Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tell HN: Automatic fraud detection is making my life hell

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 406 posts

Re: Tell HN: Automatic fraud detection is making my life hell

#251

Post by viraptor »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #227
qingcharles wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to place some online bets for a friend who is in prison. But the betting sites don't allow you to use an ethernet cable to connect to your router o_O (unless you also enable wifi.. except my desktop doesn't have wifi) https://helpcenter.il.betrivers.com/hc/en-us/articles/360049...

What is the heuristic they are checking for here? That problematic actors overwhelmingly will be unable to show an active wifi adapter?

If you get a list of wifi networks, you can look them up in various databases too check possible locations of the device.

Re: Tell HN: Automatic fraud detection is making my life hell

#252

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

k8svet wrote: post #124
cangeroo wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you open an account with Revolut?

Trust me, I'm taking notes! I've tried researching this, but "credit card company that sends TOTP over email" is not really Google-able. Revolut is on my list now, though. Thanks!

I'd avoid Revolut, they're worse than banks with regard to verifications.

Re: Tell HN: Automatic fraud detection is making my life hell

#253

Post by orangepurple »

qingcharles wrote: post #185
dreamcompiler wrote: post #131

Wrong assumptions programmers make about fraud prevention: -- A mobile phone number uniquely identifies a single person. -- Every person has a mobile phone number and they only have one mobile phone number. -- If a person's mobile phone number is associated with VoIP or Google Voice, that indicates fraud. -- Every person always has their mobile phone handy and it is always able to receive calls and SMS messages under…

I tried to place some online bets for a friend who is in prison. But the betting sites don't allow you to use an ethernet cable to connect to your router o_O (unless you also enable wifi.. except my desktop doesn't have wifi) https://helpcenter.il.betrivers.com/hc/en-us/articles/360049...

How do they scan for wifi?

Re: Tell HN: Automatic fraud detection is making my life hell

#254

Post by cj »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #243
cj wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with many of these examples is that 99% of the time, it is a sign of fraud, and 1% of the time it’s a false positive. > If a person's mobile phone number is associated with VoIP or Google Voice, that indicates fraud. I’ve been using this heuristic (along with VPN and IP geo lookup) when screening job candidates after a massive influx of developers outside the US applying for US-only remote roles. I discov…

I'm confused about what such applicants hope to gain by this. What's their business model? They're going to have to give you a SS# or EIN (if they're a self-employed consultant) before you can send them a paycheck, right? And the Social Security Administration has a website where you can verify SS numbers. So what's the play here?

https://leaddev.com/team/beware-fake-job-candidates

Re: Tell HN: Automatic fraud detection is making my life hell

#255

Post by viraptor »

quags wrote: post #141
dreamcompiler wrote: post #131

Wrong assumptions programmers make about fraud prevention: -- A mobile phone number uniquely identifies a single person. -- Every person has a mobile phone number and they only have one mobile phone number. -- If a person's mobile phone number is associated with VoIP or Google Voice, that indicates fraud. -- Every person always has their mobile phone handy and it is always able to receive calls and SMS messages under…

All these can be the wrong assumptions for sure. Working in a space with some fraud though I can tell you the majority of users verify fine and there ate only the few percentage that don’t for any number of reasons some what you have given above. For smaller vendors though things to consider are - a charge back can come up to 6 months later. A loss of that is not only a loss of funds but a charge back fee - too many…

> only the few percentage that don’t

Few percent of transactions for a payment processor means a few billion transactions. Visa on its own processes ~200B transactions a year. That's not a great threshold.

Re: Tell HN: Automatic fraud detection is making my life hell

#256

Post by SantalBlush »

Aldipower wrote: post #144

I would like to emphasize his point. When we get into a digital only currency world, you are loosing control. He is giving a real life example. Nothing hypothetical. Think about blocked - without given reason - Google accounts and such. Could be you bank account, in the future, too!

Counterpoint: My dad sold a lot of pot in the 80s, and subscribed to High Times Magazine. They had an ad for a board game called "Dealer McDope", and he mailed an order for it with (naturally) cash, and waited. Eventually, he gets a reply in the mail: "No money, no game!" He was pissed.

My mom loves that story.

Re: Tell HN: Automatic fraud detection is making my life hell

#257

Post by godelski »

cj wrote: post #213
matheusmoreira wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wish there were a way to detect fraud while never having a false positive. There is: networking. People you trust will tell you about candidates they know about. > it’s also not realistic to optimize for the 1% It's not about what's realistic, it's about what's right. Nobody should be falsely treated like a criminal. That 1% should carry enough legal liability to completely offset if not exceed the gains of preve…

It’s acceptable to reject a candidate because they’re not “a friend of a friend”, but it’s not acceptable to reject a candidate because they submitted an application with an IP address from Pakistan with a VOIP phone number?

> It’s acceptable to ... but it's not...

Wrong framing. The parent didn't set it up as a means to filter. In your situation you have a list of applicants that you are filtering. In the parent's scenario they do not yet have applicants, they simply ask their network if there's any suggested candidates which then forms the list that they will filter from.

It's as discriminatory as posting on Linkedin but not on Indeed. The discrimination would come from the counterfactual question of: supposing they posted the job listing to a larger network _and_ supposing a clearly more qualified applicant applied, would that better applicant be turned down due to nepotism. That's the difference. No one is getting upset at family businesses despite almost certainly failing the counterfactual.

Re: Tell HN: Automatic fraud detection is making my life hell

#258

Post by orangepurple »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #249
tim333 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wise.com is pretty good for international card stuff. You send them a bit of money and they send you a card etc.

I wanted to use them, but they'd only accept payment via Plaid, that ridiculous service where I have to hand my banking password to a third party -- you know, the exact thing that we all know to never ever do. That's a nope for me, sadly.

That's not true at all. You can move money via ACH.

Re: Tell HN: Automatic fraud detection is making my life hell

#259

Post by godelski »

SantalBlush wrote: post #237
matheusmoreira wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the first case, you're not rejecting candidates at all. Nor are you treating them like potential fraudsters.

The result is the same, and it's the result that is the issue. If potential applicants aren't given consideration because they're not in the network, it doesn't matter that the hiring committee thinks they're innocent, or isn't technically rejecting them. It's a bad heuristic.

Be careful with your logic and framing. I explained why it was poor framing above. But the way you've (and the gp) framed it is dangerous. Swap "voip numbers" for "x skin color" and you're in clear unethical and illegal territory. But swap the attributes of the parent and you don't get this issue. If parent is x race and all their friends are also x race you're not discriminating against y race through their means because they aren't turning down based on race, it is just closer to changing the odds. The problem isn't when you change the odds (unless there's an extreme manipulation) but rather how you respond to samples from the distribution.

Re: Tell HN: Automatic fraud detection is making my life hell

#260

Post by OwenFM »

cj wrote: post #137
dreamcompiler wrote: post #131

Wrong assumptions programmers make about fraud prevention: -- A mobile phone number uniquely identifies a single person. -- Every person has a mobile phone number and they only have one mobile phone number. -- If a person's mobile phone number is associated with VoIP or Google Voice, that indicates fraud. -- Every person always has their mobile phone handy and it is always able to receive calls and SMS messages under…

The problem with many of these examples is that 99% of the time, it is a sign of fraud, and 1% of the time it’s a false positive. > If a person's mobile phone number is associated with VoIP or Google Voice, that indicates fraud. I’ve been using this heuristic (along with VPN and IP geo lookup) when screening job candidates after a massive influx of developers outside the US applying for US-only remote roles. I discov…

When I lived in the US, I primarily used Google Voice, as I could still use it in foreign countries.

When I had asked T-Mobile to enable international roaming on a particular date, they said they would, but then didn't end up doing it, messing up my travel plans because I didn't have Internet when I arrived. Luckily I was in my home country (Australia) where I could speak the language, but it was a foreign city.

I eventually used someone else's phone to speak to a T-Mobile rep and was sent through a credit check, asking me my American social security number. I'm not American, I don't remember off-hand what government ID I was given there. Luckily I happened to have taken my social security card with me on vacation. I told them, if I can afford to travel internationally, you'd probably think I could also afford a phone plan; why am I being put through this bullshit and why can't you just keep your promises?

Post reply on HN