3 ms·
You have a certain "budget" for losses like this. Beneath a certain amount, you just take the loss, as it's more cost effective than spending man-hours on it. T
by personjerry 3y ago
You have a certain "budget" for losses like this. Beneath a certain amount, you just take the loss, as it's more cost effective than spending man-hours on it. Their fraud systems and dedicated fraud teams are better off alerting on the "whales", so to speak. And in these cases, if you're gonna lay accusations and ban people, you'd rather be more certain (i.e. minimize false positives).
All that is to say, it's understandable if they only pounce once it gets to a certain level of badness.
- ethbr1 3y agoNot having automatic fraud detection that can alert on... (a) new accounts in a (b) geographically-specific area that are (c) failing to balance at a greater than average rate... sounds pretty basic. You'd assume it would be one of the most common use patterns for structured fraud.
- personjerry 3y agoI'm positive they have these alerts already and chose not to action on them.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- inetknght 3y ago> automatic fraud detection that can alert on... that are (c) failing to balance at a greater than average rate... sounds pretty basic. What makes you think that it's a greater than average rate?
- ethbr1 3y agoIf they're regularly losing $52,600 every month to fraud from 2 people, then that might explain the $31.5b operating losses they've had since 2014.
- almost_usual 3y agoSo what you’re suggesting is Uber has an actionable fraud threshold and if an intelligent actor wanted to float beneath that with fake accounts and identities they could extract even more?
- paulpauper 3y agoUber is so big that they cannot attend to every possible discrepancy .
- remram 3y agoYou mean they are too small compared to their customer base to attend to every discrepancy?
- personjerry 3y agoYes. Same for all the big tech companies. I guarantee you people are already doing this in every way you can imagine and many you can't. Source: Worked on bad actor detection at FB.
- boeingUH60 3y agoReminds me of the guy who scammed Google and Facebook of $123 million via fake invoices. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/03/28/how-to-avoid-invoice-theft-scam-that-cost-google-facebook-123m.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/03/28/how-to-avoid-invoice-the...
- ryandrake 3y agoThat article doesn’t make any sense. At big companies like this you can’t just send money to someone who even convincingly looks like a vendor or partner. You need to have a PO created with the vendor as the recipient, and there are entire purchasing departments who vet recipients and make sure things like the legal name of the entity matches the wire instructions and so on. I’d imagine that medium sized companies without much process might be vulnerable to this, but FAANGs?? No way. If KNOWN_PARTNER simply emails an invoice and wire instructions to an employee of one of these larger companies, there is no way in hell that’s getting paid without multiple people in the paying company simultaneously screwing up.