Chase did a bad thing, so we did a good thing • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by tempestn » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 12:12 AM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #122

gricardo99 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 th…

Perhaps a good way to deal with this would be to provide the address for convenience, but also include instructions for how someone could verify it for themselves. IE describe how to go to chase.com and look up the address. (Don't just provide a link to the address at chase.com, as that has the same problem as just providing the address.)

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

#142

Post by rkhassen » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 12:14 AM UTC

mjkornbl wrote: post #127

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 busi…

Good points and I appreciate what you write here.

And an interesting business concept - to help consumers pursue individual arbitrations. That could be really cool especially against large corporations when they are abusive. What do you charge as people go through their individual arbitration process/ how does the profit model work?

I really have mixed feelings about the legal system - on

Also, Radvocate, wondering if you can address the PII concerns other's have raised, as that is a very big deal.

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

#143

Post by tempestn » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 12:14 AM UTC

zbruhnke wrote: post #83

_bxg1 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh dang. So this whole thing is just a big data grab. Even if they aren't going to make fraudulent charges, that's a clear ulterior motive.

not at all! We explicity ask if you want to opt in to future communications on our form - we are NOT using them to communicate with users if they do not opt in.

Probably want to make the privacy policy more explicit and restrictive then.

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

#144

Post by snazz » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 12:15 AM UTC

zbruhnke wrote: post #91

WoahNoun wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An ecommerce site has a merchant agreement with a payment processor to comply with PCI DSS. This does not. It is in no way similar.

FYI we are complying with PCI DSS when you use this site - you can read details in the FAQ

Do we have proof of that? I think the fact that we're taking your word for everything so far is the source of the discomfort here.

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

#145

Post by mmaunder » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 12:15 AM UTC

mjkornbl wrote: post #127

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 busi…

Hope your site is secure. And I don't mean TLS. Collecting that data paints a giant bullseye on it for hackers.

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

#146

Post by JumpCrisscross » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 12:18 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #128

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, m…

I agree with you on the mailing part. Was just pointing out that a personal signature and electronic signature are identical unless specifically stated otherwise due to the E-Sign Act.

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

#147

Post by toomuchtodo » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 12:19 AM UTC

3xblah wrote: post #135

toomuchtodo wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you expect customers to print out a template, obtain postage, and mail it, your expectations are too high.

s/you/Chase/;s/your/Chase's/

For sure. If you don’t care, you don’t care. If you do care, you might use an online form but not print it out and mail it.

Everyone here fearmongering this site is the enemy of good enough. Your credit card information is no more at risk than at a gas pump that possibly has a skimmer (and you’re not liable). Your PII has already been leaked by Equifax. Why give up even more rights by not opting out through a service that has taken reasonable precautionary measures for data protection?

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

#148

Post by PunksATawnyFill » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 12:23 AM UTC

I caught these assholes at Chase doing this and demanded a refund of fees, which of course they provided. They're just testing your resolve, every day:

"JPMorgan agreed to pay $110 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over its procedures for charging customers overdraft fees. It was among more than a dozen big banks sued by their customers for reordering debits from their accounts to maximize the possibility that the accounts would become overdrawn, which would generate more fees."

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

#149

Post by toomuchtodo » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 12:23 AM UTC

snazz wrote: post #144

zbruhnke wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI we are complying with PCI DSS when you use this site - you can read details in the FAQ

Do we have proof of that? I think the fact that we're taking your word for everything so far is the source of the discomfort here.

Sort of humorous comment, as PCI DSS is self assessment and attestation of compliance. If OP states they’ve met their burden, that’s all that’s required at their scale.

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

#150

Post by Cogito » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 12:24 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #128

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, m…

Reading the above comment, where does it say it has to be personally mailed?

> Your notice must be mailed to us at P.O. Box 15298, Wilmington, DE 19850-5298.

That sounds like it has to be mailed, but who does the mailing doesn't matter. Similarly, wouldn't matter if you used the post or a courier.