North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: amazonaws.com?

  • From: Joel Jaeggli
  • Date: Thu May 29 09:09:18 2008
Dorn Hetzel wrote: 
There is a really huge difference in the ease with which payment from a
credit card can be reversed if fraudulent, and the amount of effort
necessary to reverse a wire transfer. I won't go so far as to say that
reversing a wire transfer is impossible, but I would claim it's many orders
of magnitude harder than the credit card reversal.

To paraphrase one of my colleagues from the user interaction world:

	"The key to offering a compelling service is minimising
	transaction hassles."

I encourage all my competitors to implement inconvenient hard to use payment methods....

A mere "court subpoena" wouldn't even be remotely sufficient.  The person
wanting their money back would pretty much have to sue for it and win.
Heck, people that get scammed and send their money via western union can't
even get their money back...  People who sell physical goods that get
shipped internationally to places where they can't get them back from have
been dealing with irrevocable payment forms for a long, long time, and those
are generally wire transfers.

Once that guy in Frackustan has my widgets, I need to make darn sure he
can't take his money back :)

So, yeah, there would be some customers for whom the couple of business
hours it take their wire to go through (that's a pretty typical time from my
actual experience) would be longer than they would want to wait for their
port 25 or other "risky" service to be enabled, but really, how many is that
going to be.  We're not talking about the wait for ordinary customers who
don't need those particular services that tend to be problem children, and
we're not talking about existing accounts of long standing, just about a
barrier for the drive-by customer who wants to use services and then not pay
the cost when they violate the AUP...

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Peter Beckman <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 28 May 2008, Barry Shein wrote:

On May 28, 2008 at 21:43 [email protected] (Peter Beckman) wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Dorn Hetzel wrote:

I would think that simply requiring some appropriate amount of
irrevocable
funds (wire transfer, etc) for a deposit that will be forfeited in the
case
of usage in violation of AUP/contract/etc would be both sufficient and
not
excessive for allowing port 25 access, etc.
Until you find out that the source of those supposedly irrevocable
funds
was stolen or fraudulent, and you have some sort of court subpoena to
give
it back.

I don't believe there is a way for you to outwit the scammer/spammer
by
making them pay more of their or someone elses money. If you have
what
they need, they'll find a way to trick you into giving it to them. 
Are you still trying to prove that Amazon, Dell, The World, etc can't
possibly work?

 Amazon and Dell ship physical goods.  Amazon Web Services sells services,
 as do I.  Services are commonly enabled and activated immediately after
 payment or verification of a valid credit card, as is often expected by
 the customer immediately after payment.  Shipment of physical goods will
 almost always take at least 24 hours, often longer, enabling more thorough
 checks of credit, however they might do it.

 And even with the extra time to review the transaction and attempt to
 detect fraud, I'm confident Amazon and Dell lose millions per year due to
 fraud.  The reality is that the millions they lose to fraud doesn't affect
 us because a Blu-Ray player purchased with a stolen credit card doesn't
 send spam or initiate DOS attacks.

At least not yet; those Blu-Ray players do have an ethernet port.

By your reasoning why don't the spammers just empty out Amazon's (et 
al) warehouses and retire! Oh right, they'd have to sell it all over
the internet which'd mean taking credit cards...

Now you're just being rediculous. Or sarcastic. :-)

I am a big, big fan of assessing charges for AUP abuse and making some 
realistic attempt to try to make sure it's collectible, and otherwise
make some attempt to know who you're doing business with.

 Charging whom?  The spammer who pays your extra AUP abuse charges with
 stolen paypal accounts, credit cards, and legit bank accounts funded by
 money stolen from paypal accounts and transferred from stolen credit
 cards?

 If you are taking card-not-present credit card transactions over the
 Internet or phone, and not shipping physical goods but providing services,
 in my experience the merchant gets screwed, no matter how much money you
 might have charged for the privilege of using port 25 or violating AUPs.
 That money you collected and believed was yours and was in your bank
 account can be taken out just as easily 6 months later, after the lazy
 card holder finally reviews his credit card bill, sees unrecognized
 charges and says "This is fraudulent!"  And there you are, without your
 money.

 Getting someone to fax their ID in takes extra time and resources, and
 means it might be hours before you get your account "approved," and for
 some service providers, part of the value of the service is the immediacy
 in which a customer can gain new service.


Beckman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Beckman                                                  Internet Guy
[email protected]
http://www.angryox.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------