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

231–240 of 246 posts

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

#231

Post by hundt »

mehrdadn wrote: post #210
DannyBee wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so you are confusing concepts like "what is a signature", "what is an original", and "what would a court accept as valid evidence". We are going to mostly put aside the third for now. First: A signature does not change form once created. A physically signed document is a physically signed document, regardless of whether i scan it in. An electronically signed document is electronically signed regardless of wheth…

Thank you a ton for taking the time to patiently explain all this. So here's where I'm currently stuck. Or actually, I'm stuck in a few places right now: (1) This is less relevant to this particular debate, but it's highly relevant to the actual opt-out page. On the webpage, I don't see the word "sign" at all. I imagine merely filling in your name into that box and clicking "Submit" doesn't turn your name into your s…

You assumed that the process is done when you click that first Submit button, but it is not. There is an e-signing step that makes it clear what you are doing and what you are signing. [0]

https://i.snag.gy/tSf20W.jpg

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

#232

Post by pkfrank »

mirimir wrote: post #201
Nition wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True. But they've never posted very frequently. So maybe this is just an important issue for them. Also, are baseless allegations OK here?

This. I just don't post here frequently or check HN. Rest assured I am a real person.

I have mentioned my Twitter in previous comments (https://twitter.com/peterkimfrank) and you'll see my submission history maps pretty well to my role at my company (https://dev.to/peter).

This was a weird comment thread to wake up to...

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

#233

Post by cdubzzz »

hundt wrote: post #231
mehrdadn wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you a ton for taking the time to patiently explain all this. So here's where I'm currently stuck. Or actually, I'm stuck in a few places right now: (1) This is less relevant to this particular debate, but it's highly relevant to the actual opt-out page. On the webpage, I don't see the word "sign" at all. I imagine merely filling in your name into that box and clicking "Submit" doesn't turn your name into your s…

You assumed that the process is done when you click that first Submit button, but it is not. There is an e-signing step that makes it clear what you are doing and what you are signing. [0] https://i.snag.gy/tSf20W.jpg

I also did not realize this and it probably would have prevented me from posing the question in the first place. Seems like it would be clearer for the first button say "Click to sign" or something (other than "Submit").

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

#234

Post by stallmanite »

monksy wrote: post #64
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.

It's even worse than that. If they try to authenticate you on the phone. They'll suggest calling you back, and they don't know what phone number they'll be calling you from. They literally ask for their customers to pick up the phone from unknown numbers and give your bank details.

How does this shit get thought up? Their security team was cool with this? Mind boggling

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

#235

Post by beeftime »

briandear wrote: post #218
mjkornbl wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, thanks for the response. On the business model – we charge a commission currently set at 15% of whatever compensation you recover. Hopefully that's from a negotiated settlement with the company before a full arbitration process is necessary. (More details at bottom). We currently process against 20+ cable / ISP / wireless companies. Re: PII, first I want to make clear that I can't speak with legal standing about…

I am not sure why I want to sue Chase. I bank with them and they have provided the agreed services. What exactly has Chase done to harm someone like me? If I don’t like something they do, I simply bank elsewhere.

Good point, a bank will never, ever screw you over.

oh wait

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/every-wells-fargo-consumer-sc...

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

#236

Post by neilv »

briandear wrote: post #216
neilv wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to see HN or Reddit or someone work with the feds on how to investigate and prosecute astroturfing/sockpuppets/shilling, perhaps as unauthorized computer access and/or fraud.

Astroturfing and shilling isn’t illegal. Unless an account was hacked, no crime has been committed. Even lying generally isn’t a crime. In terms of fraud, there has to be a determination of unlawful gain or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Astroturfing isn’t fraud, nor is shilling.

Which is why I said they'd have to work with the feds on how.

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

#237

Post by neilv »

briandear wrote: post #217
neilv wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect lawyers could figure out the ToS so that it is.

That wouldn’t be “criminal” — a TOS violation isn’t “prosecuted” as its civil. And, the aggrieved party would have to prove actual damages.

Unauthorized access in connection with fraud, for example. I'll let the lawyers figure it out, and I hope they do.

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

#238

Post by _bxg1 »

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.

It's entirely possible you have pure intentions, but I know nothing about (and therefore have no implicit trust in) your organization, so it would be a huge leap of faith for me to even consider putting this amount and degree of personal information into a random website.

The fact that your privacy policy's fine print allows you to use the information for something other than the express purpose at hand seriously undermines that, even if you have no actual intentions of doing anything shady.

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

#239

Post by besieged »

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…

That seems like a fair trade off.

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

#240

Post by [deleted] »

DannyBee wrote: post #203
mehrdadn wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, "a physical non-electronic signature". I could also see it as "a physical copy of an electronic signature" depending on if it's used in circumstances where you're presenting it as merely a copy of the original (e.g. for documentation/records of your contract with that website ), but that's not the case here. Either way I don't see it as "an electronic signature" as far as the agreement goes. If it's on…

Okay, so you are confusing concepts like "what is a signature", "what is an original", and "what would a court accept as valid evidence". We are going to mostly put aside the third for now. First: A signature does not change form once created. A physically signed document is a physically signed document, regardless of whether i scan it in. An electronically signed document is electronically signed regardless of wheth…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN