PayPal is currently blocking all transactions containing the word “tardigrade”

Post by quintushoratius » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 1:41 PM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #44

mrweasel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know if PayPal ever claimed otherwise, but I’ve suspected that much of the AI powered moderation online is simply advanced keyword matching. We have to start accepting that either websites are unwilling to or unable to do moderation in any meaningful way, unless they hire human moderators at huge costs. Hearing an interview with the country for Facebook on Danish radio just two weeks ago, it’s pretty clear to…

Politicians often ask for silly things in connection with technologies they don't really understand, to achieve goals they don't really expect to achieve, just in order to look good to a certain part of the electorate. Consider an analogy between modern social media sites and something like a phone network or postal mail service. What would happen if a politician suggested that phone companies or their national posta…

Post by bryanrasmussen » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 1:42 PM UTC

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #58

pieno wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well completing Know Your Customer checks and audits is sort of their job, isn’t it? They provide a service, saying that they will process payments unless the payment is prohibited by government sanctions. But instead of carrying out actual due diligence, they just block anything remotely related and put the onus and cost of doing their own job on their customers. At least they should have a better process to start p…

>saying that they will process payments unless the payment is prohibited by government sanctions if they say that they will process payments unless prohibited by government sanctions and then do not process payments that is not prohibited I guess they would be getting sued for those payments.

Post by b112 » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 1:57 PM UTC

flak48 wrote: post #104

pjmorris wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our six month old was on the list. It was a shock when we went to the airport, and they asked that he be taken aside for an interview with a TSA agent. We wrote a letter explaining the situation, and got a letter back acknowledging that our information had been received. They stopped asking 3-4 years later.

That they even requested that a 6 month old be taken aside is absolutely insane

Post by DaiPlusPlus » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 1:59 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #106

saddlerustle wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect there's a false positive rate on some teams's dashboard and it's kept at an acceptable level that won't require raising transaction fees or incurring too many more OFAC fines.

How would they know what transactions were true positives vs false positives? That would require them to know whether a transaction is bad or not, which as we know, is a hard problem

Post by ineedasername » Sat, Sep 12, 2020, 2:03 PM UTC

wyattpeak wrote: post #81

adrr wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they would, the fines are up to 250,000 per incident. If you share a name with someone on the AML list, good luck opening up a financial account anywhere and if you do manage to get an account, being able to fund the account from another source.

You're not comparing like with like there. If you share a name with a suspicious group, yes, that's a hard problem to solve. That's not this. This is a _product_ with the same name as a suspicious group. It's categorically irrelevant.