Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 102 posts

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#81

Post by ticviking »

tluyben2 wrote: post #26
tehlike wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

come on. there are >6b people on earth, with many many fraudsters trying to make money at other people's expense. It's a problem that has to be automated sooner or later. Computers are also much faster in fraud detection. You use your credit card at some store that you have never been, at an odd hour, and your bank triggers a fraud lock, and declines the transaction. That's efficiency. When there are billions of tran…

But the fraud algo's + the support are absolute crap. I am known to Google + Paypal, I am logged on as a user, I have credit cards and bank accounts attached, I am with both about since they came online. I made money for both; I am not talking as a consumer, i'm talking as a business owner. Which is not the 6b people on earth; it's far less. The problem is that companies actually, legally steal money like that; I did…

If it has happened repeatedly caused that kind of problem you might start looking around for a class action lawsuit. Absent any consiquences they'll keep doing what they do.

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#82

Post by tluyben2 »

tehlike wrote: post #75
raverbashing wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not automating, but Google shoots first and doesn't ask questions later. This leaves false positives helpless. I'm not surprised Google closes their eyes and ignores false positives, your answer only confirms that.

I am in ads, and occasionally deal with ad fraud. So i cannot speak what they do for other products. I don't think you should derive any meaning from what I say.

Maybe you can answer a question I had for a long time. Many years ago my company got banned from adsense suspicious traffic. We got some standardised email, we mailed back and got some canned responses but no-one cared of course. I have no clue what it even means because no-one explained (besides links to vague blahblah), so 1) what does that mean? I can guess what it means, but how, if we didn't do it (and I seriously couldn't give a crap anymore at this time, but we had nothing to do with it), how can we be banned for it? Then 2) if Google can detect this traffic and qualify it, why not just delete it from the stats and leave it at that?

Edit; not saying you work there so you know it, but if you do and can say, i'm curious :)

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#83

Post by tluyben2 »

ticviking wrote: post #81
tluyben2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the fraud algo's + the support are absolute crap. I am known to Google + Paypal, I am logged on as a user, I have credit cards and bank accounts attached, I am with both about since they came online. I made money for both; I am not talking as a consumer, i'm talking as a business owner. Which is not the 6b people on earth; it's far less. The problem is that companies actually, legally steal money like that; I did…

If it has happened repeatedly caused that kind of problem you might start looking around for a class action lawsuit. Absent any consiquences they'll keep doing what they do.

At the time (this is a long time ago) we looked into that; there were (maybe are, luckily we left ads behind) many conspiracy theories and angry blog posts from people who had their life wrecked by an algorithm without any way to defend themselves. Nothing came of it and we/I learned that you cannot count on Paypal or Google for primary income; we switched to affiliate sales and traditional online card payments and we never looked back.

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#84

Post by deelowe »

cptskippy wrote: post #40
js2 wrote: post #33

Meanwhile I'm going through a mortgage refi and the mix of old and new technology is comical. I was hoping things had advanced since I last went through this a decade ago but not so much. This is through eRates Mortgage and you might think the "e" stands for electronic, but I'm not so sure. So far I've had to: - Fill out an online credit application form, which among other things ask me what year I started my last jo…

I've done refis with several companies over the years and I've never had to do anything anywhere approaching that.

I've done my fair share of mortgages and this pretty accurately matches my experiences, though some banks are better than others.

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#85

Post by tluyben2 »

skissane wrote: post #77
walterbell wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a open source github-hosted file with keywords that can be screened by a browser plugin?

PayPal is likely using these US government lists: http://apps.export.gov/csl-search#/csl-search Companies like PayPal aren't doing this because they honestly believe it will catch terrorism. They are doing this because the US government tells them to, and they risk onerous penalties for non-compliance. "Aleph" is on that list as an alias of Aum Shinrikyo, the cult responsible for the Japanese subway Sarin attack in 1…

Question is, does the gov specify what actions to take when a word is encountered? Sure scan for them, maybe report them but banning, blocking etc without proper investigation seems more a typical Paypal thing I have come to expect over the years working with them than something the US gov would specify.

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#86

Post by moeffju »

uptownfunk wrote: post #60
kornish wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a few banks have something called "Innovation Labs" or similar whose job is to do exactly that: match emerging technology with appropriate internal use-cases. Part need-finder and part technologist. Capital One Labs, for instance, was crucial in helping the startup where I work land its first F500 deal. I'd imagine that "innovation labs"-type units are probably emerging at enterprises outside of finance as well…

We do this at McKinsey too

What part of McKinsey does this/how?

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#87

Post by tehlike »

tluyben2 wrote: post #83
ticviking wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it has happened repeatedly caused that kind of problem you might start looking around for a class action lawsuit. Absent any consiquences they'll keep doing what they do.

At the time (this is a long time ago) we looked into that; there were (maybe are, luckily we left ads behind) many conspiracy theories and angry blog posts from people who had their life wrecked by an algorithm without any way to defend themselves. Nothing came of it and we/I learned that you cannot count on Paypal or Google for primary income; we switched to affiliate sales and traditional online card payments and w…

charging for product is significantly more solid than ads. it's not everyone's game though, not everyone has a sellable product.

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#88

Post by tehlike »

smcl wrote: post #79
tehlike wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I write here, i try to write it on my own. Being a google employee doesn't have any bearing on what I think about google products. I don't use many google products, because there are better ones out there. I think that should be the perspective when you read most comments here.

Sure thing - I just didn't want to sound like I was saying "as a Googler this is YOUR problem" that's all :)

ah - sorry i misunderstood. Thank you.

Re: JPMorgan Software Does in Seconds What Took Lawyers Many Hours

#89

Post by skissane »

tluyben2 wrote: post #85
skissane wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PayPal is likely using these US government lists: http://apps.export.gov/csl-search#/csl-search Companies like PayPal aren't doing this because they honestly believe it will catch terrorism. They are doing this because the US government tells them to, and they risk onerous penalties for non-compliance. "Aleph" is on that list as an alias of Aum Shinrikyo, the cult responsible for the Japanese subway Sarin attack in 1…

Question is, does the gov specify what actions to take when a word is encountered? Sure scan for them, maybe report them but banning, blocking etc without proper investigation seems more a typical Paypal thing I have come to expect over the years working with them than something the US gov would specify.

Engaging in transactions (exports, financial services) with certain specified parties is illegal (and potentially even a crime in some cases).

The US government tells you to screen your transactions against their lists, and that due dilligence must be performed to investigate matches – https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/lists-of-p...

If you apply your best efforts to following the US government's advice, but then unintentionally end up doing business with a denied party – they are unlikely to prosecute you, and any prosecution is unlikely to suceed. If you ignore their advice, and then end up doing business with a denied party – even if you never realised they were one – then negative legal consequences are much more likely.

Any US exporter (including overseas subsidiaries of US corporations) is required to obey these laws. Other countries have similar laws which must be obeyed as well. For a large global business, this can get very messy fast, which is why large businesses employ whole teams of people to manage this and use software to help them do it (many ERP packages incorporate this functionality).

And these laws don't say "report the transaction to the government but let it through anyway". The laws say "report the transaction to the government AND deny it". If you do the former instead of the later, you are likely both breaking the law and telling the government that you've done it, which is unlikely to end well for you.

From an end-user perspective, freezing the suspect transaction until an investigation can confirm it is harmless is unpleasant. But, from the company's viewpoint, if they don't take the time to do a through investigation of a suspect transaction, they are exposing themselves to significant legal risks.

(Disclaimer: I speak for myself, and these statements should not be taken as statements of my employer. I am not a lawyer and I don't work in the export control field.)

Post reply on HN