Huh, I don't get it, why are US corporations so eager to take on them the tasks that should be done by law enforcement? What does PayPal gain by playing police and taking on liability for checking the content of transations? What kind of other petty crime are they going to start policing and can they be held liable if they fail to?
PayPal looses money on fraud (charge-back fraud mostly I assume). They had to pioneer fraud prediction/detection tech to even survive, let alone be profitable.
Actually after Peter Thiel left PayPal, he founded Palantir, which is strongly inspired by their fraud tech. Just more general.
Sure - in an ideal world the law enforcement would just catch all the bad guys and manage to get the money back. But when that doesn't happen a business has to account for it.
>Sure - in an ideal world the law enforcement would just catch all the bad guys and manage to get the money back. But when that doesn't happen a business has to account for it.<
IMO, the resources aren't there...and it's not complicated...
Cyber crime, fraud, identity theft...the manpower is simply not there to keep up with it all...sometimes you're lucky if someone has the time to complete a ticket, or report...
It's very possible conditions could get much, much worse before/if they improve...
IMHO, at a business level all sorts of decisions are being made that aren't going to be popular with the public...
I would guess that the policy was originally written for shady piracy merchants that are at higher risk for fraudulent payments. Now that it's in place, it's easy for a copyright holder to come knocking who wants to license their content in Australia but can't because the Australians are already watching their content on Netflix, who only had the UK rights. It's too late for them to rewrite the policy just to pick up a few hundred dollars in VPN buyers' transaction fees without angering deep-pocketed opposition.
