3 ms·

Honestly, if I was a fraudster and I read a description of Upwork's actions here I'd be delighted. If I pay myself with a stolen card via two accounts through U

Honestly, if I was a fraudster and I read a description of Upwork's actions here I'd be delighted. If I pay myself with a stolen card via two accounts through Upwork, their standard policy is to ignore the card fraud account and tell the freelancer account(s) the transaction was laundered through that they'll have to pay Upwork back out of future earnings, if any. That's a fraudster's dream antifraud policy, because they have no intention of using any freelancer accounts they create for real work so there's nothing lost, no police are involved, and Upwork doesn't even care if someone is willing to testify that someone admits to using someone else's card and knows where they live! Upwork's behaviour is no deterrent to actual multiple account fraudsters at all, and positive encouragement to fraudsters with stolen cards that can profit from selling on actual work done by actual freelancers. The only context it makes sense is if they're pretty sure the freelancer account is an innocent party they're happy to continue to use their platform, but figure it's cheaper and easier to squeeze them for the chargeback than chase the person who entered the fraudulent cards.

wpietri 5y ago
I see your point, but you take it too far. Upwork's behavior generally seems to include significant anti-fraud deterrents. In this narrow case when the fraud has already happened, it's true that washing their hands of it doesn't act as a further anti-fraud defense. But it's a very narrow case where a credit-card owner is not going to notice thousands of dollars per month over a multi-month period and where the freelancer specifically doesn't use their time tracking system. Where it does help Upwork is helping freelancers see that a) they really need to follow the rules, and b) if they don't, complaining won't get them any more money.
- notahacker 5y ago
  It's a very narrow case, but we're talking about how this case appears to fraudsters, not whatever their other policies might be. Fraud policies are necessarily somewhat opaque and often unfairly penalise innocent parties who come under suspicion but "we're so confident you didn't actually collude with this individual we're not even suspending your account, but we will take the $12.5k we lost off your future earnings with us because it's easier than attempting to pursue the fraudster" isn't even an anti-fraud policy. If the freelancer is telling the whole truth, it appears they did follow the rules, and Upwork's client committed a felony, and Upwork's response is to try to recover funds from the freelancer. If carders pay any attention at all which they probably don't that's a positive signal. HN coverage is probably more relevant to freelancers (and genuine paying clients). Its possible it'll scare a few more into using Upwork's spyware tool, but also likely it'll just persuade more to look elsewhere. Not sure the PR damage is necessarily less than $12.5k either..
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Again, I see what you're saying, but you take it too far. You have to look at the whole basket of outcomes if you want to evaluate the policies from Upwork's perspective. Is the PR damage less than $12.5k? Maybe. But the proper number to compare with is 12.5k * all the other times this happens or even could happen if the freelancer gets slack.

wpietri 5y ago

I see your point, but you take it too far. Upwork's behavior generally seems to include significant anti-fraud deterrents. In this narrow case when the fraud has already happened, it's true that washing their hands of it doesn't act as a further anti-fraud defense. But it's a very narrow case where a credit-card owner is not going to notice thousands of dollars per month over a multi-month period and where the freelancer specifically doesn't use their time tracking system. Where it does help Upwork is helping freelancers see that a) they really need to follow the rules, and b) if they don't, complaining won't get them any more money.

notahacker 5y ago
It's a very narrow case, but we're talking about how this case appears to fraudsters, not whatever their other policies might be. Fraud policies are necessarily somewhat opaque and often unfairly penalise innocent parties who come under suspicion but "we're so confident you didn't actually collude with this individual we're not even suspending your account, but we will take the $12.5k we lost off your future earnings with us because it's easier than attempting to pursue the fraudster" isn't even an anti-fraud policy. If the freelancer is telling the whole truth, it appears they did follow the rules, and Upwork's client committed a felony, and Upwork's response is to try to recover funds from the freelancer. If carders pay any attention at all which they probably don't that's a positive signal. HN coverage is probably more relevant to freelancers (and genuine paying clients). Its possible it'll scare a few more into using Upwork's spyware tool, but also likely it'll just persuade more to look elsewhere. Not sure the PR damage is necessarily less than $12.5k either..
- wpietri 5y ago
  Again, I see what you're saying, but you take it too far. You have to look at the whole basket of outcomes if you want to evaluate the policies from Upwork's perspective. Is the PR damage less than $12.5k? Maybe. But the proper number to compare with is 12.5k * all the other times this happens or even could happen if the freelancer gets slack.