Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxerickson | Hacker News Reader

Seriously. If companies are relying on the fraud estimates, it isn't going to be fun to be a false positive.

I mean people have been subjected to fraud scoring for decades, you get declined, you follow up, and you get in w/ a new data point for the next time.

They've been subject to fraud scoring across a large group of disparate companies for decades?

I would say that's absolutely not true at all. And to the extent that it is true, via credit reporting agencies, it's extremely aggressively regulated to allow consumers to see and challenge how that data is used, as well as to completely opt out of that system.

Credit card companies use your past history across merchants in risk scoring transactions, yes, and they also pull in data from external sources that are outside of their walls to further enrich that data.

Anyways -- this is all massively orthogonal to what I originally wrote, which was around Sift being used as a consumer scoring system. I shouldn't have "taken the bait" so that's my bad.

Not when these new automated systems don't allow for a follow-up because it would be too expensive to code or hire a human to do it.

How many companies don't have a support@____ email address? Seriously, they'll figure it out, it's really not that large of a haul to get stuff corrected, and it's the difference between "we can't take credit card payments" and "a very low-percentage of real users have some extra friction / bounce somewhere else".

Right, it's not a score, it's just a thing you have to argue with them to change. Not a score though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com