[Kim_Bruning]

This is highly problematic.

I may consider showing my ID to a company I already have a business relationship with; given demonstrable legal obligations, contractual necessities, legitimate interests etc . Eg the standard GDPR list.

I do have an existing business relationship with Anthropic, so I might under some circumstances decide to show them my id. I don't have a business relationship with Persona though.

I understand the instinct: they want to insulate themselves from holding PII. Not the worst idea. I'm not happy with it being a third party though. Especially the third party in question.

[3s]

But they already have PII on nearly all users. Many user upload documents with their name, or pictures of themselves, or have a chat where home addresses are involved. All of this is information anthropic already has on their users (voluntarily provided via chats or via api) and is equivalent to what Persona gets via their verification - it’s just more convenient to use a third party SaaS product for this than vibe coding their own identity verification platform I guess

[Kim_Bruning]

This might be conflating two things. What data exists somewhere, and how many different independent parties hold it. It's not the same risk.

Put this way: I sort of already trust Anthropic with some of my PII. And that's ... maybe not ok actually. But it's a single failure surface.

But that's definitely not the same thing as trusting Anthropic, AND Persona AND All Persona's partners AND their Partners ad infinitum.

And let's say Persona is actually ok; who knows, they might be? But it's still an extra surface; and if they share again, that's another extra surface again.

It's fairly common sense blast radius minimization. This is part of the actual theory behind GDPR.

"We already seem to accidentally be leaking some data through channel A" , doesn't mean it's a good idea to open channels B-Z as well. It means you might want to tighten down that channel A.