logoalt Hacker News

cycomaniclast Thursday at 6:30 PM2 repliesview on HN

> I previously worked in fraud/risk at a major ecommerce platform. On my biggest day I closed 60,000 accounts. In one day. I knew other agents who'd done 10x that.

> The scale of this work is unfathomable to those who have only been on the consumer side of it.

> #1 is doable but would destroy our ability to combat fraud. "Here's how not to get banned next time" is not an email anyone in this space would consider sending.

Just imagine laws would work that way.

> #2 is simply impossible. Fraudsters consume every available resource you can put into the appeals process. This is their full time job, they can afford to call repeatedly, all day long, until they find an agent they can trick. Regular users won't benefit.

That argument doesn't pass the smell test. Apple makes more profits than the scammers whole revenue, so just from a resources standpoint Apple could starve them. You just need to make the process so it can't be easily automated (e.g. require going into an apple store with your ID)

> #3 is what small claims court is already for. We should make this easier, I agree.

So in #2 you say it would overwhelm the process and now your argument is that essentially the public should pay for the process?

If small claims courts can deal with the issues than why can't a trillion dollar company.


Replies

dobslast Thursday at 7:21 PM

> > #1 is doable but would destroy our ability to combat fraud. "Here's how not to get banned next time" is not an email anyone in this space would consider sending.

> Just imagine laws would work that way.

This is how "tipping off" law often works in practice.

As a support agent you often lack full visibility into the treatment or history of the person on the other end of the phone, especially if they're a bad actor. You can't tell them what is or isn't fraudulent behaviour, or what might be construed as such.

show 1 reply