←back to thread

475 points danielstocks | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
vesinisa ◴[] No.27301780[source]
Klarna is no stranger to criminally lax attitude towards data privacy and security. In Finland, they implemented a checkout flow based only on your SSN (personal ID number). By simply entering someone else's SSN (which is not hard to guess/pry) you can reveal anyone's official home address.

Further, they enable a "pay later by invoice" checkout flow, again by just knowing someone's SSN. Scammers use this to order items from web stores to automated pick-up lockers with someone's else's SSN for payment info. The victim usually only becomes aware about this activity when they start getting debt collection notices for unpaid invoices from multiple stores for thousands and thousands of euros. The debt collection process in Finland is famously unfair and harsh towards the supposed "debtor" (here: victim of fraud).

Unless the "debtor" (victim) actively opposes each and every individual collection, the cases will eventually end up in court with summary judgement. This will ruin the victim's credit rating, which has devastating results for just about all aspects of life. People are known to have collapsed under the burden of all this and ended up taking their own life.

Klarna's response to all this is that they want convenient checkout experience and some fraud is unavoidable. Although there are excellent technical means available to strongly identify users in Finland, they add a minor layer of inconvenience compared to just typing in your SSN. This is OK for Klarna since they give exactly zero fucks about security as long as they can make a little buck from it.

replies(6): >>27303311 #>>27309354 #>>27309767 #>>27309989 #>>27310306 #>>27310511 #
sly010 ◴[] No.27309354[source]
I am not sure this makes sense. Shouldn't Klarna provide proof of the transaction to the court? Won't the court look at it and throw it out as baseless? If Klarna were actually on the hook for their own money, it wold only have to happen a few times before they realize it's not worth it. edit: definitely not a finnish lawyer
replies(2): >>27310880 #>>27313515 #
1. AdamJacobMuller ◴[] No.27310880[source]
> If Klarna were actually on the hook for their own money

Aren't they?

> it wold only have to happen a few times before they realize it's not worth it

That's an assumption. Someone did some A/B testing and said this payment flow results in X% increased sales, resulting in Y% more revenue for Klarna, it results in Z% more fraud. I don't even object to this per-se.

If Y is greater than Z, they will do it.

If they are especially awful they will consider that of the Z% of fraud it will result in A% still being paid for and B% being recovered in debt collection. That is awful.

replies(1): >>27317092 #
2. heavenlyblue ◴[] No.27317092[source]
> results in Z% more fraud

They would probably not measure fraud but just losses directly.