Whatever is needed to prevent fraud perpetuated on their platforms.

>Whatever is needed

Someone made a fake account -> we need "Whatever is needed" to make creating fake accounts harder is exactly the wrong way of thinking about it. It's the same kneejerk reaction that got us PATRIOT act and TSA after 9/11.

https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...

Or if you're more swayed by social justice, all these onerous checks also makes it harder for "unbanked"/"underbanked" people access to the financial system, which has real harms for them.

▲

tinuviel 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The person who is now facing charges for a crime she did not commit is experiencing ‘real harm’.

Absolutely shameful to defend a b$ company that doesn’t not have adequate protections to prevent this from happening. Imagine this happening to you or your own - whisked away and locked up for a month for the crime of losing your wallet and getting your identity stolen.

▲

gruez 5 hours ago | parent [-]

>Imagine this happening to you or your own - whisked away and locked up for a month for the crime of losing your wallet and getting your identity stolen.

You know what's worse than sitting in jail for a few days? Dying or losing a loved one from 9/11. So you better get used to more federal agents scanning your communications and more TSA groping you at the airport. No cost is too great to prevent losing a loved one to terrorist attacks!

	▲	bigbadfeline an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> You know what's worse than sitting in jail for a few days? You haven't read the article. The stakes are much higher than "a few days in jail" which isn't nearly as small of a problem as you make it out to be either. > Dying or losing a loved one from 9/11. Why do you have to repeat this nonsensical 9/11 strawman of an analogy which has nothing to do with the case in question? Nobody asked for government "scanning of your communications". What you failed to notice is the refusal of CashApp to provide information about the fraudulent account because the victim couldn't prove owning it while she was being investigated for owning it. CashApp stonewalled the victim and prevented proper investigation before charges were formally filed and the prosecutor got involved, after that it was to late and the mess that followed resulted in great expenses, turmoil and further risks for the victim.
	▲	tinuviel 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		A b$ company putting in more protections for its customers and non-customers by doing more checks is equal to TSA groping you? Please make it make sense.
	▲	tourmalinetaco 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Doubling down on a weak argument doesn’t endear anyone to your position, especially when it’s trivializing actual tragedies. For what, even, for flawed systems to remain flawed? TSA is a joke made to harass innocents while PATRIOT was a consolidation of power. It is true 9/11 was used to ram legislation that hurt Americans. It doesn’t mean every response to an unfortunate situation is wrong. Additionally, your argument is to do what, exactly? Apply zero pressure to the company which aids and abets fraud to the detriment of innocence because you find “social justice” and restrictions distasteful? Accessing money should be laborious and should require various verification forms (even if I disagree that photographing IDs and selfies are actual forms of verification), because as we see here laxness has resulted in an innocent person’s life being upended.

▲

hoppyhoppy2 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Say goodbye to being able to pay for anything by credit card unless accompanied by valid state ID, passport. and iris scan.

▲

Aurornis 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero.

This statement is obvious to anyone who has any experience dealing with fraud, but shocking if you haven’t thought much about it.

It’s actually impossible to completely prevent fraud on a platform because there are so many variations of fraud that can’t be prevented up front.

They could demand in-person DNA samples to open an account and there would still be some fraud.

▲

bigbadfeline 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You're the second person who doesn't seem to realize that fraud prevention requires proper actions before and after fraud is detected/suspected. Failing to react properly on fraud protects the fraudsters - like CashApp has done - and makes the platform a magnet for fraud.

CashApp failed to investigate and provide vital information for to victim while she was being investigated - they did that too late only after they were compelled to do so by the court and lawyers, creating a very hard situation for the victim and allowing the fraudsters to cover their tracks.

▲

tourmalinetaco 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The optimal amount is zero, but the realistic amount is non-zero.

▲

achierius 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The simple fact is that you can't just open an app and then let it destroy the lives of people with absolutely no connection to it. The company itself must be responsible. Saying "the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero" is only acceptable if the cost of that "non-zero" amount is borne by the company itself; otherwise the result is plainly misaligned incentives.

	▲	gruez 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>The simple fact is that you can't just open an app and then let it destroy the lives of people with absolutely no connection to it. Wait till you realize how 911 aka "swatting" works. >The company itself must be responsible. So in the swatting case should we blame Verizon for allowing the call to be placed in the first place?

▲

preg_match 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They would probably have to send out an agent to your house to live with you and watch you make every transaction to ensure it’s legitimate.

And, even then, you might lie to the agent or maybe strike up a deal or something so… even that wouldn’t work.

The ideal number of fraud is not zero, if it was zero we would either be living in a dystopian novel or not using the service at all.