5 ms·

Would you feel differently for someone hired to break into your home and retrieve valuables or information? Or perhaps hired to perform a hit on the life of som

Would you feel differently for someone hired to break into your home and retrieve valuables or information? Or perhaps hired to perform a hit on the life of someone you care about? Transactional sex might not be something you want people drawing lines around with financial regulation, but usually people have a line.

LewisVerstappen 3y ago
Nope. There are other mechanisms to target illegal actions, such as sending the police to arrest the person. Those actions are guarded by due process and the right to trial. Using the financial system to target people is not.
- tchaffee 3y ago
  So you would willingly, knowingly, and personally process a transaction to kill someone? Not your problem, let the police discover it?
  - zhfliz 3y ago
    if you know about/suspect it you report it. how do you know with 100% certainty/due process that this is indeed the case and it's not just your ML algorithm going crazy? people can also pay with physical money if they desire to do so.
    - tchaffee 3y ago
      What I asked is specific: if you know the money is for a hit job will you still accept the business and take your fee or is there a moral line you personally won't cross? Yes, it's the job of the police to investigate but do you want the freedom to not engage in business that you consider evil?
      - zhfliz 3y ago
        at best you suspect it, you don't know it unless you're on the sending or receiving side of the transaction. it shouldn't be my decision whether i want to allow the transaction, even if i wouldn't want to allow it. i'm not in a position to perform due legal process to determine whether you're indeed being paid for a hit job. the provider should be in a neutral position.
        tchaffee 3y ago
        I asked a specific question and you refuse to answer it because your entire premise is based on not being able to know if someone is engaging in unethical behavior. That's premise is seriously flawed. The problem you're trying solve is caused by lack of competition and near monopoly players. The fix isn't to force those businesses to ignore ethics. The fix is hugely increasing the competition.
        zhfliz 3y ago
        even though not explicitly, i have already answered your question. you should pass the transaction, as you should be in a neutral position. edit: to clarify, payment providers/processors nowadays are a core utility function in our society. imo this is not something you can consider a regular private business.
        tchaffee 3y ago
        My basic human freedoms should include the right to not do business with a hate group for example. You want folks to give up that freedom because you got the problem wrong and you're applying the wrong fix.
        zhfliz 3y ago
        you're free to decide who to do business with if you're not providing a core utility service. would you like to no longer receive water or electricity at your home because your utility companies don't like you, despite (being willing to) paying the bills like any other citizen?
  - kortilla 3y ago
    If you have evidence that a murder is about to occur, you report it to the fucking police. You don’t just remove yourself from the pipeline and hope it doesn’t happen.
    - tchaffee 3y ago
      Do you accept the payment and profit or can you refuse the transaction? A parent comment claimed we must process all transactions, legal or not.
      - kelnos 3y ago
        But you don't -- and can't -- know that the payment is illegal. You merely suspect it, and since you are not a court of law, a judge, or a jury, you should have no business arbitrarily cutting off someone's ability to transact.
        tchaffee 3y ago
        It's a thought experiment. The question is about a case in which you know for sure. It's a big world and this is likely to happen at least sometimes. If you don't want to play along with the thought experiment, no problem. But it's a useful and interesting question if you can. And there are also cases in which you can clearly know something is illegal. Someone purchasing guns in a country where guns are not legal doesn't need a judge, jury, and court process for a payment processor to decide they don't want to be involved. It's not arbitrary. And your right to make purchases using a credit card is not a basic human right.
      - onionisafruit 3y ago
        That was my comment. I intended it to mean the government shouldn’t be deputizing payment processors to do its dirty work. There were some good points in the responses and a few ridiculous scenarios. Even the ridiculous scenarios point out real issues. In reality I don’t think there is any chance of a law requiring payment processors to process all legal transactions and definitely nothing about illegal transactions. If that were a possibility, I would back off my statement that they should be forced to process illegal transactions.
  - selcuka 3y ago
    Your ethical thought experiment is fair. What would you do if you knew that it would be used for illegal activity. The point you are missing is the payment processors should not even try to detect what the payment is made for. It should not be their job. Does postal system open every envelope to see if there is cash inside sent as an illegitimate payment to someone? Because it's easier to do it online should not be the base for justifying it. Would you be happy if your email provider scanned all your emails using ML systems to detect illegal activity? For some reason we value the privacy of our communication more than other types of transactions.
    - tchaffee 3y ago
      That's not practical. You wouldn't be able to refute charges. Payment processors couldn't price in risk for sprcific industries. You've created more problems than you've solved.
      - selcuka 3y ago
        > Payment processors couldn't price in risk for sprcific industries. That's about the business implications, not about moral ones as the comment I replied to was asking about. Completely different argument.
        tchaffee 3y ago
        Forcing processors to be neutral and to not know their customers has both business and moral implications that both need to be included in the argument.
    - wwweston 3y ago
      > The point you are missing is the payment processors should not even try to detect what the payment is made for. It should not be their job. You're thinking about this as if the question is simply about whether or not payment processors should have the job of examining every individual payment. There's a potential discussion to be had there, but that's the only dimension of the topic, and one of the things we're talking about entire classes of activity. If prospective clients like "Assassination Central" or "Doordash Blowjobs Inc" approach you as a payment processor, you might have some idea of what's going to happen. And in general payment processors have both an incentive and regulatory obligations to understand what kind of business they're facilitating, not to mention whatever individual inclinations they might have. When it comes to something like Venmo, I'm not really sure how to handle that. I suspect invasivity isn't the only issue, it's also probably practically difficult to police effectively, but at the same time, if there were means by which reasonable correlations could be made, it's not clear to me that there's no activity whatsoever for which there's a case for flagging, however controversial which cases meet that criteria might be.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    Do you truly believe that when you'd make the decision to categorize a transaction as such, that decision would hold up in court, beyond a reasonable doubt, every time? If not, then you have no place making it. And I would argue that even if you do, you still have no place making it, as unaccountable private corporations should not be given the ability (or requirement) to enforce law. Certainly we can legally require you to report suspicious transactions to law enforcement, but it should be up to people bound to follow due process to actually do something (or not do something) about it. I think a reasonable compromise might be to allow payment processors to put a transaction on hold until it's reviewed by law enforcement, but even this has some significant downsides.
    - tchaffee 3y ago
      > Do you truly believe that when you'd make the decision to categorize a transaction as such, that decision would hold up in court, beyond a reasonable doubt, every time? If not, then you have no place making it What if I want to start a vegan credit card that only allows payments to vegan businesses? You're saying that should be illegal? The best compromise is to not have a compromise and fix the actual problem instead of trying to fix side effects: make it far easier for companies to enter the payment processing space. With thousands of payment processors you'll very likely be able to find a company that is willing to process your credit card payments for vegan porn. The real problem is a few huge players with near monopoly control.
- wwweston 3y ago
  But we're not talking about "using the financial system to target people." We're talking about whether it's worthwhile to say something like "hey, maybe we will not allow legal markets for some things (say, murder) in our society" on top of "maybe we will ban make some activities crimes (say, murder) themselves." Do you believe markets for murder should be legal?
  - kelnos 3y ago
    I think you're asking the wrong question. Do you believe private corporations should be in charge of deciding -- with no oversight or ability to appeal -- whether money changing hands is for a legal or illegal purpose? I guess "yes" is a defensible answer to that, but for me it's a hard "no". As flawed as the US justice system is, I prefer due process over arbitrary action.
  - LewisVerstappen 3y ago
    We don’t allow markets for murder. I have no idea what you’re even going on about. If you try to hire someone for murder, then the police will arrest you and throw you in prison. Forcing every private company to operate as an additional police force, judge and jury is incredibly dumb and dangerous.
onionisafruit 3y ago
I am unconcerned about that. I don’t think there are people who would murder or steal from me if only paypal would let their payment go through.

LewisVerstappen 3y ago

Nope. There are other mechanisms to target illegal actions, such as sending the police to arrest the person. Those actions are guarded by due process and the right to trial. Using the financial system to target people is not.

tchaffee 3y ago
So you would willingly, knowingly, and personally process a transaction to kill someone? Not your problem, let the police discover it?
- zhfliz 3y ago
  if you know about/suspect it you report it. how do you know with 100% certainty/due process that this is indeed the case and it's not just your ML algorithm going crazy? people can also pay with physical money if they desire to do so.
  - tchaffee 3y ago
    What I asked is specific: if you know the money is for a hit job will you still accept the business and take your fee or is there a moral line you personally won't cross? Yes, it's the job of the police to investigate but do you want the freedom to not engage in business that you consider evil?
    - zhfliz 3y ago
      at best you suspect it, you don't know it unless you're on the sending or receiving side of the transaction. it shouldn't be my decision whether i want to allow the transaction, even if i wouldn't want to allow it. i'm not in a position to perform due legal process to determine whether you're indeed being paid for a hit job. the provider should be in a neutral position.
      - tchaffee 3y ago
        I asked a specific question and you refuse to answer it because your entire premise is based on not being able to know if someone is engaging in unethical behavior. That's premise is seriously flawed. The problem you're trying solve is caused by lack of competition and near monopoly players. The fix isn't to force those businesses to ignore ethics. The fix is hugely increasing the competition.
        zhfliz 3y ago
        even though not explicitly, i have already answered your question. you should pass the transaction, as you should be in a neutral position. edit: to clarify, payment providers/processors nowadays are a core utility function in our society. imo this is not something you can consider a regular private business.
        tchaffee 3y ago
        My basic human freedoms should include the right to not do business with a hate group for example. You want folks to give up that freedom because you got the problem wrong and you're applying the wrong fix.
        zhfliz 3y ago
        you're free to decide who to do business with if you're not providing a core utility service. would you like to no longer receive water or electricity at your home because your utility companies don't like you, despite (being willing to) paying the bills like any other citizen?
- kortilla 3y ago
  If you have evidence that a murder is about to occur, you report it to the fucking police. You don’t just remove yourself from the pipeline and hope it doesn’t happen.
  - tchaffee 3y ago
    Do you accept the payment and profit or can you refuse the transaction? A parent comment claimed we must process all transactions, legal or not.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      But you don't -- and can't -- know that the payment is illegal. You merely suspect it, and since you are not a court of law, a judge, or a jury, you should have no business arbitrarily cutting off someone's ability to transact.
      - tchaffee 3y ago
        It's a thought experiment. The question is about a case in which you know for sure. It's a big world and this is likely to happen at least sometimes. If you don't want to play along with the thought experiment, no problem. But it's a useful and interesting question if you can. And there are also cases in which you can clearly know something is illegal. Someone purchasing guns in a country where guns are not legal doesn't need a judge, jury, and court process for a payment processor to decide they don't want to be involved. It's not arbitrary. And your right to make purchases using a credit card is not a basic human right.
    - onionisafruit 3y ago
      That was my comment. I intended it to mean the government shouldn’t be deputizing payment processors to do its dirty work. There were some good points in the responses and a few ridiculous scenarios. Even the ridiculous scenarios point out real issues. In reality I don’t think there is any chance of a law requiring payment processors to process all legal transactions and definitely nothing about illegal transactions. If that were a possibility, I would back off my statement that they should be forced to process illegal transactions.
- selcuka 3y ago
  Your ethical thought experiment is fair. What would you do if you knew that it would be used for illegal activity. The point you are missing is the payment processors should not even try to detect what the payment is made for. It should not be their job. Does postal system open every envelope to see if there is cash inside sent as an illegitimate payment to someone? Because it's easier to do it online should not be the base for justifying it. Would you be happy if your email provider scanned all your emails using ML systems to detect illegal activity? For some reason we value the privacy of our communication more than other types of transactions.
  - tchaffee 3y ago
    That's not practical. You wouldn't be able to refute charges. Payment processors couldn't price in risk for sprcific industries. You've created more problems than you've solved.
    - selcuka 3y ago
      > Payment processors couldn't price in risk for sprcific industries. That's about the business implications, not about moral ones as the comment I replied to was asking about. Completely different argument.
      - tchaffee 3y ago
        Forcing processors to be neutral and to not know their customers has both business and moral implications that both need to be included in the argument.
  - wwweston 3y ago
    > The point you are missing is the payment processors should not even try to detect what the payment is made for. It should not be their job. You're thinking about this as if the question is simply about whether or not payment processors should have the job of examining every individual payment. There's a potential discussion to be had there, but that's the only dimension of the topic, and one of the things we're talking about entire classes of activity. If prospective clients like "Assassination Central" or "Doordash Blowjobs Inc" approach you as a payment processor, you might have some idea of what's going to happen. And in general payment processors have both an incentive and regulatory obligations to understand what kind of business they're facilitating, not to mention whatever individual inclinations they might have. When it comes to something like Venmo, I'm not really sure how to handle that. I suspect invasivity isn't the only issue, it's also probably practically difficult to police effectively, but at the same time, if there were means by which reasonable correlations could be made, it's not clear to me that there's no activity whatsoever for which there's a case for flagging, however controversial which cases meet that criteria might be.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Do you truly believe that when you'd make the decision to categorize a transaction as such, that decision would hold up in court, beyond a reasonable doubt, every time? If not, then you have no place making it. And I would argue that even if you do, you still have no place making it, as unaccountable private corporations should not be given the ability (or requirement) to enforce law. Certainly we can legally require you to report suspicious transactions to law enforcement, but it should be up to people bound to follow due process to actually do something (or not do something) about it. I think a reasonable compromise might be to allow payment processors to put a transaction on hold until it's reviewed by law enforcement, but even this has some significant downsides.
  - tchaffee 3y ago
    > Do you truly believe that when you'd make the decision to categorize a transaction as such, that decision would hold up in court, beyond a reasonable doubt, every time? If not, then you have no place making it What if I want to start a vegan credit card that only allows payments to vegan businesses? You're saying that should be illegal? The best compromise is to not have a compromise and fix the actual problem instead of trying to fix side effects: make it far easier for companies to enter the payment processing space. With thousands of payment processors you'll very likely be able to find a company that is willing to process your credit card payments for vegan porn. The real problem is a few huge players with near monopoly control.
wwweston 3y ago
But we're not talking about "using the financial system to target people." We're talking about whether it's worthwhile to say something like "hey, maybe we will not allow legal markets for some things (say, murder) in our society" on top of "maybe we will ban make some activities crimes (say, murder) themselves." Do you believe markets for murder should be legal?
- kelnos 3y ago
  I think you're asking the wrong question. Do you believe private corporations should be in charge of deciding -- with no oversight or ability to appeal -- whether money changing hands is for a legal or illegal purpose? I guess "yes" is a defensible answer to that, but for me it's a hard "no". As flawed as the US justice system is, I prefer due process over arbitrary action.
- LewisVerstappen 3y ago
  We don’t allow markets for murder. I have no idea what you’re even going on about. If you try to hire someone for murder, then the police will arrest you and throw you in prison. Forcing every private company to operate as an additional police force, judge and jury is incredibly dumb and dangerous.

onionisafruit 3y ago

I am unconcerned about that. I don’t think there are people who would murder or steal from me if only paypal would let their payment go through.