8 ms·

From the article, it sounds like like they do cover the costs of card fraud if the time is tracked using their tool. It's only when hours are manually entered t

From the article, it sounds like like they do cover the costs of card fraud if the time is tracked using their tool. It's only when hours are manually entered that they don't. And honestly, I get that. It's very hard for Upwork to tell the difference between this and a conspiracy between freelancer and client to steal money from a credit card. Even so, my initial sympathies were with the freelancer. But then I looked at the main page of his website. he is a "Blockchain & AI Focused Tech and Investment Consultant" specializing in "investments related to Blockchain, Cryptocurrency, Fintech, Artificial Intelligence". It seems to me that a) somebody claiming this level of business sophistication should be walking the walk, and b) anybody working in the cryptocurrency space should vet clients very carefully given the high level of fraud and insanity in the space. So I think what I'd really like to see here is Upwork saying, "We're very sorry the client screwed us all over and we suggest you consider suing them to get paid. Have your lawyer contact us and we'll turn over any records you need to that end."

MereInterest 5y ago
> It's very hard for Upwork to tell the difference between this and a conspiracy between freelancer and client to steal money from a credit card. I agree that it's hard to tell the difference, but do not believe that gives Upwork the authority to require a refund from the freelancer. The freelancer made an agreement with Upwork that, in exchange for payment from Upwork, the freelancer would perform work as directed by the client. By requiring a refund, Upwork is claiming that the freelancer either (a) did not perform work as directed or (b) is conspiring with the client to scam Upwork. In the case of (a), the client may give evidence against the freelancer. In the case of (b), the burden of proof lies with Upwork to prove that such a conspiracy existed, not on the freelancer to prove that no such conspiracy existed. Upwork has four ethical options going forward. First, Upwork may accept the cost of fraud as a part of doing business, and continue working with this freelancer. Second, Upwork may accept the cost of fraud as a part of doing business, but limit that cost by refusing to hire this freelancer in the future. Third, Upwork may recover payment from the client through the courts. Fourth, Upwork may accuse the freelancer of being part of the client's fraud, and may recover payment through the courts. Instead of taking any of these options, Upwork has chosen the unethical option to require payment from the freelancer without first establishing any culpability on the part of the freelancer. > he is a "Blockchain & AI Focused Tech and Investment Consultant" specializing in "investments related to Blockchain, Cryptocurrency, Fintech, Artificial Intelligence". It seems to me that a) somebody claiming this level of business sophistication should be walking the walk, and b) anybody working in the cryptocurrency space should vet clients very carefully given the high level of fraud and insanity in the space. I agree, considering Blockchain and Cryptocurrency as realms of unmitigated fraud whose entire existence consist of nested pyramid schemes. However, I do not think that establishing a precedent allowing abuse of a power differential in somebody's livelihood is acceptable, even when the victim is part of the larger Blockchain/Cryptocurrency scheme. > So I think what I'd really like to see here is Upwork saying, "We're very sorry the client screwed us all over and we suggest you consider suing them to get paid. Have your lawyer contact us and we'll turn over any records you need to that end." Except that the freelancer's agreement is with Upwork. The client screwed over Upwork. A bank is responsible for verifying the identity of somebody accessing an account, and may not pass on the costs to the account holder. Upwork is responsible for verifying the identity of a client's payment, and may not pass on the costs to the freelancer.
- oneplane 5y ago
  > gives Upwork the authority It is the rules Upwork sets that gives it the authority, rules everyone agrees to before entering in a relationship.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Contracts are constantly litigated and various terms get struck all the time. It’s not that everyone agreed with Upwork that gives them control it’s the near impossibility of litigating amounts in question without losing money. Upwork in the other hand has extreme incentives to make these terms stick because they have a lot more at stake than just ~12k.
- wpietri 5y ago
  > The freelancer made an agreement with Upwork that, in exchange for payment from Upwork, the freelancer would perform work as directed by the client. Do you have proof of any of this? I'd bet cash money that everything that happened here is entirely covered the actual agreement.
TigeriusKirk 5y ago
>anybody working in the cryptocurrency space should vet clients very carefully given the high level of fraud and insanity in the space. Normally I'd agree, and I'd just flat out refuse to do crypto work for people over Upwork. But these payments came over the course of two years. After the first few settle, I can't blame him for assuming everything is hunkydory. What's insane is that the bank is letting someone do chargebacks going back two years.
- wpietri 5y ago
  How do we know they did chargebacks for two years? I see 6 items, which I'm guessing is the 6 months that my card issuer limits chargebacks. If that's the case, then the freelancer could still be well ahead on his slice of the credit card fraud.
lobocinza 5y ago
Their tool is a spyware. They eat 20% of all their freelancers earnings and it's up to them to verify the client credit cart and identity so they should do better and cover this. What is worse is that it took then 2 years so the freelancer possibly paid taxes and withdrawing fees. Fraud sucks but I don't think someone should be able to make a refund years past an event. Due time is important.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  It's utterly ridiculous. If you want to be the 'merchant of record' then you absorb the risk, it's that simple. What tool gets used has nothing to do with that, then they need to improve their KYC work.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >It's utterly ridiculous. If you want to be the 'merchant of record' then you absorb the risk, it's that simple. Are you saying that as something to aspire to, or something that's standard practice? I don't think most people would have a problem with bigcorp absorbing the risk, but in practice most e-commerce platforms pass the chargeback risk to their sellers.
    - clintonb 5y ago
      Generally, in the payments space, the “merchant of record” is who the banks go to with chargebacks and disputes. I haven’t heard of this as an industry standard. Large platforms where the customer thinks they are paying the platform, such as Lyft or Uber, take on the chargeback risk. Etsy, Shopify, and others where the customer is paying a vendor tend to pass on the fees to the vendor. Ultimately, it’s up to the platform how they want to handle this. It’s most likely listed in the terms of service.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      It is the expectation they create, by taking care of the drudgery of having customers Upwork puts itself in an excellent position to reap a chunk of the turnover of the freelancers they put to work, but it also puts the onus on them to ensure that customers pay their invoices and do so promptly and properly. Note that there is absolutely no dispute at all about the work being performed or the quality of the work, and if there was they might have a leg to stand on, even if that came to light this long after the fact (though, again, that would point to some process errors at Upwork). The responsibility of payment processing and due diligence with respect to which customers they do business with and how they arrange the various payment options lies entirely with Upwork. In this case Upwork is the seller. They buy the product from someone else and that's two separate relationships, Upwork now suddenly wants to pretend that they weren't part of the transaction after all and that the relationship ran directly from buyer to their supplier but that isn't the case.
kikimora 5y ago
Even if track time with their tool Upwork can take money back from you. I’ve witness the case where client paid $40k with Amex card and then chargeback. Poor freelancer lost $40k because Upwork took that money from his account as soon as it saw chargeback from Amex.
altacc 5y ago
> Even so, my initial sympathies were with the freelancer. But then I looked at the main page of his website. he is a "Blockchain & AI Focused Tech and Investment Consultant" Whilst I have little time for the crypto world, this is totally irrelevant. They were using a large & popular freelance platform for legally acceptable work and the exchange of fiat currency for billable work. People use platforms like Upwork in the (often mistaken) belief that it adds a layer of trust and safety to a working arrangement, including billing.
- earnesti 5y ago
  I think it is relevant. If you work for crypto scammers, problems are more likely. If you work for normal clients, via upwork or some other way, problems are less likely.
  - xupybd 5y ago
    Upwork handles payment. The freelancer has no ability to verify the card used for payment.
  - literallycancer 5y ago
    If you work for "crypto scammers" just take partial or complete payment up front, in crypto which can't be retroactively taken from you.
    - democracy 5y ago
      tbh he might try not to pay back anyways, but they might close his upwork account, so the payment method is irrelevant here, isn't it?
young_unixer 5y ago
The actual problem is that chargebacks are possible when using credit cards, and chargebacks are possible because of the legal concept of card fraud (i.e. the person holding the credentials could actually not be legally "authorized" to realize the transaction), and the legal concept of card fraud exists mainly for two reasons: 1. Banks are bad at security. 2. People are bad at security. 3. The responsibility in the case of fraudulent transactions is not clear. Who is to blame? The bank or the user? Cryptocurrencies either solve these problems or neutralize the negative consequences of these problems: - There is no bank to impose dumb security rules - When credentials are "stolen", the user has no one else to blame than themselves. - There's no concept of fraud. Whoever holds the credentials (private key or nmemonic seed) is authorized to realize transactions using the credentials. - There are no chargebacks. Once a transaction is confirmed, the receiver can be certain that their money is not going to get pulled back.
- hnarn 5y ago
  > Banks are bad at security. I disagree. I live in Europe and all my online card transactions over a nominal sum (~$10) are tied to a certificate-based security application that requires confirmation on my phone. This same application is used by all banks and most government entities. There are of course banks in the world that are bad at security, but “banks”, as a general term, most definitely are not. The fundamental problem is, of course, that security is annoying, so any fundamental security improvement to online banking needs to be mandatory and centralized, and if there is no will to push something like that I’m not surprised nothing happens.
- warkdarrior 5y ago
  Shifting all liability to users ("the user has no one else to blame than themselves") is probably one of the most anti-consumer moves ever. Especially in the context of digital credentials that people do not know how to secure and for which good usable security mechanisms do not exist. Also, what happens in transactions where the seller does not deliver the right item? What if I buy a laptop off eBay, but I receive a box of rocks instead?
- short_sells_poo 5y ago
dheera 5y ago
> Have your lawyer contact us That alone would cost several thousand dollars. Upwork should provide free lawyers for incidents like this as part of their package.
- pclmulqdq 5y ago
  There may be an arbitration agreement in their EULA, and that may allow them to settle this more cheaply than using lawyers.
conductr 5y ago
The time tracking is to protect the client from the freelancer scamming. Time is not even being disputed here. Upwork is handling payments, and taking 20% fee for that risk (as I recall), so they need to eat it when they screw up by allowing payment with an unauthorized card. There is nothing the freelancer could do to know that payments are valid, because upwork is supposed to do that.
tyingq 5y ago
It's not a time tracking tool per se. It counts keystrokes, mouse swipes, takes screenshots, and so on. It's a spyware nanny cam. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/upwork-freelancers-work-diary-keystrokes-screenshot https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/upwork...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

MereInterest 5y ago

> It's very hard for Upwork to tell the difference between this and a conspiracy between freelancer and client to steal money from a credit card. I agree that it's hard to tell the difference, but do not believe that gives Upwork the authority to require a refund from the freelancer. The freelancer made an agreement with Upwork that, in exchange for payment from Upwork, the freelancer would perform work as directed by the client. By requiring a refund, Upwork is claiming that the freelancer either (a) did not perform work as directed or (b) is conspiring with the client to scam Upwork. In the case of (a), the client may give evidence against the freelancer. In the case of (b), the burden of proof lies with Upwork to prove that such a conspiracy existed, not on the freelancer to prove that no such conspiracy existed. Upwork has four ethical options going forward. First, Upwork may accept the cost of fraud as a part of doing business, and continue working with this freelancer. Second, Upwork may accept the cost of fraud as a part of doing business, but limit that cost by refusing to hire this freelancer in the future. Third, Upwork may recover payment from the client through the courts. Fourth, Upwork may accuse the freelancer of being part of the client's fraud, and may recover payment through the courts. Instead of taking any of these options, Upwork has chosen the unethical option to require payment from the freelancer without first establishing any culpability on the part of the freelancer. > he is a "Blockchain & AI Focused Tech and Investment Consultant" specializing in "investments related to Blockchain, Cryptocurrency, Fintech, Artificial Intelligence". It seems to me that a) somebody claiming this level of business sophistication should be walking the walk, and b) anybody working in the cryptocurrency space should vet clients very carefully given the high level of fraud and insanity in the space. I agree, considering Blockchain and Cryptocurrency as realms of unmitigated fraud whose entire existence consist of nested pyramid schemes. However, I do not think that establishing a precedent allowing abuse of a power differential in somebody's livelihood is acceptable, even when the victim is part of the larger Blockchain/Cryptocurrency scheme. > So I think what I'd really like to see here is Upwork saying, "We're very sorry the client screwed us all over and we suggest you consider suing them to get paid. Have your lawyer contact us and we'll turn over any records you need to that end." Except that the freelancer's agreement is with Upwork. The client screwed over Upwork. A bank is responsible for verifying the identity of somebody accessing an account, and may not pass on the costs to the account holder. Upwork is responsible for verifying the identity of a client's payment, and may not pass on the costs to the freelancer.

oneplane 5y ago
> gives Upwork the authority It is the rules Upwork sets that gives it the authority, rules everyone agrees to before entering in a relationship.
- Retric 5y ago
  Contracts are constantly litigated and various terms get struck all the time. It’s not that everyone agreed with Upwork that gives them control it’s the near impossibility of litigating amounts in question without losing money. Upwork in the other hand has extreme incentives to make these terms stick because they have a lot more at stake than just ~12k.
wpietri 5y ago
> The freelancer made an agreement with Upwork that, in exchange for payment from Upwork, the freelancer would perform work as directed by the client. Do you have proof of any of this? I'd bet cash money that everything that happened here is entirely covered the actual agreement.

TigeriusKirk 5y ago

>anybody working in the cryptocurrency space should vet clients very carefully given the high level of fraud and insanity in the space. Normally I'd agree, and I'd just flat out refuse to do crypto work for people over Upwork. But these payments came over the course of two years. After the first few settle, I can't blame him for assuming everything is hunkydory. What's insane is that the bank is letting someone do chargebacks going back two years.

wpietri 5y ago
How do we know they did chargebacks for two years? I see 6 items, which I'm guessing is the 6 months that my card issuer limits chargebacks. If that's the case, then the freelancer could still be well ahead on his slice of the credit card fraud.

lobocinza 5y ago

Their tool is a spyware. They eat 20% of all their freelancers earnings and it's up to them to verify the client credit cart and identity so they should do better and cover this. What is worse is that it took then 2 years so the freelancer possibly paid taxes and withdrawing fees. Fraud sucks but I don't think someone should be able to make a refund years past an event. Due time is important.

jacquesm 5y ago
It's utterly ridiculous. If you want to be the 'merchant of record' then you absorb the risk, it's that simple. What tool gets used has nothing to do with that, then they need to improve their KYC work.
- gruez 5y ago
  >It's utterly ridiculous. If you want to be the 'merchant of record' then you absorb the risk, it's that simple. Are you saying that as something to aspire to, or something that's standard practice? I don't think most people would have a problem with bigcorp absorbing the risk, but in practice most e-commerce platforms pass the chargeback risk to their sellers.
  - clintonb 5y ago
    Generally, in the payments space, the “merchant of record” is who the banks go to with chargebacks and disputes. I haven’t heard of this as an industry standard. Large platforms where the customer thinks they are paying the platform, such as Lyft or Uber, take on the chargeback risk. Etsy, Shopify, and others where the customer is paying a vendor tend to pass on the fees to the vendor. Ultimately, it’s up to the platform how they want to handle this. It’s most likely listed in the terms of service.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    It is the expectation they create, by taking care of the drudgery of having customers Upwork puts itself in an excellent position to reap a chunk of the turnover of the freelancers they put to work, but it also puts the onus on them to ensure that customers pay their invoices and do so promptly and properly. Note that there is absolutely no dispute at all about the work being performed or the quality of the work, and if there was they might have a leg to stand on, even if that came to light this long after the fact (though, again, that would point to some process errors at Upwork). The responsibility of payment processing and due diligence with respect to which customers they do business with and how they arrange the various payment options lies entirely with Upwork. In this case Upwork is the seller. They buy the product from someone else and that's two separate relationships, Upwork now suddenly wants to pretend that they weren't part of the transaction after all and that the relationship ran directly from buyer to their supplier but that isn't the case.

kikimora 5y ago

Even if track time with their tool Upwork can take money back from you. I’ve witness the case where client paid $40k with Amex card and then chargeback. Poor freelancer lost $40k because Upwork took that money from his account as soon as it saw chargeback from Amex.

altacc 5y ago

> Even so, my initial sympathies were with the freelancer. But then I looked at the main page of his website. he is a "Blockchain & AI Focused Tech and Investment Consultant" Whilst I have little time for the crypto world, this is totally irrelevant. They were using a large & popular freelance platform for legally acceptable work and the exchange of fiat currency for billable work. People use platforms like Upwork in the (often mistaken) belief that it adds a layer of trust and safety to a working arrangement, including billing.

earnesti 5y ago
I think it is relevant. If you work for crypto scammers, problems are more likely. If you work for normal clients, via upwork or some other way, problems are less likely.
- xupybd 5y ago
  Upwork handles payment. The freelancer has no ability to verify the card used for payment.
- literallycancer 5y ago
  If you work for "crypto scammers" just take partial or complete payment up front, in crypto which can't be retroactively taken from you.
  - democracy 5y ago
    tbh he might try not to pay back anyways, but they might close his upwork account, so the payment method is irrelevant here, isn't it?

young_unixer 5y ago

The actual problem is that chargebacks are possible when using credit cards, and chargebacks are possible because of the legal concept of card fraud (i.e. the person holding the credentials could actually not be legally "authorized" to realize the transaction), and the legal concept of card fraud exists mainly for two reasons: 1. Banks are bad at security. 2. People are bad at security. 3. The responsibility in the case of fraudulent transactions is not clear. Who is to blame? The bank or the user? Cryptocurrencies either solve these problems or neutralize the negative consequences of these problems: - There is no bank to impose dumb security rules - When credentials are "stolen", the user has no one else to blame than themselves. - There's no concept of fraud. Whoever holds the credentials (private key or nmemonic seed) is authorized to realize transactions using the credentials. - There are no chargebacks. Once a transaction is confirmed, the receiver can be certain that their money is not going to get pulled back.

hnarn 5y ago
> Banks are bad at security. I disagree. I live in Europe and all my online card transactions over a nominal sum (~$10) are tied to a certificate-based security application that requires confirmation on my phone. This same application is used by all banks and most government entities. There are of course banks in the world that are bad at security, but “banks”, as a general term, most definitely are not. The fundamental problem is, of course, that security is annoying, so any fundamental security improvement to online banking needs to be mandatory and centralized, and if there is no will to push something like that I’m not surprised nothing happens.
warkdarrior 5y ago
Shifting all liability to users ("the user has no one else to blame than themselves") is probably one of the most anti-consumer moves ever. Especially in the context of digital credentials that people do not know how to secure and for which good usable security mechanisms do not exist. Also, what happens in transactions where the seller does not deliver the right item? What if I buy a laptop off eBay, but I receive a box of rocks instead?
short_sells_poo 5y ago

dheera 5y ago

> Have your lawyer contact us That alone would cost several thousand dollars. Upwork should provide free lawyers for incidents like this as part of their package.

pclmulqdq 5y ago
There may be an arbitration agreement in their EULA, and that may allow them to settle this more cheaply than using lawyers.

conductr 5y ago

The time tracking is to protect the client from the freelancer scamming. Time is not even being disputed here. Upwork is handling payments, and taking 20% fee for that risk (as I recall), so they need to eat it when they screw up by allowing payment with an unauthorized card. There is nothing the freelancer could do to know that payments are valid, because upwork is supposed to do that.

tyingq 5y ago

It's not a time tracking tool per se. It counts keystrokes, mouse swipes, takes screenshots, and so on. It's a spyware nanny cam. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/upwork-freelancers-work-diary-keystrokes-screenshot https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/upwork...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]