When Is Supplying Personal Information Too Much Information?

I was recently asked to supply additional personal information to a company which I had held an account with for more than 5 years.
It was for an international betting company app which I used roughly once/twice a month for the occasional flutter, and I only ever bet $5 / $10 at most.
I would not consider myself to be a big spender or big user of the service - it was just a bit of fun which I had full control over. In fact I have been playing from an initial deposit of $100 for well over 18 months so maybe they thought I didn't spend enough!!
Anyway, the company requested photo id as part of their usual checks and put an automatic temporary block on my account until I complied with this request.

When I refused explaining that they were already in possession of my full name, DOB, Address, Phone Number, Email, and Bank Details and that I felt uncomfortable in providing photo id or anything else for that matter to a faceless individual over the telephone or to a generic corporate email address, they informed me that my account would remain blocked until I complied. There was no where to go - these were the terms take it or leave it.
In the end I thought this was just too much information, and this was my line, so I requested them to close my account and refund me my balance which they did. All remaining $110 of it.

This experience got me thinking with the level of personal information requested these days - even for the most basic of accounts - where should the line be drawn with personal ID that this is simply too much?
I guess those recently caught out by Optus and other similar institutions with the leaking of personal information will be much more wary having already being burnt and severely inconvenienced in the process. I also had a friend who had his identity stolen from a fellow lodger and the repercussions lasted for many years.

Does anyone in the world of OzBargain have an opinion on this and have you refused to open an account of any type purely because you disagreed with the level of personal details requested?

Comments

  • +3

    I thought about this the other day. We live in a world with increasingly more bureaucracy, more forms to fill in, more ID checks and evidence verification required.

    When applying for a travel visa, you send them so much private information, even down to birth and marriage certificates to a third party 'processing' company and have no further traceability.

    When applying for a child's passport, the post office worker takes photocopies of your passport, driver's license, kid's birth certificate and address evidence etc. Literally your info on pieces of paper on their desk and you walk out assuming they'll sort it all out.

    When applying for mortgages from banks or brokers, you give them almost every private piece of information about you, even your bank statements.

    In the US, it's common to hand over your credit/debit card to a waiter who takes it away, rings up your payment, then brings you a piece of paper to write down how much tip you want to add. Similarly in drive-throughs, you don't tap a machine, you hand over your card and they do it for you. It's a pretty big opportunity for someone to steal your card info.

    Plenty more examples but it's getting to the point that it's challenging to draw a line between how much is too much vs what's required and you're forced to do so.

    DHL ask me for passport copy verification for every package I get sent, because there's someone else with a similar (but not same) name that has a hold due to a 'denied party'. They claim they cannot flag my name and address as approved and have to send my information to a different customer service rep each time.

    In your case, KYC is a common requirement and they may even be obligated to request that info. But that information is being sent to call center somewhere abroad. You chose to draw the line at a betting platform. Other requests are not so easy to deny.

    • +3

      I don't sign up for any crypto deals anymore because of KYC requirements, I have very little trust in how they're storing that data (I have very little trust in how anyone stores that data, but at least Australian banks are meant to be regulated on that). Presumably online gambling sites have it for money laundering reasons.

      The problem has become that the more data leaks occur, the more they need to collect to really prove who you are. Until something that can actually be kept secret turns up or companies are forced to implement much better security processes it's pretty much a sure thing it will continue to get worse.

    • +2

      But that information is being sent to call center centre somewhere abroad.
      and to an unknown person/s who is not required to be police checked to our national levels. If they were we would (be allowed to know who these nameless faces are when we talk to them.

      This practise of OS call centres should be outlawed, and consumers should demand their local rep make it so. Make it a non negotiable voting requirement. Shareholders won't be calling for it.

      Them US waiters would be mighty disappointed with me.

    • +1

      Thanks [Hybroid] for your reply. Interesting points made which certainly got me thinking if we have any control over this going forward.

      In my case I acknowledge the importance of KYC and fully support the concept to a limit - but I just didn't consider myself a significant player to warrant this level of scrutiny for my measly account.
      It's probably done me a favour to be honest as it really made me question if the benefit of having this was worth the risk - and in this instance I thought not.

      This was just one example for me, but it is something as you eloquently point out is just getting to be the norm.

      My question is at what cost will this be to the individual who is not as savvy on the computer and aware of the increasing risk of implications of providing their own personal info to faceless individuals/bots when setting up new personal accounts of any kind?
      I am sure if someone is determined to get your personal info they probably could.

    • +3

      This is why I didn't proceed with my uBank application. They kept asking for more and more personal info.

      The govt needs to legislate a new single method why we verify once, and the companies can very us against a govt I'd. Much better. You never give anyone your personal info again

  • +5

    Upload a d*** pic

    • +2
      • +2

        Nice Hind!

  • +7

    For me it's a balance of how much do I want the service.

    EG renting a house these days requires a disgusting amount of personal info, handed over to someone who probably has their PC password on a sticky note at their desk. But not renting a house is a pretty big trade off.

    Recently I sent my email address with my real name to a member here to join their family plan. A risk I considered worth the $100 saving.
    Can't really think of the last time I didn't sign up to a service. But I also can't really remember the last service I signed up to that wasn't the above example or government.

    • +4

      Recently I sent my email address with my real name to a member

      Wait! What? We're not mean to use our real names here? TIL.

      • +1

        Lots of perverts on the internet. If one of them got your name anything could happen.

        • Always wondered. Are you M. Skeggs or Ms Keggs. Or something else

          • +3

            @FezMonkey: A girl's got to have an air of mystery and a gentleman never tells.

  • Anything remotely financial often requires a fair bit of verified PI (personal information) due to money laundering / KYC (know your customer) laws.

  • I work at elections, and every federal election I am asked to do a police check with an agency and supply all those documents…

  • -1

    considering an INTERNATIONAL gambling/betting company == not bound by AU laws +++ who knows how they handle your info?

    for the sake of betting $5-$10 … REALLY ?!?!?!???
    hope you asked certain questions before handing over your money.

    what background checks did you do?
    I want your photo ID too !!! (just saying).

    • -1

      This ^

      • The company in question is BET365

        I think you will agree it is a major company, and my small stakes would absolutely be insignificant…

        • +1

          Pretty sure that's what all gamblers say, until they have no small stakes left. Lots of fish on hooks = lots of nice tasty fillets.

  • Probably because of the Government crackdown on online gambling, they want to prevent money laundering, and gambling addiction.
    Maybe they have to follow the laws set by our government or they wont be able to operate.

    https://www.austrac.gov.au/important-changes-customer-identi….

    • they want to prevent money laundering, and gambling addiction.

      Allowing the amount of gambling companies,ads,apps and other free kicks for political donations says you might have overestimated the effort a tad. Hasn't the Dutton led LNP completely dropped their shrieking about stopping all gambling ads by a block of time, to insulate young minds?

  • Sadly, it's Big Data's world, we're just living in it.

  • +1

    Am yet to give in to Temu though unsure if they are actually any worse than other retailers.

  • +1

    I send them a signed copy of one of my books…

  • +1

    In the end I thought this was just too much information, and this was my line, so I requested them to close my account and refund me my balance which they did. All remaining $110 of it.

    So you needed a photo ID to verify your account to continue to use it, but they had been happy to close it and pay out the balance without ID!?

    You would think it was the other way around! Want Photo ID to validate who they are paying out to.

    • I initially thought that was what they were going to do.

      But I got my refund regardless…

  • +4

    When Is Supplying Personal Information Too Much Information?

    We did a walk in for a food venue without a booking, they wanted a mobile number as part of us asking for a table for 4 people.

    Which to me was unrequited over asking too much information for the service being delivered, the person I was with coughed up their number, no second thought.

    Crazy world.

  • +1

    Fail to understand how a photograph would be of any help to an online enterprise in confirming a personal identity? Unless of course they have access to cross match with other sources, e.g. a drivers license record.

    • Other ppls ID is the Mad Max crypto currency of the personal data harvesters /collectors. If they could get away with it, blood,hair and skin samples would need to be provided.Watch this space.AI will have a massive impact on images as ID

      • Wow - never even considered that.

        I think you could be on to something here with DNA verification being the true future…

      • Other ppls ID is the Mad Max crypto currency of the personal data harvesters /collectors. If they could get away with it, blood,hair and skin samples

        Don't bring me into this.
        I only collect people's teeth, after breaking them 🤣

  • +1

    There is no state in OZ that requires a photo id for having a galops account. There were no ID changes since the middle of last year.

    The requirements were changed in the first 1/2 or 2024 depending on the state to require all account to pass the 100 point ID like new bank account have required for a few years and this was retrospective. These were state government requirements.

    Ring up the Liquor and Gaming department in the state you are in and ask them if you need to supply and if it is mandatory to include photo id.

    I am assuming the company is owned/based in the UK?

  • +1

    Ever been on hold with a company and heard them read out a customers details, Name, Date of Birth, Address, Phone number for anyone to hear.

  • +1

    https://www.theage.com.au/national/how-your-dna-is-falling-i…

    If you are under 34 (in 2004) and were born in Victoria, a private company has your DNA on file.

    Blood from the baby's heel is soaked into an absorbent card and then tested for a range of rare, usually treatable conditions.

    "I don't believe it is appropriate for the state to grant ownership of its citizens' DNA to a private company," Health Services Commissioner Beth Wilson said.

    Genetic Health Services Victoria is a non-profit company, a wholly owned subsidiary of another company, the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. Neither is subject to freedom of information laws nor are they required to report to Parliament.

  • +4

    I was buying a shirt last weekend and the cute lady behind the counter who served started asking me all these personal questions like "do you work out?", "what do you in your spare time?" " do you like blondes?" "Do you want to get a drink tonight?"

    To bloody personal. I just left.

  • +1

    We recently went in to our bank (which we have banked with for over 20 years) to open a new savings account and shift some money into it. The officious, self important, bank employee started demanding a lot of personal details from us. We declined to provide those details as they were not relevant to what we were asking for. So she refused to open the new account for us and threatened to block our existing accounts. She looked very surprised when we walked out.
    Went to a different bank, opened new accounts, no problem.

    • When some random goes to the bank and asks to move my life savings into a new account I would hope that the staff would ask a few questions or sight some ID before they did it.

  • +4

    Worked for a company as a driver for quite a few years when someone suddenly decided they needed copies of all drivers' licences to be supplied and kept on file.
    Their reasoning was that it proved their drivers were holding current licences.
    It was pointed out that licences are only definitely current at the time of sighting it - they can be non-current immediately after driving out the gate and doing something illegal.
    Couldn't or wouldn't explain how this was going to be stored/used/accessed/destroyed.
    Most of the drivers agreed that we would let a company representative sight our licences and sign off on that but they were not going to keep a copy.
    Company insisted and made threats of no job unless we supplied them.
    We simply said no and they very quickly walked back the decision and now all that has to happen is the line manager has to sight a current licence and sign off that they have seen it.

    • +1

      It was pointed out that licences are only definitely current at the time of sighting it - they can be non-current immediately after driving out the gate and doing something illegal.

      They could be cancelled/suspended already. You don't need to have the physical card confiscated to be disqualified from driving.

    • +1

      Well done! If only more people were like you and your workmates.
      Every time people allow themselves to be walked over and abused, the people doing it start thinking what else they can do to you.

      • Spot on!
        Only problem is that the majority of people just comply, so the few that dare object are easily hammered.

  • Ask the bank to send
    the instruction/rules they have from the government to collect this personal information, and
    the Terms and conditions for usage being collected over the phone.

Login or Join to leave a comment