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.
Finally, they qualify everything by saying they don't collect sensitive data, and from the information provided, they don't.
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.
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?
Again, I might be missing the point...?
The chart does not reflect the currently used of attributes.