4 ms·
I worked with the fraud team implementing the security for a real time data ingestion pipeline at a major bank partner. I am a bit more informed on this than th
by charles_kaw 4y ago
I worked with the fraud team implementing the security for a real time data ingestion pipeline at a major bank partner. I am a bit more informed on this than the average hn poster :)
It's literally less information versus directly letting them know. One message lets them know you know, and the other doesn't.
> Forcing the fraudster to call if they want more information - excellent.
But there's something else you're not taking into account, which is innocent people who trigger your fraud detection.
>Cussing - doesn’t make a difference either way from an information perspective.
Well it certainly lets the fraudster know you know. A legitimate customer receiving that kind of abuse would be pretty unusual, don't you think?
- nindalf 4y ago> I’m a bit more informed than the average HN poster You’ve mistaken me for the average. I’ve worked in Integrity for a FAANG company and in FinCrime for a bank. I have a very good idea of how to mask information from bad people automating things. That’s literally all I’ve done for more than half a decade. Save your condescension for someone else.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- charles_kaw 4y agoIt doesn't change that this is basic logic. One yields less information than the other, and you didn't grasp that. Sorry if I came off as condescending. I don't really see a point in continuing this conversation.
- nindalf 4y agoIt's you who doesn't grasp what makes automation easier. > I don't really see a point in continuing this conversation. The only worthwhile thing you've said.