Comment by bruce511
3 months ago
Clearly one can litigate this specific case, and numerous other individual cases.
But equally clearly that approach does not scale. Even more so when this goes into a 'low value customer ' bucket.
Imagine if the list of cases above wasn't 10 cases, but 10 000 cases. How then might your approach to investigating each one be different?
It's easy yo see this case as a simple customer service issue. But in the banking industry it's a lot more complicated than that.
> Imagine if the list of cases above wasn't 10 cases, but 10 000 cases. How then might your approach to investigating each one be different?
That should be Stripe's problem to figure out, and they shouldn't get to punt by saying "guilty until proven innocent".
It is Stripe's problem to figure out, and it seems they have (to their satisfaction. )
>> they shouldn't get to punt by saying "guilty until proven innocent".
That's certainly an opinion, and almost certainly a common small-customer opinion.
Unfortunately in the real world, that's not how it works. In the real world businesses fo not operate with a "innocent until proven guilty" attitude. Quite the reverse.
Pretty much any security starts with "guilty" and moves up from there. For example my building has a buzzer, not an open door. I assume all visitors are nefarious unless someone in the building vouches for them by buzzing them in.
A small business has scope to individually vet each customer. For high value transactions we do due diligence (on both sides) looking for possible problems.
A business like Stripe at scale necessarily doesn't behave like two individuals would. You can wish it so, but that's not enough.
Understanding this imbalance between the size of the consumer and the size of the supplier is helpful. (It's one reason big customers tend to favor big suppliers. )
I too wish that my bank could bend to my needs and requirements. I wish the world treated me in good faith assuming only good intentions. Alas thats not the world I live in, and understanding that has made me more content.
> Unfortunately in the real world, that's not how it works. In the real world businesses fo not operate with a "innocent until proven guilty" attitude. Quite the reverse.
> Pretty much any security starts with "guilty" and moves up from there. For example my building has a buzzer, not an open door. I assume all visitors are nefarious unless someone in the building vouches for them by buzzing them in.
What you're describing is the exception. Consider that most merchandise in most stores is unlocked, and that most sit-down restaurants let you eat before paying for your food. And doors generally only work the way you do when they're mainly employee doors. Most places that customers come in all the time are just always unlocked.