Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corollary: the more trustworthy people are the less expensive everything is.
Working with partners who have integrity is a massive boost to everything you do. People with high integrity attract more people with high integrity, compounding that effect.
The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero (2022)
81–90 of 203 posts
Re: The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero (2022)
#82I thought this article was going to be somehow less intuitive, but in reality, it simply says something most people inherently understand: that you have to grease the skids a bit to make things work. Dressing it up in academic sloganeering doesn't make the insight all that much more powerful. I think most people understand that a risk-free society is a poor society. Take driving: the safest way to drive is to not get…
Re: The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero (2022)
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me and you it's not surprising, for others it seems it is. Maybe people have gotten worse at intuitively understanding that tradeoffs need to be made in anything, and that the questions that define systems are never choices as much as what the tradeoff should be.
It's only makes sense when the cost of combating the fraud is greater than the money you are losing to fraud.
Re: The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero (2022)
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Yeah, sure. I mean "we don't do fraud detection, it's literally one of our design decisions that you can't do anything after fraud has happened, and also, fraud is kinda in our DNA" systems are totally well suited to solve that.
Re: The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero (2022)
#85> This is counterintuitive and sounds like it is trying a bit too hard to be clever. You should believe it. Yes, you're > you should welcome greater than zero fraud. You can think of it as a necessary expense, just like rent or salary or advertising is. You don't WELCOME costs just because they're necessary. Similarly, you wouldn't welcome fraud just because it's too costly to get rid of it. And if you add a tiny bit…
Re: The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero (2022)
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Yeah, sure. I mean "we don't do fraud detection, it's literally one of our design decisions that you can't do anything after fraud has happened, and also, fraud is kinda in our DNA" systems are totally well suited to solve that.
In COVID times governments noticed that freezing bank accounts was an option. Having systems that cannot be subjected to that is wise; even if it involves high costs.
Re: The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero (2022)
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Important corollary: it may well be possible to reduce fraud much closer to zero (then the currently accepted rate) without negative effects on legitimate business. For example, the USA's lack of a national ID (and the resulting adoption of realldy ba substitues like SSNs, driver's licenses and "two photo IDs") has made a plethora of fraud techniques ridiculously easy. In many other countries, "identity theft" so rar…
I lived in Spain and never understood how the DNI/NIE's weren't an easy vector for identity theft. You need to give the number to do the simplest things, and many people wanted to see the card (and possibly make a copy). As far as I know the smart chip on my card wasn't used once in 2.5 years. I suspect the digital certificates you could get from the government likely aren't as well protected by the general (non-tech…
For most ID-requiring processes people undergo training to identify these security features, to the level of fraud that it's worth detecting for said process.
When the post office asks for your ID to retrieve a package, they won't check much, but I don't think it's unusual for banks to pass your card through the RFID reader and have a high res picture of your face on screen even if only to recognize you properly (btw you have apps to read such data).
Re: The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero (2022)
#88> This is counterintuitive and sounds like it is trying a bit too hard to be clever. You should believe it. Yes, you're > you should welcome greater than zero fraud. You can think of it as a necessary expense, just like rent or salary or advertising is. You don't WELCOME costs just because they're necessary. Similarly, you wouldn't welcome fraud just because it's too costly to get rid of it. And if you add a tiny bit…
Re: The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero (2022)
#89Anti-fraud departments have apparently not gotten the memo, and the whole situation has gotten obscene in the last few years. I regularly travel for work and it's impossible for me to make any purchases on major sites like Walmart, Best Buy, Target, Costco, etc. They all will accept an order, charge my card, and then randomly cancel the order some hours to days later, and refund me. Similarly when traveling internati…
Re: The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero (2022)
#90Just like everything. The optimal amount of crime, unemployment, accidents, deaths, etc... is not zero. For example, when building a road, there is a certain chance that an accident will happen, that some people will die, and that could have been prevented. For example, by installing a guard rail, enforcing speed limits, or by taking a different path. But installing that guard rail for a one in a million chance that…