In any case, "good bot" doesn't refer to best practices such as rejecting suppliers with antiquated auth and guiding users to others, it refers to not being intentionally malicious and acting as users' agents instead.
Your bank is the entity you're ultimately upset with, don't malign a company that generated a _very good solution_ to a _huge problem_ and THEN worked with their industry peers to cajole these huge banks to let you have access to your data how you want to use it. Before Yodlee and Plaid came around there was a snowballs chance in hell I could ever hope to get at my banking transactions in an API and now I can, and in many cases I never have to give supply my banking credentials to anyone but my bank.
There is not a physical gun pointed at my head, but an increasing amount of digital online interactions are solely gated by Plaid. I've run into plenty cases where I simply had no choice, for example dealing with landlords.
And you already know how long it takes for financial systems to evolve once in place, as evidenced by your own frustration for them not embracing APIs and digital sovereignty. So once a solution like Plaid is in place, we're normalizing this kind of man-in-the-middle security nightmare for generations to come. Even if Plaid's founders did not have malicious intent, the company will eventually change hands to someone less ethical, and the door is open for other companies to seek the same kind of relationships with end users. If not malicious, Plaid is brazenly reckless and short-sighted.
And regardless... I as a consumer do not want to hand over my passwords to a man in the middle, I'm already angry enough at the security and password restrictions I encounter now with financial institutions. If I am in a position where I cannot rent a home or make an important purchase without interacting with a company like Plaid, where is my digital sovereignty?
Do you understand that the ends don't always justify the means? Do you understand that not trading security and privacy for convenience means putting up with inconvenience? My complaints are warranted because yes, they are to blame, no, I do not want to be forced to use their service.
And when the company is eventually sold and financial transaction data harvested (whether against the wishes of the founders or not, loopholes exist), apologists will turn around and blame the new company instead of Plaid, who opened the door for them.
> Or you can create your own middleman service if you like and everybody will appreciate your Plaid alternative.
I think the financial tech market is rapidly evolving, and I'll just wait. If I need financial automation and a service like Stripe is not available, I can always use a cryptocurrency which respects my autonomy and privacy.
Before Plaid there, the floor to require a bank account to do something in your SaaS was high to impossible.
Now the floor is low, and we got a bunch of applications that take advantage of that, so good right?
The problem is most of those applications are not in your best interests as a person.
-
It mostly just enabling a bunch of junk BNPL debt and modern day payday loan schemes.
It allows offerings that are too risky to be good ideas to patch things up by just peeking into an account and making sure they'll be able to take their $X before some other rent-seeker drains the account for the month.
It also normalizes so much more access and visibility than is actually needed, so even in cases where the risk was acceptable before, now why not just peek really quickly and improve your bottom line at the expense of having yet another service with access to your financial data.
Overall Plaid probably has not been a net positive for the average person. Other countries have open banking platforms but they're also must stronger on regulation and oversight than the US, so you don't seem it become quite as much of a negative.
What's that? They don't? Guess I'll just have to give Plaid my password then. Stupid banks.
btw this is the exact same way Facebook got people to migrate off MySpace.
> Guess I'll just have to give Plaid my password then.
Learned helplessness, trading digital sovereignty for convenience. There is a larger war being fought here that is bigger than you or me. Had Plaid not been forced upon me, I would never have used it willingly.
Yes, digital sovereignty means owning your data and the means to transfer and activate it.
It also covers things like not having to relinquish a personal key or passphrase in order to do so, as that severely diminishes your personal security, erodes privacy and trust, and enables a future society where corporate participation is mandatory and the dissolution of security of privacy boundaries considered essential and unavoidable.
Such a system is horribly anti-consumer, even if it seems nice while the lollipop is still in your mouth.
The data lives on your machine, or in a pod controlled by you. This data would be "live" as long as the you like by continually updating encrypted values that are only decrypted using each service's public key. If you want to cut off access to the data, turn off the hose. From there, you'll need to rely on your local government if you require the service to purge existing data, but that's nothing new. I've described in great depth on this website before what such a system might look like. Only public keys and encrypted data are passed around.
Tim Berners-Lee is also tackling this problem with Solid.
Not sure banks are the best example for this discussion, though, since banks have legitimate reasons to secure and promote security of their accounts that is beyond simple IT resource usage.