Can Amazon see or ask me to provide my bank account's mailing address?

[JamesNorth101]

Just to chip in here for clarification...

GOA which of these 2 situations are you saying happens?

Situation 1

Amazon employee Gonzo phones up the card card company

'Hey y'all what's happening. How are you man? (insert small talk yada yada)

'I am just hitting you up bruh from Amazon Super Dooper Cool Team to see if this this card number matches this address. Can y'all run it through your system and give me a yes or no bruh?'

Gonzo then tells the patient credit card employee the card number and the full address

The patient credit card employee then answers
'yes that card matches that address'
or
'no that card does not match that address'


Situation 2

Amazon employee Charles phones the card company

'Good morning my fine fellow I am phoning from the Amazon Flim Flam Team. I have a card here (tells the card company employee the card number). Can you tell me what address is registered to this card please my fine man?'

Card company then tells them the full address.

End of situation 2

(I may have taken liberties with the way in which the Amazon employees speak...)

I am unclear as to which of these 2 situations are saying you think is possible?

Situation 2 I do not see being possible. Situation 1 I think is feasible because its basically just an AVS check. I am not saying either of these do or do not happen, but if one were to happen I would expect it to be situation 1 and not 2

[elmo]

It's not gonna happen buddy, I've worked in financial sectors / banks for 5+ years

At the lower level you're going to reach tellers/branch managers. The tellers would get fired for releasing such information, and the branch managers are well aware of the privacy laws and wouldn't confirm or release this information.

At the higher level you're going to reach even more sophisticated employees that would never compromise their jobs and break the law to confirm some random information from some random caller.

Think about it from a common sense point of view. Any high up branch executive is not going to be able to verify the caller is an employee at Amazon. And even if they were able to somehow verify the caller, its still against the law for them to confirm or give any information out without some type of written court order. Now look at it this way... Identity theft is HUGE. If institutions were confirming any information over the phone, they could be potentially helping a scammer confirm someones personal information (identity theft). It's simply not going to happen the way you say it will.

Every financial institution has a fraud department and they're not going to release any information about an account holder without written court orders. And even then, they don't release that information to a private company like Amazon, they release it to law enforcement / government agencies. They have no obligation to speak to Amazon, eBay/Paypal etc.

[GhostOfAmazon]

James:

Situtation 1 which MAY OR MAY NOT include the card #. The card number, as mentioned above, is NOT "public information" therefore I presume Amazon merely asks the bank if the details you provide (name address and phone #) MATCH the records of a customer at the bank.

If the bank DOES NOT have a "John Doe" living at "123 Stealth Ave" with the phone # 123-456-7890 they can simply say "No Amazon, we do not have a customer with those specific details at this time."


THIS IS IMPORTANT: THE INFORMATION LISTED ABOVE CAN BE FOUND IN A PHONE BOOK AND IS THEREFORE PUBLIC INFORMATION. There is absolutely ZERO debate about this, it's actually used as in example in the above quoted laws, thus there is NOTHING to debate about the above fact.


Thus Amazon can confirm the statement provided by you is FALSE, thus they know you're stealth. They may not know EXACTLY what doesn't match (possibly it's only 1 digit of the phone #, or maybe everything is fictional) but they do know it is NOT accurate. For Amazons purposes, that's all they need to know.

I know Amazon does this because it has HAPPENED to me on an account I personally own and ran. I was told BY THE TEAM THAT DOES THE INVESTIGATION that the bank denied Mr John Doe being their customer (since the person who Amazon is doing business with does not have a bank account there, being as he does not exist)

[BiN4RY]

Originally Posted by GhostOfAmazon

They don't even need to "match" The last 4 with your information. All they need to do is call bank, list the charge or attempted charge, and ask if the information provided (i.e. stealth name, address, phone #) matches what the bank has on file. AGAIN: This is considered "public" information and thus, under law is free to be disclosed.

I LITERALLY talked about this in the first post I've made in this thread. This entire discussion wouldn't have been needed if you weren't being so arrogant about it.

Originally Posted by JamesNorth101

...

The first situation where the payment processor asks your bank to verify if the information is correct with a "yes" and "no" is very possible; this is how your credit cards are verified.

Situation 2 is not possible without some sort of court order.

[JamesNorth101]

Originally Posted by BiN4RY

The first situation where the payment processor asks your bank to verify if the information is correct with a "yes" and "no" is very possible; this is how your credit cards are verified.

Situation 2 is not possible without some sort of court order.

Exactly what I had thought. I am trying to work out which of the 2 situations GOA was saying happened in his case.

@GOA < So I think your saying situation 1? Or some variation of. I am still not totally clear on that... Sometimes when answering something sometimes less is more GOA.

[GhostOfAmazon]

Originally Posted by elmo

It's not gonna happen buddy, I've worked in financial sectors / banks for 5+ years

At the lower level you're going to reach tellers/branch managers. The tellers would get fired for releasing such information, and the branch managers are well aware of the privacy laws and wouldn't confirm or release this information.

At the higher level you're going to reach even more sophisticated employees that would never compromise their jobs and break the law to confirm some random information from some random caller.

Think about it from a common sense point of view. Any high up branch executive is not going to be able to verify the caller is an employee at Amazon. And even if they were able to somehow verify the caller, its still against the law for them to confirm or give any information out without some type of written court order. From an identity theft point of view, anyone can still someones identity by confirming this information over phone, that is primarily why its a law in the first place, it's simply not going to happen.

Every financial institution has a fraud department and they're not going to release any information about an account holder without written court orders. And even then, they don't release that information to a private company like Amazon, they release it to law enforcement / government agencies. They have no obligation to speak to Amazon, eBay/Paypal etc.

Once again you're blowing smoke with no evidence to back up your claims. You may or may not have worked at a bank. It's irrelevant. We're discussing LAW which is BLACK and WHITE.

PUBLIC INFORMATION (the law uses the example of info that can be found in the phonebook) CAN BE DISCLOSED WITHOUT LIMITATION IF RELATING TO POTENTIAL FRAUD. Since providing false information is FRAUD, verifying the public information relates to FRAUD. Thus the bank is free to disclose this info.

Also, your example is absurd. Of course Indian rep Konda is not calling random bank teller Shelby and asking for this information. This is Amazon fraud department calling Financial Institution fraud department. Amazon is one of THE largest retailers in the world. Thus they have a relationship with EVERY bank, at least as a retailer. It's not as if "Joe Blow" is calling Amazon. This is a very high ranking FRAUD DEPARTMENT calling another companies high ranking FRAUD DEPARTMENT. I guarantee Amazon has access to these departments directly since they do literally millions of transactions every single day.

Your idea that Amazon could never verify PUBLIC INFORMATION with a bank is beyond ridiculous.

[GhostOfAmazon]

Originally Posted by BiN4RY

The first situation where the payment processor asks your bank to verify if the information is correct with a "yes" and "no" is very possible; this is how your credit cards are verified.

You LITERALLY just admitted I'm correct...

Amazon IS a "payments processor". They are called "AMAZON PAYMENTS". Thus, there is NO middle man between Amazon and the bank. They are, in a word, the judge, jury, and executioner.

[JamesNorth101]

Originally Posted by GhostOfAmazon

You LITERALLY just admitted I'm correct...

Amazon IS a "payments processor". They are called "AMAZON PAYMENTS". Thus, there is NO middle man between Amazon and the bank. They are, in a word, the judge, jury, and executioner.

The issues here GOA is that its not very clear what your saying happens.

It seemed like you were saying Amazon could phone the bank and ask for all the persons details and the bank would just hand them over. I don't think that is what you were trying to say though. Its just not very clear though.

I think your saying that Amazon can phone the bank account the bank can say yes or no to certain information matching information they have on file?

[GhostOfAmazon]

James, I wrote it VERY clearly in great detail with examples. I do not know how I could be any clearer.

Your name, address and phone # are public information.
The law gives the bank full authority to release public information to party they choose under certain circumstances, including FRAUD (i.e. pretending to be someone you are not)
Amazon uses it's own payments processor called "Amazon Payments". They do not go through a middleman. They process transactions directly with the bank.
Since Amazon is the payment processor, they have the right and ability to verify PUBLIC INFORMATION with the bank. The bank can and will confirm "yes" or "no" to Amazon when provided public information.

[JamesNorth101]

I think sometimes your point gets lots as you make your posts so long with some many different little bits to them that its hard to grasp what your actually trying to say (at least for me!).

[BiN4RY]

Originally Posted by GhostOfAmazon

You LITERALLY just admitted I'm correct...

Amazon IS a "payments processor". They are called "AMAZON PAYMENTS". Thus, there is NO middle man between Amazon and the bank. They are, in a word, the judge, jury, and executioner.

Originally Posted by BiN4RY

Also, when Amazon/Paypal tries to verify the information you've provided with your bank, the most the bank will ever answer is a "Yes" or a "No". They don't disclose WHAT doesn't match, or what the actual information you have file is.

I have said banks lets payment processor verifies provided information with a "yes" or "no" since the very beginning. You then started off rambling about irrelevant **** about how banks can give out your personal information at ease, which is neither correct or relevant to the discussion.

I'm not going to participate this discussion any further, since it's is not getting anywhere useful at this point. It seems like you value your ego significantly more than actually contributing in a proper discussion or listening to what others have to say.

[GhostOfAmazon]

^

Thanks for bowing out and admitting you have no facts to back up your arguement. I rest my case.

The laws I mentioned are very relevant to the discussion, I explained how and why, and you came to the same conclusion I did: Public information (name, address, phone #) can be given out legally. That is what Amazon verifies thus the answer to the question is yes, if the decide to, they can verify the information on your card.

They do not do this automatically. They do it manually. Thus something has to TRIGGER a review of this sort, which is why most of you are naive to it (I was too until it happened to me).

Binary, since you're able to read it, I suggest you check out my post in the appropriate place on the subject for more detail.

Or just admit you're wrong and leave the thread. Either way is fine to me.

[GhostOfAmazon]

Amazon has no need to know WHAT is inaccurate. All they care about is that the info IS inaccurate (i.e. stealth). This is ALL They need or WANT to know. Its the only excuse they need to can your account forever. This is common sense on the forum, I cannot understand why you're arguing against it.

[BiN4RY]

Originally Posted by GhostOfAmazon

Thanks for bowing out and admitting you have no facts to back up your arguement. I rest my case.

You mean the several sections of excerpts I pulled from the actual legislation papers which you ignored, because I proved you wrong and made your anecdote irrelevant?

damn, you sure got me there!
backpedal some more buddy

[GhostOfAmazon]

Which I disputed....and you later backed up and agreed that:

The first situation where the payment processor asks your bank to verify if the information is correct with a "yes" and "no" is very possible; this is how your credit cards are verified.

Amazon IS a "payments processor" (Google "Amazon Payments"). Thus, AMAZON (as a "payments processor") can ask the BANK to "verify with a yes and no".

Ergo, Amazon can ask the bank if what you give matches what the bank has.

So, can Amazon read specifically what the exact info on your card is? NO. NO THEY CANNOT.

Can they tell the information you provided is bogus? YES, THEY CAN.

Maybe we were arguing over this petty technicality. If so, I do apologize. If not, please provide evidence that the above is incorrect.

[BiN4RY]

Originally Posted by GhostOfAmazon

Maybe we were arguing over this petty technicality. If so, I do apologize. If not, please provide evidence that the above is incorrect.

This is the third time I've said this, I never disagreed with this statement in the first place.

This statement

Originally Posted by BiN4RY

The first situation where the payment processor asks your bank to verify if the information is correct with a "yes" and "no" is very possible; this is how your credit cards are verified.

is 100% equivalent to this statement:

Originally Posted by BiN4RY

Also, when Amazon/Paypal tries to verify the information you've provided with your bank, the most the bank will ever answer is a "Yes" or a "No". They don't disclose WHAT doesn't match, or what the actual information you have file is.

There is no difference and I never changed meanings. I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue about at this point.

In conclusion, payment processors/amazon/paypal/whatever CAN ask your financial institute if the information you've provided matches with a "yes" or a "no". They CANNOT find out the actual information you have registered with the bank without some sort of court order.

This discussion has been running in loops for the past while. Please say no more.

[GhostOfAmazon]

I apologize Binary. We were arguing over something we both agree upon. I do apologize for misunderstanding your point.

Here's the bottom line. Amazon CANNOT tell that "John Doe" is actually "Andrew Smith". They CANNOT tell that "123 Stealth Ave" is actually "567 Main St" What they CAN do is VERIFY the information you provide is either TRUE or FALSE. They might not know WHAT is false, but they WILL know it IS false. And for our purposes, that's ALL they NEED to know. Once they find out it's FALSE, the account is done, period. They don't NEED your real name. They don't NEED your real address. They only need to know you gave them false information. Then your account is shut-down.

For all intents and purposes, it does not matter if they can see your name is Joe Blow or Steve Martin, they know you aren't who you say you are, so they shut you down anyways.

And for the record, once again: This does NOT occur automatically, only during CERTAIN manual reviews. It's time intensive for Amazon so it isn't common practice for every review.

[JamesNorth101]

Originally Posted by GhostOfAmazon

I apologize Binary. We were arguing over something we both agree upon. I do apologize for misunderstanding your point.

Exactly why I asked which situation you were saying happened.

It just wasn't very clear what you were saying.

Sometimes your posts are so long as go off in so many different directly that their meaning is totally lost to a lot of people.

[GhostOfAmazon]

Yup, the misunderstanding was partially my fault. I admit I argued over something we agreed on. It's a bit silly knowing we were never really in disagreement, but I'm glad we're on the same page now.

[BiN4RY]

Originally Posted by GhostOfAmazon

I apologize Binary. We were arguing over something we both agree upon. I do apologize for misunderstanding your point.

It's all good. Sorry if I was being aggressive, it was frustrating trying to get a point across when we were unknowingly debating on two different topics lol

[rsot]

Originally Posted by BiN4RY

It's all good. Sorry if I was being aggressive, it was frustrating trying to get a point across when we were unknowingly debating on two different topics lol

Beautiful

[elmo]

That's what I like to see