3 ms·
Many times, when dealing with fraud, the damage done by a false negative completely outweighs the damage done by a false positive. This is almost always the cas
by ericd 15y ago
Many times, when dealing with fraud, the damage done by a false negative completely outweighs the damage done by a false positive. This is almost always the case for the company, in some cases it's also true for other users involved. Thus, companies are frequently OK with having a high false positive rate in order to get the false negative rate to be close to zero.
The company obviously realizes it has a large number of false positives, and it's probably decided that it's worth it.
- swombat 15y agoThere's nothing wrong with deliberately having a high false positive rate. Airport security does that too. The problem is if you treat everyone who gets flagged up as irredeemably guilty even though you know you have a self-positive rate. This would be akin to having airport security send anyone who sets off the metal scanner to a maximum security prison without right of appeal.
- JadeNB 15y ago> This would be akin to having airport security send anyone who sets off the metal scanner to a maximum security prison without right of appeal. Not so loud, TSA will hear you.
- ericd 15y agoVery true, they definitely should dig a bit into their margins to provide a method of appealing the decision - I think it would actually help them quite a lot on the PR front, so it might be good even from a bottom line perspective.