3 ms·

So they process 70k disputes per day? If not, why 70k ids were stolen? It’s a flawed design. No reason to retain the personal info for more than the processing

So they process 70k disputes per day? If not, why 70k ids were stolen? It’s a flawed design. No reason to retain the personal info for more than the processing time. Aka the duration of the dispute process itself (not the queue of disputes). The principal engineer who signed it off should go to jail.

debo_ 1y ago
It's not 70k per day. A dispute takes longer than a day; this was their entire ongoing dispute queue.
- whatever1 1y ago
  So they were retaining data that they were not actively processing. They were just waiting to be processed. Aka, the system design was wrong. The buck has to stop somewhere. Somebody signed it off.
  - debo_ 1y ago
    I'm not sure how you're coming to that conclusion. If, for example, the id verification says "your id appears to be fake" and the user disputes it, what happens next? A dispute usually has several back-and-forth steps where one party is waiting for the other to respond.
    - whatever1 1y ago
      As simple as: “We are processing your request, once we need more evidence we will contact you.” The day that their turn has come remind them to upload their personal data. Process the request, delete the data in 24 hours. If you don’t hear back, even better, less private data to worry about.
      - debo_ 1y ago
        This is not a tradeoff-less scenario. Most users will be pretty irritated if, for example, you ask them to re-upload the front and back of the id in question at a later date because you deleted it last time for their protection. I personally think doing ID verification of physical documents over the internet is just a non-starter. I've unfortunately had to support such systems for years at a time, and I'm thankful I don't do it anymore.
        soco 1y ago
        They were already irritated, right. Also keeping around a file which you said yourself it was not useful, makes still no sense - especially when you regularly delete the useful files by policy. So yes, the failure was by design.
  - esseph 1y ago
    You're asking for accountability? Nobody has time for that, stop being silly.
exasperaited 1y ago
> The principal engineer who signed it off should go to jail. Indeed.

debo_ 1y ago

It's not 70k per day. A dispute takes longer than a day; this was their entire ongoing dispute queue.

whatever1 1y ago
So they were retaining data that they were not actively processing. They were just waiting to be processed. Aka, the system design was wrong. The buck has to stop somewhere. Somebody signed it off.
- debo_ 1y ago
  I'm not sure how you're coming to that conclusion. If, for example, the id verification says "your id appears to be fake" and the user disputes it, what happens next? A dispute usually has several back-and-forth steps where one party is waiting for the other to respond.
  - whatever1 1y ago
    As simple as: “We are processing your request, once we need more evidence we will contact you.” The day that their turn has come remind them to upload their personal data. Process the request, delete the data in 24 hours. If you don’t hear back, even better, less private data to worry about.
    - debo_ 1y ago
      This is not a tradeoff-less scenario. Most users will be pretty irritated if, for example, you ask them to re-upload the front and back of the id in question at a later date because you deleted it last time for their protection. I personally think doing ID verification of physical documents over the internet is just a non-starter. I've unfortunately had to support such systems for years at a time, and I'm thankful I don't do it anymore.
      - soco 1y ago
        They were already irritated, right. Also keeping around a file which you said yourself it was not useful, makes still no sense - especially when you regularly delete the useful files by policy. So yes, the failure was by design.
- esseph 1y ago
  You're asking for accountability? Nobody has time for that, stop being silly.

exasperaited 1y ago

> The principal engineer who signed it off should go to jail. Indeed.