8 ms·

Tangentially related, I am getting very, very tired of "customer service" departments using phrases like: "While we are unable to provide detailed information

Tangentially related, I am getting very, very tired of "customer service" departments using phrases like: "While we are unable to provide detailed information on how we link related accounts, please know that we have reviewed your account on the basis of the information provided and regret to inform you that it will not be reopened." This happens more frequently: Google says this all the time, based on posts here; Amazon now does the same thing; even apartment rental companies will say "you've been turned down on the basis of this report that we don't know the contents of." If your company can't reveal specific reasons or steps behind why an action was taken, DON'T TAKE THAT ACTION. Even my credit card issuer will tell me exactly why my card was flagged and they deal with ACTUAL MONEY. All these statements do is infuriate customers, create bad press, and drive away other customers. Scammers will just back up, look at their entire operation, and hammer away again with 300 new accounts so all you've accomplished is pissing off customers who want to do business with you.

jaachan 14y ago
"While we are unable to provide detailed information on how we link related accounts" I don't think it means they don't know, I think it means they can't[1] "detail", i.e. tell you. [1] Won't, of course.
- techsupporter 14y ago
  That's exactly my point: They don't want to tell you. If a company has such rigid internal processes that it can't come up with a way to reveal at least some information to allow a paying[0] customer to successfully defend an allegation of fraud, then that process is broken. 0 - I leave as an exercise to the reader the question of what should be done for free services.
oliwarner 14y ago
Companies have privacy obligations. If they inaccurately link you to a fraudulent user and then tell you all the activity of that fraudulent user, they've probably just broken the law. That's a specific example where it might not be legal but I agree that this is widespread and there are lots of things in the real world where it would be fine to tell you, but they choose not to. In my experience this is to protect internal process (so you can't cite why they're idiots) or so that they can sell you another product (credit score improvement, etc). But I do agree, the withholding of detail is widespread to a point where it suggests people just plain don't want to tell you anything.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  A bit of catch 22 really. If they have inaccurately linked you with a fraudulent user and they accuse you of having committed fraud, they've just defamed your character. If they were in the U.S. I'd be suggesting they lawyer up.
  - oliwarner 14y ago
    Defamy wouldn't apply as it's a private relationship. They're not broadcasting to the world that they think you're a con, they're just telling you... Which is fine.
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      Where are you getting that definition from? I have used Wikipedia for the definition of how one proves libel: There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, first, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm. Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. Of course, there is no citation. I just added the {{fact}} tag. But does anyone know if this is true or not?
      - unreal37 14y ago
        Telling her privately that her account is associated with a fraudulent account has not caused her any harm, thus its not libeled her. Only if they published it to the world, she could claim her reputation has been harmed.
        chris_wot 14y ago
        Actually, it did because she lost all her books and she isn't able to get them back.
        14y ago
stuaxo 14y ago
Wow, wish my bank could tell me the reasoning for credit decisions !
- dangrossman 14y ago
  Any time anyone makes a credit decision, you receive a notice in the mail informing you of this fact, and that you have the right to a free copy of the credit report they pulled on you.
e40 14y ago
Agreed. When the first DVD burners came out HP had an exclusive period for sales of them. I really wanted one, so I ordered it online and got an email a few minutes later saying my order had been canceled. I called and ask why. The usual "we can't tell you, sorry" answer. I wouldn't let go. I asked for a manager and then spent a hour on the phone--I just wouldn't hang up--telling her I had made thousands of transactions online over the last 10 years with that credit card and this was the first problem. I hammered her for details and she never gave me one, but she did do something else: she decided to verify me via other means (I have no idea what those were) by asking me a series of questions. After which she took my order manually and I got the device I wanted. Normally, I would have voted with my pocket book, but in this case they had the sole source of the item (for a time). I also wanted to cost them a huge amount of time for their error.
- omegaworks 14y ago
  >in this case they had the sole source of the item (for a time) And this my friends is why artificial monopolies (created by vendor lock-in, proprietary devices, patents, or other perversions of the legal system) are inherently detrimental. Adam Smith, in his foundational work on Capitalism: The Wealth of Nations, rails against the practices that make monopolies possible. This market is not a free market.
  - icelancer 14y ago
    Oh, it's a free market for those small companies - if they fail, so what? But all of a sudden, you start doing $10+ million dollars in sales, you figure you need some backing by politicians... People love the upside of capitalism. But when it comes to the self-correcting measures it brings... not so much.
roguecoder 14y ago
As soon as you give people a reason, they will argue with the specifics. The only way to get people to accept "no" and go away is to refuse to provide any additional information that they could take issue with.
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  That might work until the class action gets filed.
  - ihsw 14y ago
    You've waived your rights to a class action file suit by purchasing an Amazon product or using an Amazon service.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      Which is a legal impossibility that sadly has not been fully tested yet.
      - ihsw 14y ago
        Amazon et al. will be happy to spend quite a bit of money combating you, until you give up due to lack of funds.
        Turing_Machine 14y ago
        That's the entire point of a class action.
        Bakkot 14y ago
        Which is why I donate to the EFF.
    - Turing_Machine 14y ago
      That might work until a judge decides that the contract was unconscionable, or contrary to public policy, or that there was no true "meeting of the minds" because the purchaser did not understand the terms of the contract, or ...
sunir 14y ago
She should next demand a copy of all information Amazon has on her under the Data Protection Act (1998), since that's what the Act is for.
- anonymouz 14y ago
  Excellent idea. Though I fear that this will be essentially ignored too (as the recent precedent with Facebook shows). It is very unfortunate that apparently the only way to resolve such cases is to bring them to enough media spotlight, that the corporation involved has to do something to avoid damages to its image.
  - wmf 14y ago
    Since media shaming only solves the problem for one person, I think it makes things worse in the long term. For every customer who gets un-screwed by Amazon, how many screwed customers do we not know about?
    - anonymouz 14y ago
      I wouldn't say it makes things worse in the long term, but it certainly helps. I do not think that it is good that it has to be done this way, but it seems that at the moment this is often the only way to make something happen at all.
  - aw3c2 14y ago
    What Facebook precedent? I only know of the Facebook vs Ireland stuff and that works well.
    - anonymouz 14y ago
      Does it? They still haven't answered my request from at least a year ago (they do offer some partial data download that includes a bit more stuff than previously, but it's essentially just the stuff on your profile -- none of the interesting stuff they collect on you).
anonymouz 14y ago
I've come to the conclusion that a big problem with todays extremely anonymized and impersonal customer service of large corporations is that there is nobody (or at least nobody with the competence to do anything), that you can shout at till things get fixed... Essentially, as a customer one is often limited to submitting requests through web forms and receiving boilerplate answers (if at all) that lead nowhere if the case at hand is somewhat nonstandard, or to spend endless hours circulating through similarly scripted phone support hotlines, without ever reaching somebody that can actually fix the problem. Kafka would be hard pressed to top some of those customer support experiences.
- rmc 14y ago
  Conversely, the internet has made the plight of the screwed-over-little-guy much easier to publicise, making results more likely.
zobzu 14y ago
Well, my credit card issuer (wells fargo) actually cant' tell me. They say its flagged, for a reason they don't know. (ofc, they do, they just wont tell). Then they just unflag it after I answer 10 security questions and that's it. Pisses me off every time.

jaachan 14y ago

"While we are unable to provide detailed information on how we link related accounts" I don't think it means they don't know, I think it means they can't[1] "detail", i.e. tell you. [1] Won't, of course.

techsupporter 14y ago
That's exactly my point: They don't want to tell you. If a company has such rigid internal processes that it can't come up with a way to reveal at least some information to allow a paying[0] customer to successfully defend an allegation of fraud, then that process is broken. 0 - I leave as an exercise to the reader the question of what should be done for free services.

oliwarner 14y ago

Companies have privacy obligations. If they inaccurately link you to a fraudulent user and then tell you all the activity of that fraudulent user, they've probably just broken the law. That's a specific example where it might not be legal but I agree that this is widespread and there are lots of things in the real world where it would be fine to tell you, but they choose not to. In my experience this is to protect internal process (so you can't cite why they're idiots) or so that they can sell you another product (credit score improvement, etc). But I do agree, the withholding of detail is widespread to a point where it suggests people just plain don't want to tell you anything.

chris_wot 14y ago
A bit of catch 22 really. If they have inaccurately linked you with a fraudulent user and they accuse you of having committed fraud, they've just defamed your character. If they were in the U.S. I'd be suggesting they lawyer up.
- oliwarner 14y ago
  Defamy wouldn't apply as it's a private relationship. They're not broadcasting to the world that they think you're a con, they're just telling you... Which is fine.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Where are you getting that definition from? I have used Wikipedia for the definition of how one proves libel: There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, first, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm. Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. Of course, there is no citation. I just added the {{fact}} tag. But does anyone know if this is true or not?
    - unreal37 14y ago
      Telling her privately that her account is associated with a fraudulent account has not caused her any harm, thus its not libeled her. Only if they published it to the world, she could claim her reputation has been harmed.
      - chris_wot 14y ago
        Actually, it did because she lost all her books and she isn't able to get them back.
        14y ago

stuaxo 14y ago

Wow, wish my bank could tell me the reasoning for credit decisions !

dangrossman 14y ago
Any time anyone makes a credit decision, you receive a notice in the mail informing you of this fact, and that you have the right to a free copy of the credit report they pulled on you.

e40 14y ago

Agreed. When the first DVD burners came out HP had an exclusive period for sales of them. I really wanted one, so I ordered it online and got an email a few minutes later saying my order had been canceled. I called and ask why. The usual "we can't tell you, sorry" answer. I wouldn't let go. I asked for a manager and then spent a hour on the phone--I just wouldn't hang up--telling her I had made thousands of transactions online over the last 10 years with that credit card and this was the first problem. I hammered her for details and she never gave me one, but she did do something else: she decided to verify me via other means (I have no idea what those were) by asking me a series of questions. After which she took my order manually and I got the device I wanted. Normally, I would have voted with my pocket book, but in this case they had the sole source of the item (for a time). I also wanted to cost them a huge amount of time for their error.

omegaworks 14y ago
>in this case they had the sole source of the item (for a time) And this my friends is why artificial monopolies (created by vendor lock-in, proprietary devices, patents, or other perversions of the legal system) are inherently detrimental. Adam Smith, in his foundational work on Capitalism: The Wealth of Nations, rails against the practices that make monopolies possible. This market is not a free market.
- icelancer 14y ago
  Oh, it's a free market for those small companies - if they fail, so what? But all of a sudden, you start doing $10+ million dollars in sales, you figure you need some backing by politicians... People love the upside of capitalism. But when it comes to the self-correcting measures it brings... not so much.

roguecoder 14y ago

As soon as you give people a reason, they will argue with the specifics. The only way to get people to accept "no" and go away is to refuse to provide any additional information that they could take issue with.

Turing_Machine 14y ago
That might work until the class action gets filed.
- ihsw 14y ago
  You've waived your rights to a class action file suit by purchasing an Amazon product or using an Amazon service.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Which is a legal impossibility that sadly has not been fully tested yet.
    - ihsw 14y ago
      Amazon et al. will be happy to spend quite a bit of money combating you, until you give up due to lack of funds.
      - Turing_Machine 14y ago
        That's the entire point of a class action.
      - Bakkot 14y ago
        Which is why I donate to the EFF.
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    That might work until a judge decides that the contract was unconscionable, or contrary to public policy, or that there was no true "meeting of the minds" because the purchaser did not understand the terms of the contract, or ...

sunir 14y ago

She should next demand a copy of all information Amazon has on her under the Data Protection Act (1998), since that's what the Act is for.

anonymouz 14y ago
Excellent idea. Though I fear that this will be essentially ignored too (as the recent precedent with Facebook shows). It is very unfortunate that apparently the only way to resolve such cases is to bring them to enough media spotlight, that the corporation involved has to do something to avoid damages to its image.
- wmf 14y ago
  Since media shaming only solves the problem for one person, I think it makes things worse in the long term. For every customer who gets un-screwed by Amazon, how many screwed customers do we not know about?
  - anonymouz 14y ago
    I wouldn't say it makes things worse in the long term, but it certainly helps. I do not think that it is good that it has to be done this way, but it seems that at the moment this is often the only way to make something happen at all.
- aw3c2 14y ago
  What Facebook precedent? I only know of the Facebook vs Ireland stuff and that works well.
  - anonymouz 14y ago
    Does it? They still haven't answered my request from at least a year ago (they do offer some partial data download that includes a bit more stuff than previously, but it's essentially just the stuff on your profile -- none of the interesting stuff they collect on you).

anonymouz 14y ago

I've come to the conclusion that a big problem with todays extremely anonymized and impersonal customer service of large corporations is that there is nobody (or at least nobody with the competence to do anything), that you can shout at till things get fixed... Essentially, as a customer one is often limited to submitting requests through web forms and receiving boilerplate answers (if at all) that lead nowhere if the case at hand is somewhat nonstandard, or to spend endless hours circulating through similarly scripted phone support hotlines, without ever reaching somebody that can actually fix the problem. Kafka would be hard pressed to top some of those customer support experiences.

rmc 14y ago
Conversely, the internet has made the plight of the screwed-over-little-guy much easier to publicise, making results more likely.

zobzu 14y ago

Well, my credit card issuer (wells fargo) actually cant' tell me. They say its flagged, for a reason they don't know. (ofc, they do, they just wont tell). Then they just unflag it after I answer 10 security questions and that's it. Pisses me off every time.