←back to thread

1134 points mtlynch | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.201s | 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 #
1. meowface ◴[] No.22941791[source]
Addendum: I have no clue if they actually are using fingerprinting or supercookies. I just know many anti-fraud service providers do.