5 ms·

When you are a financial company. edit: financial companies, or any company when dealing with a financial or privacy breach usually needs to prove their innoce

by bushido 13y ago

When you are a financial company. edit: financial companies, or any company when dealing with a financial or privacy breach usually needs to prove their innocence when they are attributed to allegedly causing financial loss (to varied extents depending on the situation). This is an expectation from society in general. It may not seem fair or be legally required, but that's just the way it is.

jessedhillon 13y ago
You need a course in elementary logic. Specifically, on the burden of proof. Also, everything you wrote in this comment here seems to be a complete fabrication.
- simonh 13y ago
  I work for a bank and it's absolutely on us to show that our transactions and treatment of financial information is verifiable. We have to be able to demonstrate due diligence, there is no assumption of innocence when the auditors come knocking on the door, whatever 'elementary logic' may say. Thats why I completely believe the posters here claiming this wouldn't be possible in a banks call centre. What I don't know is whether PayPal operates at the same standard.
  - jessedhillon 13y ago
    That's a different question altogether. Banks are required to keep meticulous and auditable transaction records -- nobody is disputing that or even questioning if PayPal does so. Banks are not required to show extend themselves to whatever demands made to them, in order to show that the claims of a random internet person are false.
    - scott_s 13y ago
      Legally, no. But if enough people find the claim credible, then it is definitely in their best interest to convince everyone else that the claim is false. Whether or not you think that is fair is irrelevant; if enough people feel the bank is not safe to use, the bank will lose business.
      - jessedhillon 13y ago
        Ok well if that's your hand, the converse principle is more pertinent -- if it has no impact on profits, nobody cares about the random rantings of an insular group of technologists, and how they think PayPal ought to conduct itself.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  The 'burden of proof' is a social/legal concept which has absolutely nothing to do with elementary logic, so maybe you're the one that needs the refresher.
  - jessedhillon 13y ago
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. The fallacy of an argument from ignorance occurs if, when a claim is challenged, the burden of proof is shifted to be on the challenger. The burden of proof is a philosophical concept which extends into the legal domain. In fact, it's the only sane way to process assertions made by purportedly rational actors, it's hardly limited to 'social/legal' contexts. But I'm not sure why you didn't go look this up in Wikipedia before you commented.
    - scott_s 13y ago
      That really does not apply in this situation. A thief made a claim that he tricked PayPal into giving out personal information on his victim. We know the thief got the personal information. What is in question is if he is telling the truth that he got it from PayPal. You are looking at this as a claim between the thief and PayPal. The thief made the claim, so the burden of proof is on the thief. But that's not what's going on. PayPayl is asserting a claim that they are safe, and the other party is every potential customer of PayPal. The burden is on PayPal to convince us of their claim that they are safe, in light of the claim against them. To me, it is credible that the thief got the information from PayPal. Between the thief and PayPal, I think the thief has little incentive to lie about where he got the information, but PayPal has high incentive to cover up.
      - jessedhillon 13y ago
        The burden of proof applies to all logical propositions. You are confusing two issues -- PayPal's marketing claims and those of a random thief. The truth is that you actually have insufficient information to decide one way or another who is telling the truth here, and at least you wouldn't be able to substantiate such a conclusion without appealing to prejudices. That's the point I'm making -- personally I think that the thief is telling the truth. But I'm reserving judgment because we certainly don't know enough to warrant some of the strong claims made on this thread.

by bushido 13y ago

jessedhillon 13y ago

You need a course in elementary logic. Specifically, on the burden of proof. Also, everything you wrote in this comment here seems to be a complete fabrication.

simonh 13y ago
I work for a bank and it's absolutely on us to show that our transactions and treatment of financial information is verifiable. We have to be able to demonstrate due diligence, there is no assumption of innocence when the auditors come knocking on the door, whatever 'elementary logic' may say. Thats why I completely believe the posters here claiming this wouldn't be possible in a banks call centre. What I don't know is whether PayPal operates at the same standard.
- jessedhillon 13y ago
  That's a different question altogether. Banks are required to keep meticulous and auditable transaction records -- nobody is disputing that or even questioning if PayPal does so. Banks are not required to show extend themselves to whatever demands made to them, in order to show that the claims of a random internet person are false.
  - scott_s 13y ago
    Legally, no. But if enough people find the claim credible, then it is definitely in their best interest to convince everyone else that the claim is false. Whether or not you think that is fair is irrelevant; if enough people feel the bank is not safe to use, the bank will lose business.
    - jessedhillon 13y ago
      Ok well if that's your hand, the converse principle is more pertinent -- if it has no impact on profits, nobody cares about the random rantings of an insular group of technologists, and how they think PayPal ought to conduct itself.
pessimizer 13y ago
The 'burden of proof' is a social/legal concept which has absolutely nothing to do with elementary logic, so maybe you're the one that needs the refresher.
- jessedhillon 13y ago
  From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. The fallacy of an argument from ignorance occurs if, when a claim is challenged, the burden of proof is shifted to be on the challenger. The burden of proof is a philosophical concept which extends into the legal domain. In fact, it's the only sane way to process assertions made by purportedly rational actors, it's hardly limited to 'social/legal' contexts. But I'm not sure why you didn't go look this up in Wikipedia before you commented.
  - scott_s 13y ago
    That really does not apply in this situation. A thief made a claim that he tricked PayPal into giving out personal information on his victim. We know the thief got the personal information. What is in question is if he is telling the truth that he got it from PayPal. You are looking at this as a claim between the thief and PayPal. The thief made the claim, so the burden of proof is on the thief. But that's not what's going on. PayPayl is asserting a claim that they are safe, and the other party is every potential customer of PayPal. The burden is on PayPal to convince us of their claim that they are safe, in light of the claim against them. To me, it is credible that the thief got the information from PayPal. Between the thief and PayPal, I think the thief has little incentive to lie about where he got the information, but PayPal has high incentive to cover up.
    - jessedhillon 13y ago
      The burden of proof applies to all logical propositions. You are confusing two issues -- PayPal's marketing claims and those of a random thief. The truth is that you actually have insufficient information to decide one way or another who is telling the truth here, and at least you wouldn't be able to substantiate such a conclusion without appealing to prejudices. That's the point I'm making -- personally I think that the thief is telling the truth. But I'm reserving judgment because we certainly don't know enough to warrant some of the strong claims made on this thread.