It seems to me that some of what WSJ shows here goes against RapLeaf's privacy policy.
Specifically:
"We don't collect or work with sensitive data on children, health or medical conditions, sexual preferences, financial account information, or religious beliefs."
The WSJ article shows that they are collecting religious beliefs, income, children, and detailed data on how you spend your money.
Seems to me that they are violating this both in spirit and in specific wording.
Your confusing interest with actual data. For example, they don't collect religious beliefs. However, they can collect your interest in Christianity. They don't collect health information, but they can collect your interest in Healthy Eating. They don't collect financial account information, but they do collect general financial information (for example, they don't collect CC data, but do know your general pay grade.
Finally, they qualify everything by saying they don't collect sensitive data, and from the information provided, they don't.
Spliting semantic hairs it seems... Rapleaf is not collecting "interest" data just because they are curious; they are collecting it because the claim they make to their customers is that you interests define you and your intents better than explicitly stated preferences.
I don't believe in a God, but am interested in religion and how it affects the world I live in. I see a definite separation between interest and belief.
Sure but you are sticking your head in the sand if you think that that doesn't accurately represent the religious angle of people. If their data says they are interested in the bible, christianity, prayer groups, or whatever, what's more likely, that they are intellectually curious and just doing research? Or that they are just christian?
That's like newspapers running articles saying so-and-so is charged with the rape of whats-her-name. Even if he's later found innocent, he still felt the repercussions. So, where do you draw the line?
More importantly: what's the problem with the data they are presenting? I see no problem ethically or legally, though I'm sure some might feel uncomfortable with the amount of information they've willingly, if unknowingly, shared.
I might be missing the point but I think the issue is that the WSJ (and others) are able to extract 'sensitive data' from sites like Rapleaf.
So that might be contrary to Rapleaf's policy but in reality their business model enables the dissemination of so-called sensitive data.
I read another blog post on Rapleaf's site about how they are solving the problem of personal information being moved around the internet mistakenly. Are they not simply devising a solution for a problem they are helping to create?
Specifically: "We don't collect or work with sensitive data on children, health or medical conditions, sexual preferences, financial account information, or religious beliefs."
The WSJ article shows that they are collecting religious beliefs, income, children, and detailed data on how you spend your money.
Seems to me that they are violating this both in spirit and in specific wording.