←back to thread

1134 points mtlynch | 2 comments | | HN request time: 1.802s | source
Show context
pc ◴[] No.22937303[source]
Stripe cofounder here. The question raised ("Is Stripe collecting this data for advertising?") can be readily answered in the negative. This data has never been, would never be, and will never be sold/rented/etc. to advertisers.

Stripe.js collects this data only for fraud prevention -- it helps us detect bots who try to defraud businesses that use Stripe. (CAPTCHAs use similar techniques but result in more UI friction.) Stripe.js is part of the ML stack that helps us stop literally millions of fraudulent payments per day and techniques like this help us block fraud more effectively than almost anything else on the market. Businesses that use Stripe would lose a lot more money if it didn't exist. We see this directly: some businesses don't use Stripe.js and they are often suddenly and unpleasantly surprised when attacked by sophisticated fraud rings.

If you don't want to use Stripe.js, you definitely don't have to (or you can include it only on a minimal checkout page) -- it just depends how much PCI burden and fraud risk you'd like to take on.

We will immediately clarify the ToS language that makes this ambiguous. We'll also put up a clearer page about Stripe.js's fraud prevention.

(Updated to add: further down in this thread, fillskills writes[1]: "As someone who saw this first hand, Stripe’s fraud detection really works. Fraudulent transactions went down from ~2% to under 0.5% on hundreds of thousands of transactions per month. And it very likely saved our business at a very critical phase." This is what we're aiming for (and up against) with Stripe Radar and Stripe.js, and why we work on these technologies.)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22938141

replies(52): >>22937327 #>>22937331 #>>22937352 #>>22937362 #>>22937385 #>>22937475 #>>22937518 #>>22937526 #>>22937559 #>>22937599 #>>22937775 #>>22937815 #>>22937962 #>>22938015 #>>22938068 #>>22938208 #>>22938310 #>>22938383 #>>22938533 #>>22938646 #>>22938728 #>>22938777 #>>22938855 #>>22938884 #>>22939026 #>>22939035 #>>22939376 #>>22939803 #>>22939814 #>>22939916 #>>22939952 #>>22940051 #>>22940090 #>>22940177 #>>22940282 #>>22940315 #>>22940317 #>>22940352 #>>22940686 #>>22940751 #>>22941252 #>>22942502 #>>22942538 #>>22942710 #>>22942907 #>>22943100 #>>22943453 #>>22944163 #>>22944509 #>>22944652 #>>22945170 #>>22946136 #
meowface ◴[] No.22938310[source]
In my opinion, there's no moral issue with doing this. Fighting fraud and other kinds of cybercrime is an endless cat-and-mouse game. Although there are very bad associations with it, one simply does need to use fingerprinting and supercookies/"zombie cookies"/"evercookies" if they want even a fighting chance.

I think if it's being solely used for such security purposes, isn't shared with or sold to anyone else, and is carefully safeguarded, then it's okay. The main risk I see from it is mission creep leading to it eventually being used for other purposes, like advertising or tracking for "market research" reasons. I don't personally think it's likely Stripe would do this, though.

replies(5): >>22938691 #>>22938744 #>>22938940 #>>22940203 #>>22941791 #
mook ◴[] No.22938744[source]
In my opinion, there _is_ a moral issue. Not in that they collect this information for fraud prevention; that seems like a reasonable use for that data. It's in not having informed consent, in not having a clear document describing what is collected and when it is purged. And that document would need to be consumer-facing (since it's not the vendor's behaviour being tracked).

Responding after being caught is… good, but not as good as not needing to be caught.

replies(3): >>22938772 #>>22938821 #>>22938883 #
jimmaswell ◴[] No.22938883[source]
I am so sick of informed consent and cookie and GDPR etc. popups and banners and forms and checkboxes. I could not care less and neither could most people out there. This crap is ruining the internet for no tangible benefit to the inexplicable thunderous applause of people on tech websites. It didn't hurt anyone when Sears collected rewards data for advertising and it never hurt anyone when web companies used data from user interaction. A simple static webpage is going to end up impossible for anyone but a megacorp to run legally if we keep going down this nonsensical path.

Imagine I mailed you an unsolicited letter and you were legally required to burn it and never say or benefit from what was inside just because I said so. That's the insanity of these "privacy" laws.

replies(2): >>22939105 #>>22939163 #
literallycancer ◴[] No.22939105[source]
Or you could just not collect information you don't need? You don't have to ask consent if you just don't do it, you know. The pop-ups are annoying because the website owners want you to just click through. Ever seen one of those where you have to uncheck every single box? Yep, those violate the GDPR. The default setting should be no advertising or other bullshit data, and opt-in if you want it. Which no one ever does. Hence the violations. Get mad at the manipulative ad companies, not the people who for once produced an OK piece of regulation.
replies(2): >>22939261 #>>22939327 #
renewiltord ◴[] No.22939261[source]
He's not the guy who is collecting data. He's the guy whose data is being collected. And I agree with him. True choice is not imposing this cost on everyone. Let me set it in my browser. Then I'll consent to practically everything and you can consent to nothing. And since it's set at your user agent you can synchronize that across devices easily.

If I never see another damned cookie popup I'd be thrilled.

replies(2): >>22939326 #>>22941092 #
meowface ◴[] No.22939326[source]
The cookie law is just insane to me. GDPR, or at least the parts that are commonly talked about, seems a lot more reasonable: a user should be able to request what data is being collected about them, and should be able to request a full account deletion, including deletion of all data collected from or about them (perhaps minus technical things that are very difficult to purge, like raw web server access logs).
replies(1): >>22939363 #
renewiltord ◴[] No.22939363[source]
> a user should be able to request what data is being collected about them, and should be able to request a full account deletion, including deletion of all data collected from or about them (perhaps minus technical things that are very difficult to purge, like raw web server access logs)

I think I'd find it very easy to like this. Honestly, these aspects of GDPR are great. Things I don't like:

* Not allowed to do "no service without data"

* Consent must be opt-in

Bloody exasperating as a user. At least if they'd set it in my user agent. But the browser guys just sit there like fools pontificating on third-party cookies instead of innovating for once and placing the opt-in / opt-out in the browser.

replies(2): >>22939838 #>>22940374 #
1. icebraining ◴[] No.22940374[source]
How is the first exasperating you as a user?
replies(1): >>22940561 #
2. renewiltord ◴[] No.22940561[source]
Pretty sure I'd get an option of "free X more articles if you give us your data to sell". Not getting that is annoying because I was fine with giving away my data for articles.