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

Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

chaseoptout.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 246 posts

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#121

Post by happytoexplain »

3xblah wrote: post #107
neilv wrote: post #29

Assuming that you're completely legit and utterly competent, there's still a big security problem here: it's encouraging people to put their PII and CC info into arbitrary Web sites . On top of that, it's further identifying them as both Chase CC holders and receptive to scams, qualifying them as leads for further phishing/scamming.

"And who even has stamps lying around anymore?" People who order stamps online? If the problem is writing the letter or stamps, then why not just send the user a postage-paid envelope, pre-addressed to Chase, with a generic letter that she can fill in with her personal information and deposit into the mail? You should now be wondering how this "service" can be "free". As someone else has figured out, this is a compan…

Do you have a link? This is exactly what I want.

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#122

Post by Wowfunhappy »

gricardo99 wrote: post #101
zbruhnke wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately this is the problem that Chase created ... we give users a way to download a form letter instead, but were just trying to make it as easy as possible for customers to opt out if they would like to do so

>we give users a way to download a form letter instead But you don't just let them download it. You make them give you their email address first. Edit: Haha! No wait, you have to click through two levels of "Don't want to give us your info? Click here to get the letter". The first one asks for you email, only after the second do you actually get the letter. Why? They already said "dont want to...". Just give it to th…

> The first one asks for you email, only after the second do you actually get the letter.

They're pretty clearly trying to collect email addresses through this campaign. I'm okay with that. My email address isn't exactly private, and this site is going to pay to mail physical letters for me.

> Also the form letter, prepopulated with the Chase customer service P.O. box address, is another scam pitfall. Anyone using this kind of form letter should always check the address with the financial institution before sending any forms, especially that include PII/financial information.

Is the address fradulent? If so, please tell us. If not, I don’t see the concern.

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#123

Post by la_barba »

kelnos wrote: post #41
zbruhnke wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I wish we did not have to do this but this is what Chase is forcing customers to do. We also give customers a way to just download the form without giving us the info but then of course we can't mail it for them ... we were just trying to make this easier for customers to opt out with the shitty options we were given

Can you make the link for the download more obvious and less dark-pattern-y? I found it only after scouring the page (somehow the text under the form didn't catch my eye easily), and then it popped up a modal that unnecessarily asks for my email address. I closed it, annoyed, just barely noticing the small-font link to download without entering my email address. If you actually care about privacy and claim to not be…

>If you actually care about privacy and claim to not be using or selling our information for anything, why don't you make it easier to avoid giving information entirely?

Hmm, I don't see it that way. It seems like people are learning about the chase issue for the first time through this website. Ideally you'd have another website/article informing you about the issue, and then a link to this website for sending the letter. And so it would be weird to go to a website designed to send a letter, and be told that you can also not send the letter through the website...

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#124

Post by [deleted] »

zbruhnke wrote: post #38
neilv wrote: post #29

Assuming that you're completely legit and utterly competent, there's still a big security problem here: it's encouraging people to put their PII and CC info into arbitrary Web sites . On top of that, it's further identifying them as both Chase CC holders and receptive to scams, qualifying them as leads for further phishing/scamming.

Unfortunately this is the problem that Chase created ... we give users a way to download a form letter instead, but were just trying to make it as easy as possible for customers to opt out if they would like to do so

[deleted]

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#125

Post by giancarlostoro »

I know everyones talking about how sketchy the online forms are. But my question is what sketchy practices is Chase involved in that they need this to be part of their agreement. Secondly and its been noted here before why are such clauses even legal? I really hope we can take the concept to court and murder it completely.

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#126

Post by fataliss »

kileywm wrote: post #23

I just want to point out that, as a user, opting out of this portion of Chase's agreement could result in Chase deciding to close your account. Not advocating what course of action to take, but merely pointing out that there is risk associated with this action. That being said, I have read through the email from Chase, and there is nothing that explicitly states that they will close it as a result of the user opting…

I did contact chase on twitter about this and was told they would not close my account

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#127

Post by mjkornbl »

rkhassen wrote: post #104

For me the red flag is them willing to send this letter to Chase, via snail mail at no charge to you. Nobody gives something for nothing. So I thought, why would they do this? after reading through the form, at the bottom, it looks like one of the companies, who sponsors this site, "Radvocate" seems like they are in the "class action" lawsuit business. https://myradvocate.com/ This site is about having enough potenti…

Radvocate here: We do have a vested interest. Over time, we want to be the place you come when you have a dispute against a big company because we'll fight hard for you.

We're excited to partner on this project partly because it is very "on brand" for us from that perspective — we can help people, get our name out there, and shine light on an issue that matters to us. We're a business, but we're also all in this business (instead of some other business) because we want to make the system fairer for consumers.

ETA: Also, to correct one misapprehension: we are not in the class action business. We actually help consumers pursue individual arbitrations. We think more people should know that even if their contract doesn't let them sue, they actually do have a way to assert their power through arbitration. If anything, we'll have more customers for our current business if no one opts out of their Chase clause.

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#128

Post by mehrdadn »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #116
mehrdadn wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a layman here but that seems like a misinterpretation of the statute? The idea of the statute seems to be that the government will not void, nullify, or refuse to enforce the terms of an electronic contract. It does not state that in any given contract, private parties must accept the terms signed in any form whatsoever -- that's still left as something for those people to agree on, and Chase very clearly spelle…

> the idea of the statute seems to be that the government will not void, nullify, or refuse to enforce the terms of an electronic contract Unless Chase explicitly said wet signature, then a government court would find the electronic signature valid.

While I disagree on that point, what about the fact that the terms require you to mail it yourself.

Edit: Also, I'm not sure what "wet signature" means. The claim was not quite that the signature has to be in ink. The debate is over whether you (not someone else) are performing the signing, and whether you (not someone else) are mailing (not emailing etc.) it on paper (not e.g. a flash drive) or not. Which, to me, means you could sign on your computer/tablet/etc., then print that as your signature with a printer and then mail the form, with no ink involved anywhere in the process. That seems like a pretty reasonable interpretation of "personally signing" the letter and "mailing" it, so Chase would have a hard time arguing you didn't do that. But to type your name on a random website for someone else to print and mail the contract on your behalf? You neither personally signed that letter (whether on the computer or on the paper) nor did you mail it... all you did was casually tell some random guy on the internet to impersonate you to your financial institution.

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#129

Post by kardos »

3xblah wrote: post #107
neilv wrote: post #29

Assuming that you're completely legit and utterly competent, there's still a big security problem here: it's encouraging people to put their PII and CC info into arbitrary Web sites . On top of that, it's further identifying them as both Chase CC holders and receptive to scams, qualifying them as leads for further phishing/scamming.

"And who even has stamps lying around anymore?" People who order stamps online? If the problem is writing the letter or stamps, then why not just send the user a postage-paid envelope, pre-addressed to Chase, with a generic letter that she can fill in with her personal information and deposit into the mail? You should now be wondering how this "service" can be "free". As someone else has figured out, this is a compan…

They offer a template as well

Re: Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing

#130

Post by 3xblah »

happytoexplain wrote: post #121
3xblah wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And who even has stamps lying around anymore?" People who order stamps online? If the problem is writing the letter or stamps, then why not just send the user a postage-paid envelope, pre-addressed to Chase, with a generic letter that she can fill in with her personal information and deposit into the mail? You should now be wondering how this "service" can be "free". As someone else has figured out, this is a compan…

Do you have a link? This is exactly what I want.

https://militarymoneymanual.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/C...
Post reply on HN