What would you guys think of a policy that states "We will not release personal information to third parties, but if they are investigating fraud and ask us questions, we may answer very specific questions with simple yes/no questions
I do not like it, in the case of "Rogver vs Nethead" a yes/no was all that was needed to confirm he was likely the owner of the bitcoin address in question. The fact that his email address and ip was revealed was not of much consequence as that information was already know to the bitcoinstore, so the end result was the same.
Blockchain's policy stands as it always has "We will not sell, distribute or lease your personal information to third parties unless we are required by law to do so.". Hopefully if required to do so by law we will be holding as little information as possible.
Yes I am fully aware this policy was broken and I apologise for that. Steps have been taken to resolve the immediate problem of admin access and make determining information on wallets more difficult in future by hashing addresses. The same hashing will be done with ip addresses.
I don't understand what you mean. Would you have been OK with answering "yes" had Roger asked you "Does this particular Bitcoin address reside in a wallet belonging to this specific email address?" (asking you instead of doing it yourself) Or is having to answer "yes/no/anything at all" the part you don't like?
