your valued brand with such an entity. Please guard sponsorship as good as you guard recommendations. There really should not be the possibility to simply pay 250$ to cheat your way around everything PrivacyTools as a project stand for.

https://www.removemyphone.com/ seems rather fishy after I took a look. Obviously not a team member, but here are my 2c: - the website is only up for a few months, which makes me question them more - they claim to be partners of EFF, Mozilla, ... without showing _how_ they are partners - same applies to their 240+ 4.9 Star reviews, no link anywhere to prove that claim - their PP sends all data to the US and makes Europeans and others consent to this transfer which is _not_ what privacy enthusiasts want to happen - their FAQ states to the question **Is my data secure with you?**: > We use industry-leading PayPal for billing, so all of your billing information is always 100% secure and private. This is a misleading claim as no service is 100% secure. Even the NSA got hacked. - their [1000 Twitter followers made me raise an eyebrow](https://twitter.com/RemoveMyPhone/followers). As I scrolled through the first ~200, none of them had anything with privacy or security in their profile, let alone technology. Compare this when scrolling through [Safing's followers](https://twitter.com/SafingIO/followers) So a team of 12 popped out of nowhere with little previous Internet presence, makes misleading security claims, claims to be partner of Mozilla, EFF & others. Yeah no, that rings the bell for me. Notice you mention: > We reserve the right or deny all sponsors from receiving the benefits detailed below if we believe that your organization or product is not aligned with our key values. I question why you should consider associating your valued brand with such an entity. Please guard sponsorship as good as you guard recommendations. There really should not be the possibility to simply pay 250$ to cheat your way around everything PrivacyTools as a project stand for.

ph00lt0 commented

2020-11-02 17:35:48 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Generally I don't understand why you accept donations as sponsorship from sketchy VPN companies etc. It goes really against the message and other policies of PTIO.

dngray commented

2020-11-03 05:18:11 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I don't understand why you accept donations as sponsorship from sketchy VPN companies etc.

This is not the case. The sponsorships that we do accept are clearly defined under the sponsorship rules. They help pay for the services you all use..

If I am totally on the wrong track (I really doubt it), please let me know why you even consider associating your valued brand with such an entity?

You're not. I normally don't handle anything to do with the sponsorship program. We like to keep contributors at arms length from any sponsorship related activities.

With @jonaharagon handing over things to @blacklight447-ptio I was hoping they would weigh in on comment. In any case it cannot be approved until a code owner gives it their mark of approval/disapproval. If they disapprove it for whatever reason, then they will reverse the donation.

> I don't understand why you accept donations as sponsorship from sketchy VPN companies etc. This is not the case. The sponsorships that we do accept are clearly defined under the [sponsorship rules](https://www.privacytools.io/sponsors/). They help pay for the services you all use.. > If I am totally on the wrong track (I really doubt it), please let me know why you even consider associating your valued brand with such an entity? You're not. I normally don't handle anything to do with the sponsorship program. We like to keep contributors at arms length from any sponsorship related activities. With @jonaharagon [handing over things](https://blog.privacytools.io/blacklight447-taking-over/) to @blacklight447-ptio I was hoping they would weigh in on comment. In any case it cannot be approved until a code owner gives it their mark of approval/disapproval. If they disapprove it for whatever reason, then they will reverse the donation.

freddy-m commented

2020-11-04 17:38:00 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

they proudly slap on your logo, EFF, Mozilla, ... without showing how they are partners

True @davegson, they don't seem to be on eff.org/thanks even though they claim to support it. I should have investigated a little further before I approved.

> they proudly slap on your logo, EFF, Mozilla, ... without showing how they are partners True @davegson, they don't seem to be on [eff.org/thanks](https://www.eff.org/thanks) even though they claim to support it. I should have investigated a little further before I approved.

davegson commented

2020-11-05 10:29:32 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Since this turned out into a longer discussion, a disclaimer: I'm co-founder of Safing, sponsor of PTIO. I try to walk my talk, but keep that in mind.

Hi Thomas, aka @removemyphone-dev,

thanks for joining. Though I read your whole message, I will only answer to the core of what bugs me about you. I do not enjoy discussing with walls of text, my time is just as limited as yours.

We've donated, sponsored, and given support to all of the organizations mentioned as we greatly support the movement towards individual privacy, free speech, and individual liberty and wanted to support some good organizations we like and believe in and I think proved that with our sponsorship here. Nothing more, nothing else. We would not be in this business and do all of the above if we didn't care about these issues. [highlights mine]

This is where you are lying. You donate and claim there is nothing more to it, implying pure benevolence - but on the other hand you proudly slap all of these very established brands on your homepage to make it seem that your company is just as trustworthy as those.

That is your "more". You even mention it yourself in your last paragraph.

If you don't accept the sponsorship, you can certainly return the $250 fee and we'll remove any mention of PrivacyTools from our website. If that happens, we'll support different organizations with those funds and make a smaller non-sponsored donation to PrivacyTools afterwards because we still believe in your cause despite all of this.

So you yourself tell us it's not "nothing more", there are strings attached (to the big chunk at least).

I'll leave you with this: the privacy community sees right through shady marketing, and shady marketing was the core of each of my criticism points. One of the core values of PTIO is transparency, you are well advised to hold that value high yourself (which you currently don't). I can only urge you to listen and adapt.

If you don't want to take my word for it, I'm happy to link this thread on reddit and let others chime in.

Cheers,
David

PS: other sponsors deserve the same scrutiny as you, happy if anyone and everyone exposes shady behavior in others too, by all means, turn every stone. Also at Safing. The PTIO team surely appreciates community input, PrivacyTools will only benefit with more ppl chiming in

_Since this turned out into a longer discussion, a disclaimer: I'm co-founder of Safing, sponsor of PTIO. I try to walk my talk, but keep that in mind._ --- Hi Thomas, aka @removemyphone-dev, thanks for joining. Though I read your whole message, I will only answer to the core of what bugs me about you. I do not enjoy discussing with walls of text, my time is just as limited as yours. > We've donated, sponsored, and given support to all of the organizations mentioned as we greatly support the movement towards individual privacy, free speech, and individual liberty and wanted to support some good organizations we like and believe in and I think proved that with our sponsorship here. **Nothing more, nothing else.** We would not be in this business and do all of the above if we didn't care about these issues. [highlights mine] This is where you are lying. You donate and claim there is nothing more to it, implying pure benevolence - but on the other hand you proudly slap all of these very established brands on your homepage to make it seem that your company is _just_ as trustworthy as those. That is your "more". You even mention it yourself in your last paragraph. > If you don't accept the sponsorship, you can certainly return the $250 fee and we'll remove any mention of PrivacyTools from our website. If that happens, we'll support different organizations with those funds and make a smaller non-sponsored donation to PrivacyTools afterwards because we still believe in your cause despite all of this. So you yourself tell us it's _not_ "nothing more", there are strings attached (to the big chunk at least). I'll leave you with this: the privacy community sees right through shady marketing, and shady marketing was the core of each of my criticism points. One of the core values of PTIO is transparency, you are well advised to hold that value high yourself (which you currently don't). I can only urge you to listen and adapt. If you don't want to take my word for it, I'm happy to link this thread on reddit and let others chime in. Cheers, David --- PS: other sponsors deserve the same scrutiny as you, happy if anyone and everyone exposes shady behavior in others too, by all means, turn every stone. Also at [Safing](https://safing.io). The PTIO team surely appreciates community input, PrivacyTools will only benefit with more ppl chiming in

ph00lt0 commented

2020-11-05 19:54:23 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@dngray if these companies are so well why are they not recommend in the general section? It makes it seem very untrustworthy. I think the service @removemyphone-dev is interesting, but seems limited to a few websites. I have doubts about them storing your information in the US, this is not to be recommended for EU citizens.
I think PTIO should only show logo's of sponsors that also qualify to be listed in the normal sections. Maybe I am wrong but it seems to me that there are two standards now.

@dngray if these companies are so well why are they not recommend in the general section? It makes it seem very untrustworthy. I think the service @removemyphone-dev is interesting, but seems limited to a few websites. I have doubts about them storing your information in the US, this is not to be recommended for EU citizens. I think PTIO should only show logo's of sponsors that also qualify to be listed in the normal sections. Maybe I am wrong but it seems to me that there are two standards now.

freddy-m commented

2020-11-06 11:19:40 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

PS: On a personal level, I apologize to @dngray about all of this useless drama from some of your members.

If you were reffering to me here, I wasn't trying to start any drama. That's not my aim. Hope everyone understands.

> PS: On a personal level, I apologize to @dngray about all of this useless drama from some of your members. If you were reffering to me here, I wasn't trying to start any drama. That's not my aim. Hope everyone understands.

davegson commented

2020-11-06 15:54:13 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@freddy-m I assume he was referring to me, as in a community member, not a team member

This conversation has become toxic very quickly with unfounded accusations from biased parties and I don't appreciate being called a liar.

@removemyphone-dev, I did call your company fishy, described your marketing as shady and called you out for lying (which is different from you being a liar). Anyway, in all of these cases, I described extensively why I perceive what I perceive.

I guess what also plays its part is a cultural difference. It is very germanic to be blunt, and if seen fit, even harsh instead of beating around the bush as may be more common in other cultures.

Personally, even if words are harsher than preferred, I try to see all criticism as a chance to listen and react. It is often critics who care most.

Why are you allowed to boast about your sponsorship at https://safing.io/blog/2019/12/20/announcing-the-privacytools-sponsorship/ but we are not? Rules for me, but not for thee?

Maybe I was unclear: I do not criticize you for mentioning it, but for mentioning it in the header of your landing page. Along with the unverifiable claim "support and partner". That is 5 steps too far. From what I can tell it is only "support/sponsor". I see this as an example of what I call shady marketing.

But in the end, Thomas D. and I seem to be spinning in circles. So I too see no value in a continuation of this conversation.

I agree it is up to PTIO to make decisions about their sponsorship criteria.

I liked your input @ph00lt0 in this regard:

Maybe I am wrong but it seems to me that there are two standards now.

Maybe we should ask the community what they think? Maybe link to reddit so we get broader views? Our view here is rather limited since the only unbiased person is @ph00lt0.

@freddy-m I assume he was referring to me, as in a community member, not a team member > This conversation has become toxic very quickly with unfounded accusations from biased parties and I don't appreciate being called a liar. @removemyphone-dev, I did call your company fishy, described your marketing as shady and called you out for lying (which is different from you being a liar). Anyway, in all of these cases, I described extensively _why_ I perceive what I perceive. I guess what also plays its part is a cultural difference. It is very germanic to be blunt, and if seen fit, even harsh instead of beating around the bush as may be more common in other cultures. Personally, even if words are harsher than preferred, I try to see all criticism as a chance to listen and react. It is often critics who care most. > Why are you allowed to boast about your sponsorship at https://safing.io/blog/2019/12/20/announcing-the-privacytools-sponsorship/ but we are not? Rules for me, but not for thee? Maybe I was unclear: I do not criticize you for mentioning it, but for mentioning it _in the header of your landing page_. Along with the unverifiable claim "support **and partner**". That is 5 steps too far. From what I can tell it is only "support/sponsor". I see this as an example of what I call shady marketing. But in the end, Thomas D. and I seem to be spinning in circles. So I too see no value in a continuation of this conversation. --- I agree it is up to PTIO to make decisions about their sponsorship criteria. I liked your input @ph00lt0 in this regard: > Maybe I am wrong but it seems to me that there are two standards now. Maybe we should ask the community what they think? Maybe link to reddit so we get broader views? Our view here is rather limited since the only unbiased person is @ph00lt0.

gary-host-laptop commented

2020-11-06 17:29:13 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I do not think there's nothing wrong with saying you support X or Y project, but I do think it is out of bounds to say you are in a partnership with those organizations when you aren't. As for the rest of the stuff, I do not care that there are fake followers or whatever on their Twitter account, I think it's okay to pay for advertising and you can't be verifying every account that follows you, regarding the team performing different tasks even though the official title says something else, I'm also fine (hell, I once worked in a restaurant and I had to take turns to be the cook and the delivery, I'm not saying it's the best way of doing this, but that's another discussion). All in all, I think that as long as they do what they promise, I'm okay with it, but what worries me a bit more is how would I know they're not going to do something like that again.

I don't understand the Germanic thing, though.

I do not think there's nothing wrong with saying you support X or Y project, but I do think it is out of bounds to say you are in a partnership with those organizations when you aren't. As for the rest of the stuff, I do not care that there are fake followers or whatever on their Twitter account, I think it's okay to pay for advertising and you can't be verifying every account that follows you, regarding the team performing different tasks even though the official title says something else, I'm also fine (hell, I once worked in a restaurant and I had to take turns to be the cook and the delivery, I'm not saying it's the best way of doing this, but that's another discussion). All in all, I think that as long as they do what they promise, I'm okay with it, but what worries me a bit more is how would I know they're not going to do something like that again. I don't understand the Germanic thing, though.

davegson commented

2020-11-06 18:12:25 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

thanks for sharing your point of view.

I don't understand the Germanic thing, though.

I'm from Austria, and our culture is similar to Germany / Switzerland. In all three countries we speak German, so "germanic" is a term to describe the culture that comes from the German speaking countries. There are for sure many other cultures which are straight forward/blunt, so it's not unique to us, it just was a way to describe where it comes from in my case

thanks for sharing your point of view. > I don't understand the Germanic thing, though. I'm from Austria, and our culture is similar to Germany / Switzerland. In all three countries we speak German, so "germanic" is a term to describe the culture that comes from the German speaking countries. There are for sure many other cultures which are straight forward/blunt, so it's not unique to us, it just was a way to describe where it comes from in my case

dngray commented

2020-11-10 06:19:57 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@dngray please let me know what PrivacyTools decides and we'll work from there. Thanks!

Will do, unfortunately I haven't heard from our community manager @blacklight447-ptio, who I believe has access to that side of things. Neither @freddy-m or myself have access to financial side of things.

As for what has been discussed here, I have not yet had the time to read it in depth yet.

> @dngray please let me know what PrivacyTools decides and we'll work from there. Thanks! Will do, unfortunately I haven't heard from our community manager @blacklight447-ptio, who I believe has access to that side of things. Neither @freddy-m or myself have access to financial side of things. As for what has been discussed here, I have not yet had the time to read it in depth yet.

lynn-stephenson commented

2020-11-19 21:55:05 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@davegson

the website is only up for a few months, their blog has like 30 articles created in that time, the quality of them is ... meh, having inconsistencies in formatting and even errors.

This is irrelevant to determining the inclusion of RemoveMyPhone as a sponsor.

they proudly slap on your logo, EFF, Mozilla, ... without showing how they are partners

This is a valid point, I see no concrete proof of them being partners with those entities. Their landing page is misleading with "We're proud to support and partner with industry-leading online privacy and information security organizations.".

PrivacyTools is not in partnership with RemoveMyPhone.
Mozilla is not either.
Reclaim the Net does not show partnerships, nor sponsorships.

EFF does also not show them on their /thanks page.

If we are going to accept RemoveMyPhone as a sponsor, I think they should make a clear distinction between sponsoring and partnering with entities.

same applies to their 240+ 4.9 Star reviews, no link anywhere to prove that claim

Also a valid point.

We use industry-leading PayPal for billing, so all of your billing information is always 100% secure and private.

This is marketing lingo, and is generally misleading to get users to buy their products. PayPal has had a good track record for security, but the privacy of PayPal is questionable. At the least, assuming you do not give RemoveMyPhone your credit card or debit card information; PayPal will keep financial information out of RemoveMyPhone's hands. Saying it is 100% safe and private is misleading, but I may let this slide as it is just a way to say hey "it is likely your financial information will not be exposed, and we do not have access to it".

their team overview has totally bland looking people

Irrelevant, and offensive.

7 out of 12 people are "Data Removal Experts", 3 are "Customer Service" while the remaining two make the rest? Only one is a manager. Sorry, but companies do not work that way.

It is not our business how they run their company, and is not needed to determine whether or not they should be sponsored.

Oh, and who is making the blogs again? Surely none of the Data Removal Experts, so it must fall back to the GM.

This is irrelevant, and seems offensive. We do not need to know who wrote those blog posts.

their 1000 Twitter followers seem bought. As I scrolled through the first ~200, not a single one of them had anything with privacy or security in their profile, let alone technology. Compare this when scrolling through Safing's followers

Seem being the key word here. A comparison of Safing's followers to RemoveMyPhone's followers was not needed. Your companies clearly have different target demographics, which will result in different kinds of followers.

So a team of 12 popped out of nowhere without a previous Internet presence, with 1000 fake twitter followers, makes stupid claims, promotes blogs with shitty formatting & errors, claims to be partner of Mozilla, EFF & others. Yeah no, that's bullshit.

Do you have any proof that those 1,000 followers are fake? I admit it is suspicious; it could indicate that RemoveMyPhone is allocating more of their resources towards getting the product in users' hands rather than providing a better product. However for the life of their company it could be critical to obtain more customers.

I will only answer to the core of what bugs me about you. I do not enjoy discussing with walls of text, my time is just as limited as yours.

Your hostility persists. You can either participate in a respective manner, or not at all.

@removemyphone-dev After reading through everything here, your company's Privacy Policy, and analyzing some of the connections your website makes, I am not in favor of the sponsorship.

We do not want to recommend or advertise software, or services that use extensive tracking techniques on its users, or collect vast amounts of information on users (which your service does for the sake of removing information on other platforms and services, and improving your own service):

The personal information we collect may include:

Full Name

Mailing or Shipping Address

Phone Number

E-Mail Address

Birth Date and/or Year of Birth

Credit or Debit Card Information

Government State-Issued ID or Driver's License

Geographic location

Photos and videos; or

Other information that you may choose to provide during the registration or purchasing process.
[...]
Third Party Analytic Technologies: We may use third parties' analytics and tracking tools to better understand who is using the Site or App, how people are using the Site or App, how to improve the effectiveness of the Services and related content, and to help us or those third parties serve more targeted advertising to you across the Internet. These tools may use technology such as cookies, web beacons, pixel tags, log files, Flash cookies, HTML5 cookies, or other technologies to automatically collect and store certain information. They may also combine information they collect from your interaction with the Site or App with information they collect from other sources. We do not have access to, or control over, these third parties' use of cookies or other tracking technologies.
[...]
We may share the personal information we collect from and about you in the following ways:

With RemoveMyPhone affiliates and subsidiaries;

To our third party service providers that provide business, professional or technical support functions for us, including, but not limited to, fulfilling or shipping your order, completing your transaction, or those that assist us in our own marketing efforts.

With our select partners, affiliates, and other third parties that we believe may have offers of interest to you. For example, we may have joint marketing arrangements, to assist in our or their marketing and merchandising efforts. In those cases, such partner may collect or receive personal information from or about you.

As necessary, if we believe that there has been a violation of our Terms of Use or to protect the property, interests, and rights of RemoveMyPhone, its affiliates, subsidiaries, or other third party;

To respond to judicial or legal process or provide information to law enforcement or regulatory agencies or in connection with an investigation on matters related to public safety, as permitted by law, or otherwise as required by law; and

As otherwise described to you at the point of collection.

@davegson > the website is only up for a few months, their blog has like 30 articles created in that time, the quality of them is ... meh, having inconsistencies in formatting and even errors. This is irrelevant to determining the inclusion of RemoveMyPhone as a sponsor. > they proudly slap on your logo, EFF, Mozilla, ... without showing how they are partners This is a valid point, I see no concrete proof of them being partners with those entities. Their landing page is misleading with "We're proud to support and partner with industry-leading online privacy and information security organizations.". 1. PrivacyTools is not in partnership with RemoveMyPhone. 2. [Mozilla is not either](https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/what-we-fund/fellowships-and-awards-partners/). 3. [Reclaim the Net](https://reclaimthenet.org/) does not show partnerships, nor sponsorships. EFF does also not show them on their /thanks page. If we are going to accept RemoveMyPhone as a sponsor, I think they should make a clear distinction between sponsoring and partnering with entities. > same applies to their 240+ 4.9 Star reviews, no link anywhere to prove that claim Also a valid point. > We use industry-leading PayPal for billing, so all of your billing information is always 100% secure and private. This is marketing lingo, and is generally misleading to get users to buy their products. PayPal has had a good track record for security, but the privacy of PayPal is questionable. At the least, assuming you do not give RemoveMyPhone your credit card or debit card information; PayPal will keep financial information out of RemoveMyPhone's hands. Saying it is 100% safe and private is misleading, but I _may_ let this slide as it is just a way to say hey "it is likely your financial information will not be exposed, and we do not have access to it". > their team overview has totally bland looking people Irrelevant, and offensive. > 7 out of 12 people are "Data Removal Experts", 3 are "Customer Service" while the remaining two make the rest? Only one is a manager. Sorry, but companies do not work that way. It is not our business how they run their company, and is not needed to determine whether or not they should be sponsored. > Oh, and who is making the blogs again? Surely none of the Data Removal Experts, so it must fall back to the GM. This is irrelevant, and _seems_ offensive. We do not need to know who wrote those blog posts. > their 1000 Twitter followers seem bought. As I scrolled through the first ~200, not a single one of them had anything with privacy or security in their profile, let alone technology. Compare this when scrolling through Safing's followers _Seem_ being the key word here. A comparison of Safing's followers to RemoveMyPhone's followers was not needed. Your companies clearly have different target demographics, which will result in different kinds of followers. > So a team of 12 popped out of nowhere without a previous Internet presence, with 1000 fake twitter followers, makes stupid claims, promotes blogs with shitty formatting & errors, claims to be partner of Mozilla, EFF & others. Yeah no, that's bullshit. Do you have any proof that those 1,000 followers are fake? I admit it is suspicious; it _could_ indicate that RemoveMyPhone is allocating more of their resources towards getting the product in users' hands rather than providing a better product. However for the life of their company it could be critical to obtain more customers. > I will only answer to the core of what bugs me about you. I do not enjoy discussing with walls of text, my time is just as limited as yours. Your hostility persists. You can either participate in a respective manner, or not at all. --- @removemyphone-dev After reading through everything here, your company's [Privacy Policy](https://www.removemyphone.com/privacy-policy), and analyzing some of the connections your website makes, __I am not in favor of the sponsorship__. We do not want to recommend or advertise software, or services that use extensive tracking techniques on its users, or collect vast amounts of information on users (which your service does for the sake of removing information on other platforms and services, and improving your own service): > The personal information we collect __may__ include: > * Full Name > * Mailing or Shipping Address > * Phone Number > * E-Mail Address > * Birth Date and/or Year of Birth > * Credit or Debit Card Information > * Government State-Issued ID or Driver's License > * Geographic location > * Photos and videos; or > * Other information that you may choose to provide during the registration or purchasing process. > [...] > Third Party Analytic Technologies: We may use third parties' analytics and tracking tools to better understand who is using the Site or App, how people are using the Site or App, how to improve the effectiveness of the Services and related content, and to help us or those third parties serve more targeted advertising to you across the Internet. These tools may use technology such as cookies, web beacons, pixel tags, log files, Flash cookies, HTML5 cookies, or other technologies to automatically collect and store certain information. They may also combine information they collect from your interaction with the Site or App with information they collect from other sources. We do not have access to, or control over, these third parties' use of cookies or other tracking technologies. > [...] > We may share the personal information we collect from and about you in the following ways: > 1. With RemoveMyPhone affiliates and subsidiaries; > 2. To our third party service providers that provide business, professional or technical support functions for us, including, but not limited to, fulfilling or shipping your order, completing your transaction, or those that assist us in our own marketing efforts. > 3. With our select partners, affiliates, and other third parties that we believe may have offers of interest to you. For example, we may have joint marketing arrangements, to assist in our or their marketing and merchandising efforts. In those cases, such partner may collect or receive personal information from or about you. > 4. As necessary, if we believe that there has been a violation of our Terms of Use or to protect the property, interests, and rights of RemoveMyPhone, its affiliates, subsidiaries, or other third party; > 5. To respond to judicial or legal process or provide information to law enforcement or regulatory agencies or in connection with an investigation on matters related to public safety, as permitted by law, or otherwise as required by law; and > 6. As otherwise described to you at the point of collection.

👍 1

dngray commented

2020-11-20 05:24:54 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I've been having a look at this post today. Sorry for the delay. I made sure to read each post in sequence, and thus I made notes along the way. I did it this way because I wanted to share my own opinions - without echoing what others have said.

A "partnership" is a bit ambiguous. I'm going to assume that you donated to them a similar amount to what you donated to PrivacyTools. I would probably be a bit more direct with this and say "Proud sponsors of...", that way there's no confusion.

I think this would be easy to rectify, and it seems you have taken this advice.
having inconsistencies in formatting and even errors.

If there are errors, I'm sure fixing these wouldn't be difficult. I believe that RemoveMyPhone would strive to provide high quality work. This shouldn't effect sponsorship unless the information being given is patently incorrect marketing material etc.

@ph00lt0

if these companies are so well why are they not recommend in the general section?

Sponsorship does not necessarily indicate we use these products. What it does indicate is these companies have given us money to run our services. Many companies approach us because they like the ethics of how PrivacyTools is run or the other information we provide which is out of scope of their business to provide.

This is not a conditional donation, I'm simply trying to behave ethically. If PrivacyTools doesn't want our sponsorship, we'll take it back and remove the logo from our site. What's the issue here?

We wouldn't take your money if we weren't going to approve the sponsorship. As the money has already been sent through we would naturally reverse that transaction pending final result.

Reflecting upon this, we (PrivacyTools) should develop a process for which sponsorships are approved, and in what order, so we don't risk a repeat of this.

PS: On a personal level, I apologize to @dngray about all of this useless drama from some of your members. We simply wanted to sponsor PrivacyTools to help pay for your expenses and you've been nothing but professional and kind throughout this process. Thank you!

As this is an open discussion, these things can happen. I'm usually pretty good at filtering and being objective about advice and criticism. I believe the benefit of a public record discussion outweighs any negatives.

same applies to their 240+ 4.9 Star reviews, no link anywhere to prove that claim

There is no link for the reviews. We encourage customers to leave their feedback and reviews via customer surveys we send them via email. But we also encourage our customers to honestly review us on public sites (see previous comments).

@removemyphone-dev

Would it be possible to have a page that links to the public sites where you have reviews? Customarily many sites have a "testimonials" page. You may have to ask your customers whether they permit their testimonial being public on your website though.

My remaining caution would be directed the privacy policy that @lynn-stephenson mentioned in his reply https://github.com/privacytools/privacytools.io/pull/2110#issuecomment-730661006

Is self hosting analytics an option? The most commonly mentioned one is Matomo. That way you'd be minimizing the number of third parties with that information. We do recognize that can be useful in improving a product.
As you're US based, as far as I am aware there's nothing equivalent to GDPR. The feature that I like about GDPR is the "lawful basis" for collecting information. Ie that information that is collected will be used for a specific purpose.

Some of the uses outlined in the privacy policy seem a bit open-ended. This might mean that the information is used for something that the customer did not originally intend or approve:

or those that assist us in our own marketing efforts

With our select partners, affiliates, and other third parties that we believe may have offers of interest to you. For example, we may have joint marketing arrangements, to assist in our or their marketing and merchandising efforts.

we have to collect at least some data from our customers so we know what to remove in order to help them.

Hypothetical situation:

Perhaps RemoveMyPhone doesn't do so well financially. Might you resort to selling the collected data? Legally could you?
What if RemoveMyPhone was bought by another company that then decided to sell that information?

I'm not suggesting for a moment that you would, but the wording in that privacy policy leads me to believe that it would be possible. There is a lot of very important data collected that would be valuable other parties.

I've been having a look at this post today. Sorry for the delay. I made sure to read each post in sequence, and thus I made notes along the way. I did it this way because I wanted to share my own opinions - without echoing what others have said. 1. A "partnership" is a bit ambiguous. I'm going to assume that you donated to them a similar amount to what you donated to PrivacyTools. I would probably be a bit more direct with this and say "Proud sponsors of...", that way there's no confusion. I think this would be easy to rectify, and it seems you have [taken this advice](https://github.com/privacytools/privacytools.io/pull/2110#issuecomment-730732763). 2. > having inconsistencies in formatting and even errors. If there are errors, I'm sure fixing these wouldn't be difficult. I believe that RemoveMyPhone would strive to provide high quality work. This shouldn't effect sponsorship unless the information being given is patently incorrect marketing material etc. @ph00lt0 > if these companies are so well why are they not recommend in the general section? Sponsorship does not necessarily indicate we use these products. What it does indicate is these companies have given us money to run our services. Many companies approach us because they like the ethics of how PrivacyTools is run or the other information we provide which is out of scope of their business to provide. > This is not a conditional donation, I'm simply trying to behave ethically. If PrivacyTools doesn't want our sponsorship, we'll take it back and remove the logo from our site. What's the issue here? We wouldn't take your money if we weren't going to approve the sponsorship. As the money has already been sent through we would naturally reverse that transaction pending final result. Reflecting upon this, we (PrivacyTools) should develop a process for which sponsorships are approved, and in what order, so we don't risk a repeat of this. > PS: On a personal level, I apologize to @dngray about all of this useless drama from some of your members. We simply wanted to sponsor PrivacyTools to help pay for your expenses and you've been nothing but professional and kind throughout this process. Thank you! As this is an open discussion, these things can happen. I'm usually pretty good at filtering and being objective about advice and criticism. I believe the benefit of a public record discussion outweighs any negatives. > same applies to their 240+ 4.9 Star reviews, no link anywhere to prove that claim > There is no link for the reviews. We encourage customers to leave their feedback and reviews via customer surveys we send them via email. But we also encourage our customers to honestly review us on public sites (see previous comments). @removemyphone-dev Would it be possible to have a page that links to the public sites where you have reviews? Customarily many sites have a "testimonials" page. You may have to ask your customers whether they permit their testimonial being public on your website though. My remaining caution would be directed the privacy policy that @lynn-stephenson mentioned in his reply https://github.com/privacytools/privacytools.io/pull/2110#issuecomment-730661006 3. Is self hosting analytics an option? The most commonly mentioned one is Matomo. That way you'd be minimizing the number of third parties with that information. We do recognize that can be useful in improving a product. 4. As you're US based, as far as I am aware there's nothing equivalent to GDPR. The feature that I like about GDPR is the "[lawful basis](https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/lawful-basis-for-processing/)" for collecting information. Ie that information that is collected **will** be used for a **specific** purpose. Some of the uses outlined in the privacy policy seem a bit open-ended. This might mean that the information is used for something that the customer did not originally intend or approve: > or those that assist us in our own marketing efforts > With our select partners, affiliates, and other third parties that we believe may have offers of interest to you. For example, we may have joint marketing arrangements, to assist in our or their marketing and merchandising efforts. > we have to collect at least some data from our customers so we know what to remove in order to help them. Hypothetical situation: - Perhaps RemoveMyPhone doesn't do so well financially. Might you resort to selling the collected data? Legally could you? - What if RemoveMyPhone was bought by another company that then decided to sell that information? I'm not suggesting for a moment that you would, but the wording in that privacy policy leads me to believe that it would be possible. There is a lot of very important data collected that would be valuable other parties.

👍 2 👎 2

gary-host-laptop commented

2020-11-20 12:46:35 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Even though I also think they collect a lot of information I kind of understand that it is necessary for a service like this, and even though my opinion is not relevant here, I think that if they improve their privacy policy and make sure that the information they collect is encrypted in some place safe I would be fine using their services.

gary-host-laptop commented

2020-11-20 22:51:44 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I still think replacing Google Analytics would be a really, really go idea. I don't care if they provide the best service and their product is good, they suck users' data and could sell that to other third parties.

👍 1

ph00lt0 commented

2020-11-21 00:32:16 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Sponsorship does not necessarily indicate we use these products. What it does indicate is these companies have given us money to run our services. Many companies approach us because they like the ethics of how PrivacyTools is run or the other information we provide which is out of scope of their business to provide.

This is the exact problem, PTIO seems to apply a double standard. Listing these companies gives your user base the feeling they can trust these vendors, while they should not. I understand you need to cover some of the costs, but this, in my opinion, is not the right way.

We clearly specified that we make use of Google Analytics - which is the global leader in web analytics by far.

@removemyphone-dev if you do not understand that Google Analytics is not privacy friendly you are in the wrong community here. This shows the double standard again. A product would never be allowed under general tools would it be using this invasive spyware.

@dngray that companies like PTIIO, does mean that they must be mentioned on the homepage. If they comply with our view on ethics, privacy requirements they could be listed as highlighted sponsor. You now settle for financial benefit and trade in privacy.

> Sponsorship does not necessarily indicate we use these products. What it does indicate is these companies have given us money to run our services. Many companies approach us because they like the ethics of how PrivacyTools is run or the other information we provide which is out of scope of their business to provide. This is the exact problem, PTIO seems to apply a double standard. Listing these companies gives your user base the feeling they can trust these vendors, while they should not. I understand you need to cover some of the costs, but this, in my opinion, is not the right way. > We clearly specified that we make use of Google Analytics - which is the global leader in web analytics by far. @removemyphone-dev if you do not understand that Google Analytics is not privacy friendly you are in the wrong community here. This shows the double standard again. A product would never be allowed under general tools would it be using this invasive spyware. @dngray that companies like PTIIO, does mean that they must be mentioned on the homepage. If they comply with our view on ethics, privacy requirements they could be listed as highlighted sponsor. You now settle for financial benefit and trade in privacy.

👍 2 👎 1

lynn-stephenson commented

2020-11-21 04:14:28 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@ph00lt0 There is a clear problem with double standards, and as new members are joining PrivacyTools we are stepping in to fill the gaps, and in a way we are enforcing stricter non yet defined policies. Which I have noticed with me rejecting software that does not meet a higher standard of security, when there is no policy to go by and there is software recommended right now that I would probably reconsider.

As such it is probably best to hold off on sponsoring anyone until we have a policy to go by.

@ph00lt0 There is a clear problem with double standards, and as new members are joining PrivacyTools we are stepping in to fill the gaps, and in a way we are enforcing stricter non yet defined policies. Which I have noticed with me rejecting software that does not meet a higher standard of security, when there is no policy to go by and there is software recommended right now that I would probably reconsider. As such it is probably best to hold off on sponsoring anyone until we have a policy to go by.

👍 2

jonah approved these changes 2020-11-21 05:25:44 +00:00

gary-host-laptop commented

2020-11-21 18:39:40 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

If it is worth something I feel you are right, but I've never participated before in a discussion regarding sponsors, and I'm not part of the team, but what I said before I would say it again to anyone trying to create a privacy focused bussines

dngray commented

2020-11-22 07:18:13 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Hi,

@RemoveMyPhone-dev

Interestingly, we've also reviewed the Privacy Policies of other competitors in the industry (including some that actually sponsor PrivacyTools.io) and found them to be much more loose with how they share and use customer data.

Yeah I did not approve those, the member responsible for that was more permissive in the past.

We've since discussed this internally and are thinking of making a concise criteria (as we have done for various pages) in order to create uniform fairness. This particular sponsorship has outlined that being a necessary improvement for us.

We're very clear, transparent, and restrictive in (this is good!) how we allow ourselves to use customer data - to essentially deliver a high-quality and effective service. I'm curious if the privacy policies of your other sponsors were reviewed as thoroughly?

It is, and I would be looking at existing sponsors as well once we apply a new criteria. What I think we might do for the time being is decline the sponsorship for now. You're welcome to do so at a later date once we re-open sponsorships.

I think that's the most fair thing to all.

@dngray @lynn-stephenson please do let me know of your final decision so we can move on to the next steps, whatever they may be. +1

@ph00lt0

@removemyphone-dev if you do not understand that Google Analytics is not privacy friendly you are in the wrong community here. This shows the double standard again.

This would need to either be something we consider universally in the criteria or not. We cannot single out individual sponsors and say they must do certain things, while others are given a free pass.

Sponsorship does not necessarily indicate we use these products. What it does indicate is these companies have given us money to run our services. Many companies approach us because they like the ethics of how PrivacyTools is run or the other information we provide which is out of scope of their business to provide.

This is the exact problem, PTIO seems to apply a double standard. Listing these companies gives your user base the feeling they can trust these vendors, while they should not. I understand you need to cover some of the costs, but this, in my opinion, is not the right way.

As I said, it's impossible for us to use all the products of our sponsors. The reason for that is, some of us aren't in the intended market. An example, I'm never going to be in the US market, so if a product is targeted at US demographics - it isn't going to be applicable to me.

In the past sponsorships were added by @jonaharagon who had a general look over the product. Without a set criteria, this was more of a "sniff test" than anything else.

This particular PR has indicated we should be more transparent about this, and develop a criteria in order to remain consistent. I think the main area will be reviewing the sponsor's Privacy Policy.

@lynn-stephenson

@ph00lt0 There is a clear problem with double standards, and as new members are joining PrivacyTools we are stepping in to fill the gaps, and in a way we are enforcing stricter non yet defined policies.

I think this is exactly the issue. In the past I was not responsible for sponsorships at all. I generally as a contributor kept out of that. I maintained this position in order to keep my impartiality when it came to researching recommended suggestions on the website.

As such it is probably best to hold off on sponsoring anyone until we have a policy to go by.

This is the step I think which is most fair to all.

@removemyphone-dev

You're welcome to revisit this, when we have a criteria, and I invite you to offer any suggestions in regard to our criteria, once we get something underway.

I'm curious did all of these sponsors also get this level of scrutiny when they donated?

No they did not. They were added by @jonaharagon 08a85975db, 10df29cdba, 34c099ecab who has since handed over operations to @blacklight447-ptio (Niek de Wilde). There was a blog post about it. The way these things worked in the past is that a sponsor would approach us as you did @removemyphone-dev and then it would get added without too much discussion.

It is unfortunate you've decided to sponsor us at this time of reorganization. It also appears that @blacklight447-ptio has been difficult to get a hold of (which happened at about the time you'd already sent the money through).

I will keep on it, if you could leave it with me for a bit longer I should be speaking to @blacklight447-ptio soon. I still want to make this right, and return your money to you.

@dngray you've been very fair and accommodating, but unfortunately, the hypocrisy exhibited in this thread has turned me off

Ultimately sponsorship approval is up to team members, and not members of the community, though we do like to hear their thoughts.

Some people are a little more tactful than others, 🙂. I enter every discussion assuming the other party is of good faith unless I have evidence to indicate otherwise.

Hi, @RemoveMyPhone-dev > Interestingly, we've also reviewed the Privacy Policies of other competitors in the industry (including some that actually sponsor PrivacyTools.io) and found them to be much more loose with how they share and use customer data. Yeah I did not approve those, the member responsible for that was more permissive in the past. We've since discussed this internally and are thinking of making a concise criteria (as we have done for various pages) in order to create uniform fairness. This particular sponsorship has outlined that being a necessary improvement for us. > We're very clear, transparent, and restrictive in (this is good!) how we allow ourselves to use customer data - to essentially deliver a high-quality and effective service. I'm curious if the privacy policies of your other sponsors were reviewed as thoroughly? It is, and I would be looking at existing sponsors as well once we apply a new criteria. What I think we might do for the time being is decline the sponsorship for now. You're welcome to do so at a later date once we re-open sponsorships. I think that's the most fair thing to all. > @dngray @lynn-stephenson please do let me know of your final decision so we can move on to the next steps, whatever they may be. +1 @ph00lt0 > @removemyphone-dev if you do not understand that Google Analytics is not privacy friendly you are in the wrong community here. This shows the double standard again. This would need to either be something we consider universally in the criteria or not. We cannot single out individual sponsors and say they must do certain things, while others are given a free pass. > > Sponsorship does not necessarily indicate we use these products. What it does indicate is these companies have given us money to run our services. Many companies approach us because they like the ethics of how PrivacyTools is run or the other information we provide which is out of scope of their business to provide. > > This is the exact problem, PTIO seems to apply a double standard. Listing these companies gives your user base the feeling they can trust these vendors, while they should not. I understand you need to cover some of the costs, but this, in my opinion, is not the right way. As I said, it's impossible for us to *use all the products of our sponsors*. The reason for that is, some of us aren't in the intended market. An example, I'm never going to be in the US market, so if a product is targeted at US demographics - it isn't going to be applicable to me. In the past sponsorships were added by @jonaharagon who had a general look over the product. Without a set criteria, this was more of a "sniff test" than anything else. This particular PR has indicated we should be more transparent about this, and develop a criteria in order to remain consistent. I think the main area will be reviewing the sponsor's **Privacy Policy**. @lynn-stephenson > @ph00lt0 There is a clear problem with double standards, and as new members are joining PrivacyTools we are stepping in to fill the gaps, and in a way we are enforcing stricter non yet defined policies. I think this is exactly the issue. In the past I was not responsible for sponsorships at all. I generally as a contributor kept out of that. I maintained this position in order to keep my impartiality when it came to researching recommended suggestions on the website. > As such it is probably best to hold off on sponsoring anyone until we have a policy to go by. This is the step I think which is most fair to all. @removemyphone-dev You're welcome to revisit this, when we have a criteria, and I invite you to offer any suggestions in regard to our criteria, once we get something underway. > I'm curious did all of these sponsors also get this level of scrutiny when they donated? No they did not. They were added by @jonaharagon https://github.com/privacytools/privacytools.io/commit/08a85975db8cfae9af57d972eb975088a647c667, https://github.com/privacytools/privacytools.io/commit/10df29cdba54a175214d843a72960e86b5a57d7c, https://github.com/privacytools/privacytools.io/commit/34c099ecaba0c4b196b9f2c74b28f04a965ac410 who has since handed over operations to @blacklight447-ptio (Niek de Wilde). There was [a blog post](https://blog.privacytools.io/blacklight447-taking-over/) about it. The way these things worked in the past is that a sponsor would approach us as you did @removemyphone-dev and then it would get added without too much discussion. It is unfortunate you've decided to sponsor us at this time of reorganization. It also appears that @blacklight447-ptio has been difficult to get a hold of (which happened at about the time you'd already sent the money through). I will keep on it, if you could leave it with me for a bit longer I should be speaking to @blacklight447-ptio soon. I still want to make this right, and return your money to you. > @dngray you've been very fair and accommodating, but unfortunately, the hypocrisy exhibited in this thread has turned me off Ultimately sponsorship approval is up to team members, and not members of the community, though we do like to hear their thoughts. Some people are a little more tactful than others, 🙂. I enter every discussion assuming the other party is of good faith unless I have evidence to indicate otherwise.

👍 3

davegson commented

2020-11-22 21:50:23 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Hey again, I just wanted to quickly chime in and mention two things.

@lynn-stephenson yes you are right. Re-reading my posts I must admit that my posts were unnecessarily hostile. Something triggered me and made me full on rage instead of raising concerns in a respective manner.

@removemyphone-dev, I am sorry for being unprofessional toward you and for insulting your team.

(I edited my initial post to be more respectful as I don't see any value in having others read it the original way).

Second, I am looking forward to the PTIO team creating a criteria for all sponsors, thanks for your starting efforts in that regard. I agree that this is the correct approach so everyone is treated equally, as it currently is for the tools you recommend.

Hey again, I just wanted to quickly chime in and mention two things. @lynn-stephenson yes you are right. Re-reading my posts I must admit that my posts were unnecessarily hostile. Something triggered me and made me full on rage instead of raising concerns in a respective manner. @removemyphone-dev, I am sorry for being unprofessional toward you and for insulting your team. (I edited my initial post to be more respectful as I don't see any value in having others read it the original way). --- Second, I am looking forward to the PTIO team creating a criteria for all sponsors, thanks for your starting efforts in that regard. I agree that this is the correct approach so _everyone_ is treated equally, as it currently is for the tools you recommend.

This repo is archived. You cannot comment on pull requests.

No reviewers

blacklight447