7 ms·

This makes me wonder if we'll be entering a legal world that's complex to the degree that only computers can understand it.

ams6110 10y ago
And a world where if your contract does not meet with the approval of the computer, you are screwed with no recourse just like you are when Paypal decides to freeze your account because one of their algos detected "fraud"
- tluyben2 10y ago
  > when Paypal decides to freeze your account because one of their algos detected "fraud" Even thinking about the times that happened to my company brings red in front of my eyes. Not many companies are that bad luckily. Google adsense/adwords comes close.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    Blaming the algo is a nice cop-out by Google and Paypal and on top of that they can afford canning their customer without many issues for them But how much is that going to cost them over long term instead of having actual thinking people reviewing the cases remains to be seen
    - tehlike 10y ago
      come on. there are >6b people on earth, with many many fraudsters trying to make money at other people's expense. It's a problem that has to be automated sooner or later. Computers are also much faster in fraud detection. You use your credit card at some store that you have never been, at an odd hour, and your bank triggers a fraud lock, and declines the transaction. That's efficiency. When there are billions of transactions occurring every day, of course a small error rate will reflect itself on a large number of false positives. PS: goog employee, but i appreciate fraud detection a lot (especially when it comes to how easy it is to leak SSN in this country, and how useful it is for obtaining credits) Edit: fact check. there aren't 6b people using computers obviously.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        > That's efficiency. When there are billions of transactions occurring every day, of course a small error rate will reflect itself on a large number of false positives. Yes, coupled with excellent customer service that sounds like a good plan. Unfortunately your employer seems to have decided that customer service is something they can't afford.
        tehlike 10y ago
        definitely google is not known for super good customer service, I will give you that.
        smcl 10y ago
        It's actually much worse than "not known for super good customer service", Google are known for awful customer service and not just for the "free" tier. I appreciate that as your employer Google means something different to you, and you certainly shouldn't be expected to answer on their behalf ... but lets not kid ourselves here
        tehlike 10y ago
        When I write here, i try to write it on my own. Being a google employee doesn't have any bearing on what I think about google products. I don't use many google products, because there are better ones out there. I think that should be the perspective when you read most comments here.
        smcl 10y ago
        Sure thing - I just didn't want to sound like I was saying "as a Googler this is YOUR problem" that's all :)
        tehlike 10y ago
        ah - sorry i misunderstood. Thank you.
    - __jal 10y ago
      Paypal does naive keyword matching. I know this, because I used the word 'aleph' in the comments field when sending someone money, because that word was in the name of the thing I was buying. Turns out, there is some terror group with the same word in their name. Also turns out, PP's "sophisticated" fraud detection will hold a payment for nearly a month, when a human looking at the transaction is going to figure out it is a false-positive from a bullshit system pretty quickly. Also turns out that apparently terrorists are somehow still capable of functioning, despite the best minds of our generation writing these super-cutting-edge detection algorithms. I have to imagine that there are members of the set of people who are terrorists and also stupid enough to type "for the greater glory of MyTerrorGroup!" in a PP comment field, but there can't be many. And guess what? This gets everyone thinking about what sort of scanning takes place. So in the interests of catching the two idiot financiers who do this, we're teaching everyone to Be Careful What You Say. Which, come to think of it, is probably an outcome that some are not unhappy about.
      - walterbell 10y ago
        Is there a open source github-hosted file with keywords that can be screened by a browser plugin?
        skissane 10y ago
        PayPal is likely using these US government lists: http://apps.export.gov/csl-search#/csl-search http://apps.export.gov/csl-search#/csl-search Companies like PayPal aren't doing this because they honestly believe it will catch terrorism. They are doing this because the US government tells them to, and they risk onerous penalties for non-compliance. "Aleph" is on that list as an alias of Aum Shinrikyo, the cult responsible for the Japanese subway Sarin attack in 1995. These regulations are somewhat pointless in that the list is public so anyone on the list can easily find out the fact they are on it and use an alias / front company / etc which isn't – so they only catch the truly incompetent terrorist funder/sanctions-buster/etc. But I don't think we can blame companies like PayPal for the existence of government regulations like this–I'm not aware that PayPal, or any other major corporation, has lobbied for these regulations to exist–although if PayPal take a month to remedy a false positive, that is unacceptably slow and it is fair to criticise them for that.
- adamqureshi 10y ago
  it happ to me. I called them. they said there is nothing you or your buyer did / can do. When i asked PP what the heck is it? they said to me: "Concentrated buyer exposure" I got the buyer on the phone with PP and me. PP said only option is for me to refund buyer then be paid outside PP OR wait for 90 days then i can access my money. It was the first time this ever happ to me, i set up stripe the very next day and am very happy. Not doing PP. Algo's have NO compassion or ANY contextual understanding of why the buyer is paying me ( this case was past invoices, paid in 1 shot like 4 ) guy on the phone , first thing he did was read his PP "script" this conversation can be recorded. What a PITA. He could do "jack" and "shit" to help me. Its my money. How could PP just freeze my money without recourse? WHO reads the FINE print?
  - mschuster91 10y ago
    I guess this is due to a combination of multiple factors: - your average of PP transfer amount per transaction is fairly low - that single buyer / transaction was way over the usual average, possibly in the five-figures range - the buyer paid PP with a credit card With the last item, it begins to make sense: the dispution timeframe is 90 days (per FTC, https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0219-disputing-credit-card-charges https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0219-disputing-credit-...). Paypal might be considering a possible dispute in small amounts (maybe 100$) as "chump change" but doesn't want to be on the hook for getting 10k $ back from the seller if the buyer wants to do a dispute. If I were a one-man-payment broker, I would do exactly the same. No way I'd accept such a liability, no matter how big or reliable your business is - it's not you who is the risk, it's the buyer who is a direct risk to my business because I'm at the interface with the CC issuing bank which will hit me with a negative 10k$ balance and lawyer fees to resolve the matter and get my account balanced. But, thank the heavens, I live in Germany where we have way more transactions done using SEPA direct transfer (online direct payment, next to impossible to revoke except for technical errors or fraud, and even if it's only possible in 10 days) or SEPA debit, which does have revocations too, but unlike with CCs, the issuer banks usually punish the customer harshly for wrongful revocations.
bradleyjg 10y ago
Probably not any time soon. The issue is that when push comes to shove, a contract is something that gets interpreted by a court. Judges are okay calling in expert witnesses to look at various kinds of evidence, but contract interpretation is a core part of their responsibility and they aren't going to willingly pass that off to computers. You might see automated arbitration and evolution of contract language to facilitate that, but even given the strong laws regarding the enforceability of arbitration agreements the courts are still are the ultimate backstop and have to be able to read and understand a contract.
- ycombinete 10y ago
  This is a great point! Thank you.
0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
Like the other comments imply, the computer only ever understands it poorly anyway.
patrickk 10y ago
Would it be worse than our current world of unreadable legalese contracts and legislation?
fenwick67 10y ago
Fortunately there is a precedent to this called the Vagueness Doctrine (at least in US law). Basically, a law is void if an "average person of common intelligence" can't interpret it.
- _acme 10y ago
  Unfortunately, I don't believe that is correct. To the extent of my understanding, the vagueness doctrine applies only in some criminal law circumstances, while contract litigation would generally be within the realm of civil law, so it would be inapplicable. There may, however, be relief available under doctrines like that of unconscionability.
SSLy 10y ago
Read up about 'Accelerando' (the book).
dreamfactory2 10y ago
This is why GDRP is bringing in a right to human review of automated decisions (for EU citizens)

ams6110 10y ago

And a world where if your contract does not meet with the approval of the computer, you are screwed with no recourse just like you are when Paypal decides to freeze your account because one of their algos detected "fraud"

tluyben2 10y ago
> when Paypal decides to freeze your account because one of their algos detected "fraud" Even thinking about the times that happened to my company brings red in front of my eyes. Not many companies are that bad luckily. Google adsense/adwords comes close.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  Blaming the algo is a nice cop-out by Google and Paypal and on top of that they can afford canning their customer without many issues for them But how much is that going to cost them over long term instead of having actual thinking people reviewing the cases remains to be seen
  - tehlike 10y ago
    come on. there are >6b people on earth, with many many fraudsters trying to make money at other people's expense. It's a problem that has to be automated sooner or later. Computers are also much faster in fraud detection. You use your credit card at some store that you have never been, at an odd hour, and your bank triggers a fraud lock, and declines the transaction. That's efficiency. When there are billions of transactions occurring every day, of course a small error rate will reflect itself on a large number of false positives. PS: goog employee, but i appreciate fraud detection a lot (especially when it comes to how easy it is to leak SSN in this country, and how useful it is for obtaining credits) Edit: fact check. there aren't 6b people using computers obviously.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      > That's efficiency. When there are billions of transactions occurring every day, of course a small error rate will reflect itself on a large number of false positives. Yes, coupled with excellent customer service that sounds like a good plan. Unfortunately your employer seems to have decided that customer service is something they can't afford.
      - tehlike 10y ago
        definitely google is not known for super good customer service, I will give you that.
        smcl 10y ago
        It's actually much worse than "not known for super good customer service", Google are known for awful customer service and not just for the "free" tier. I appreciate that as your employer Google means something different to you, and you certainly shouldn't be expected to answer on their behalf ... but lets not kid ourselves here
        tehlike 10y ago
        When I write here, i try to write it on my own. Being a google employee doesn't have any bearing on what I think about google products. I don't use many google products, because there are better ones out there. I think that should be the perspective when you read most comments here.
        smcl 10y ago
        Sure thing - I just didn't want to sound like I was saying "as a Googler this is YOUR problem" that's all :)
        tehlike 10y ago
        ah - sorry i misunderstood. Thank you.
  - __jal 10y ago
    Paypal does naive keyword matching. I know this, because I used the word 'aleph' in the comments field when sending someone money, because that word was in the name of the thing I was buying. Turns out, there is some terror group with the same word in their name. Also turns out, PP's "sophisticated" fraud detection will hold a payment for nearly a month, when a human looking at the transaction is going to figure out it is a false-positive from a bullshit system pretty quickly. Also turns out that apparently terrorists are somehow still capable of functioning, despite the best minds of our generation writing these super-cutting-edge detection algorithms. I have to imagine that there are members of the set of people who are terrorists and also stupid enough to type "for the greater glory of MyTerrorGroup!" in a PP comment field, but there can't be many. And guess what? This gets everyone thinking about what sort of scanning takes place. So in the interests of catching the two idiot financiers who do this, we're teaching everyone to Be Careful What You Say. Which, come to think of it, is probably an outcome that some are not unhappy about.
    - walterbell 10y ago
      Is there a open source github-hosted file with keywords that can be screened by a browser plugin?
      - skissane 10y ago
        PayPal is likely using these US government lists: http://apps.export.gov/csl-search#/csl-search http://apps.export.gov/csl-search#/csl-search Companies like PayPal aren't doing this because they honestly believe it will catch terrorism. They are doing this because the US government tells them to, and they risk onerous penalties for non-compliance. "Aleph" is on that list as an alias of Aum Shinrikyo, the cult responsible for the Japanese subway Sarin attack in 1995. These regulations are somewhat pointless in that the list is public so anyone on the list can easily find out the fact they are on it and use an alias / front company / etc which isn't – so they only catch the truly incompetent terrorist funder/sanctions-buster/etc. But I don't think we can blame companies like PayPal for the existence of government regulations like this–I'm not aware that PayPal, or any other major corporation, has lobbied for these regulations to exist–although if PayPal take a month to remedy a false positive, that is unacceptably slow and it is fair to criticise them for that.
adamqureshi 10y ago
it happ to me. I called them. they said there is nothing you or your buyer did / can do. When i asked PP what the heck is it? they said to me: "Concentrated buyer exposure" I got the buyer on the phone with PP and me. PP said only option is for me to refund buyer then be paid outside PP OR wait for 90 days then i can access my money. It was the first time this ever happ to me, i set up stripe the very next day and am very happy. Not doing PP. Algo's have NO compassion or ANY contextual understanding of why the buyer is paying me ( this case was past invoices, paid in 1 shot like 4 ) guy on the phone , first thing he did was read his PP "script" this conversation can be recorded. What a PITA. He could do "jack" and "shit" to help me. Its my money. How could PP just freeze my money without recourse? WHO reads the FINE print?
- mschuster91 10y ago
  I guess this is due to a combination of multiple factors: - your average of PP transfer amount per transaction is fairly low - that single buyer / transaction was way over the usual average, possibly in the five-figures range - the buyer paid PP with a credit card With the last item, it begins to make sense: the dispution timeframe is 90 days (per FTC, https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0219-disputing-credit-card-charges https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0219-disputing-credit-...). Paypal might be considering a possible dispute in small amounts (maybe 100$) as "chump change" but doesn't want to be on the hook for getting 10k $ back from the seller if the buyer wants to do a dispute. If I were a one-man-payment broker, I would do exactly the same. No way I'd accept such a liability, no matter how big or reliable your business is - it's not you who is the risk, it's the buyer who is a direct risk to my business because I'm at the interface with the CC issuing bank which will hit me with a negative 10k$ balance and lawyer fees to resolve the matter and get my account balanced. But, thank the heavens, I live in Germany where we have way more transactions done using SEPA direct transfer (online direct payment, next to impossible to revoke except for technical errors or fraud, and even if it's only possible in 10 days) or SEPA debit, which does have revocations too, but unlike with CCs, the issuer banks usually punish the customer harshly for wrongful revocations.

bradleyjg 10y ago

Probably not any time soon. The issue is that when push comes to shove, a contract is something that gets interpreted by a court. Judges are okay calling in expert witnesses to look at various kinds of evidence, but contract interpretation is a core part of their responsibility and they aren't going to willingly pass that off to computers. You might see automated arbitration and evolution of contract language to facilitate that, but even given the strong laws regarding the enforceability of arbitration agreements the courts are still are the ultimate backstop and have to be able to read and understand a contract.

ycombinete 10y ago
This is a great point! Thank you.

0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago

Like the other comments imply, the computer only ever understands it poorly anyway.

patrickk 10y ago

Would it be worse than our current world of unreadable legalese contracts and legislation?

fenwick67 10y ago

Fortunately there is a precedent to this called the Vagueness Doctrine (at least in US law). Basically, a law is void if an "average person of common intelligence" can't interpret it.

_acme 10y ago
Unfortunately, I don't believe that is correct. To the extent of my understanding, the vagueness doctrine applies only in some criminal law circumstances, while contract litigation would generally be within the realm of civil law, so it would be inapplicable. There may, however, be relief available under doctrines like that of unconscionability.

SSLy 10y ago

Read up about 'Accelerando' (the book).

dreamfactory2 10y ago

This is why GDRP is bringing in a right to human review of automated decisions (for EU citizens)