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

181–190 of 246 posts

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

#181

Post by mehrdadn »

Cogito wrote: post #168
mehrdadn wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mean "mail" as in "literally drop off the envelope in the post box", I just meant "mail" as in "write the letter to be mailed". And no, when I say "write" I don't mean it necessarily precludes voice recognition or whatever new counterexample you might be trying to think of now either.

Fair enough. I'm not sure what that means though. If I printed off the form from the website would that count as me writing the letter to be mailed? In any case, in the stuff quoted up top, I don't read this concept that it must be done personally. For example, it seems like it would be fine for my accountant to do it for me (though they may need me to sign it? maybe they can affix a seal or something) There must be…

Well I imagine the business case (if they even send the same kind of notification to businesses, which I don't know to be true or false) is easy since presumably the business's name is on the account and said business has someone authorized to take care of such paperwork, and I doubt the letter would (or should, for that matter) be accepted if it comes from someone else in the business. Presumably Chase could call back the business's legal department and ask if they weren't sure if it's valid? Dunno, but I don't see it as a very realistic question.

In terms of you as a consumer using the template they gave you, I mean, in principle I would assume it would count (you put your signature on it and mailed it; it clearly signals your own volition and intent to opt out), but I could see a judge saying no if Chase gave a convincing counterarguments why (e.g. hypothetically if Chase had a habit of getting a lot of legitimately fake opt-outs that they couldn't distinguish from yours, and if it would be obviously bad public policy to accept them, then yours probably shouldn't be valid either). Ultimately I'm not claiming gray areas are nonexistent...

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

#182

Post by jachee »

mehrdadn wrote: post #172
DannyBee wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-layman here, no it's not an misinterpretation of the statute. It makes electronic signatures as good as regular ones in interstate commerce. Period. Full stop. Caselaw supports this in spades. The only meaningful case otherwise is where statutes explicitly require in-writing signatures (a good example is copyright transfers). There is an intra-state version of this is UETA.

Could I ask which part of this "case law supports in spades"? I imagine you're not claiming they have to accept emails (?) and otherwise I don't even see how you could e-sign this to begin with; you have to write the letter that ends up in their P.O. Box somehow, so you have to make the statement yourself and put your personal signature on paper (via ink or toner or otherwise is not the point) and mail it to them. Bu…

"Yes. I personally filled out an electronic signature for my intent to opt out, Your Honor."

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

#183

Post by mehrdadn »

jachee wrote: post #182
mehrdadn wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could I ask which part of this "case law supports in spades"? I imagine you're not claiming they have to accept emails (?) and otherwise I don't even see how you could e-sign this to begin with; you have to write the letter that ends up in their P.O. Box somehow, so you have to make the statement yourself and put your personal signature on paper (via ink or toner or otherwise is not the point) and mail it to them. Bu…

"Yes. I personally filled out an electronic signature for my intent to opt out, Your Honor."

"You did not answer my question" is what I would expect after that.

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

#184

Post by [deleted] »

gowld wrote: post #171
toomuchtodo wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

PCI DSS assessments are signed by natural persons, not arbitrary HTML content.

[deleted]

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

#186

Post by Wowfunhappy »

gricardo99 wrote: post #180
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that's a big potential problem, but I don't know what to do about it. If the response is to attack the legit version, then Chase wins! That's not an acceptable outcome either.

They could have raised awareness to the problem and provided detailed instructions on how anyone can go about resolving it, in a manner that's consistent with best practices of protecting yourself. It's a false dichotomy to say its either this web site or Chase wins. Promoting risky and insecure behavior is just wrong. period. That's independent of whatever Chase or any other company is putting in their agreements. I…

> It's a false dichotomy to say its either this web site or Chase wins.

But it's not! No one is going to mail in a form. Chase specifically chose that go that route because they know nobody nobody is going to mail in a form. The only way to get around this is to make the process easier. How else do you do that?

It strikes me as a very shortsighted to say "this behavior is wrong in all circumstances, period," while ignoring the benefits. Everything in life is some kind of risk trade-off.

Edit: I suppose your larger point is, the potential harm of this project greatly outweighs any potential good. I can respect that, but I'd really encourage you to research how messed up binding arbitration agreements are, particularly with regards to institutions like a bank.

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

#187

Post by Nition »

420basteit wrote: post #185

From one media manipulator to another: when you pay the premium price for a long-standing hacker news account, it's usually more convincing to let people find the comment history for themselves.

Looks suspicious enough anyway if users check their history, considering that user posted for the first time in a year just to make that comment.

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

#188

Post by DannyBee »

mehrdadn wrote: post #172
DannyBee wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-layman here, no it's not an misinterpretation of the statute. It makes electronic signatures as good as regular ones in interstate commerce. Period. Full stop. Caselaw supports this in spades. The only meaningful case otherwise is where statutes explicitly require in-writing signatures (a good example is copyright transfers). There is an intra-state version of this is UETA.

Could I ask which part of this "case law supports in spades"? I imagine you're not claiming they have to accept emails (?) and otherwise I don't even see how you could e-sign this to begin with; you have to write the letter that ends up in their P.O. Box somehow, so you have to make the statement yourself and put your personal signature on paper (via ink or toner or otherwise is not the point) and mail it to them. Bu…

I'm trying to understand your argument and I guess I don't. So lets start simple so I can understand it better: Do you think a signature made by a human clicking a button on a computer and then printed out is an electronic signature or a physical non-electronic one?

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

#189

Post by mjkornbl »

420basteit wrote: post #185

From one media manipulator to another: when you pay the premium price for a long-standing hacker news account, it's usually more convincing to let people find the comment history for themselves.

Touché. If I need Hacker News "influencer" services going forward, I will turn to you.

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

#190

Post by latchkey »

cdubzzz wrote: post #27

Under the "What is the actual language in the agreement sent by Chase?" FAQ item, it says -- "Can I (the customer) reject this agreement to arbitrate? Yes. You have the right to reject this agreement to arbitrate if you notify us no later than 8/9/2019. You must do so in writing by stating that you reject this agreement to arbitrate and include your name, account number, address and personal signature . Your notice m…

I wrote to Chase on their 'secure message portal', which feels like it is straight out of 1995. I told them I'm out of the country and cannot send mail.

I told them that I am rejecting the agreement to arbitrate. I also said that since their message portal feels official, this would be what I would use as proof of my opt out in court, if the need arises. I saved some screenshots as well.

They have updated me once already to say that they are still working on a response.

Post reply on HN