Good morning, Scott.

1. Many humans are bad at UX. That includes devs, PMs, BAs, leadership, QA engineers, etc. That’s fine! Many PMs, BAs, leadership, and UX are bad at coding and engineering. We all have specialties. Some devs are great at UX. Most are not. This has nothing to do with any point in my article, but thanks for giving me the chance to clear that up.
2. I searched my own article to make sure I didn’t miss something, but I can’t find anything in there that says that if a company creates a bad product or bad feature, it’s the devs or “the devs haven’t accounted for it.” I’m not sure why you are pretending that I think the problem is developers. I never said it in the article, I don’t think that, and you shouldn’t pretend that’s my stance (and then fight me on a stance I don’t have).
3. At most companies I’ve worked at, consulted with, or been told about, features are often poor because of decisions made by people who aren’t UX or Engineering. It’s more common that a PM, product leader, stakeholder, exec, or someone else with a horse in the race told UX and Engineering what we’re building. Sometimes good devs and good UX people speak up against bad ideas or ideas with security flaws. Sometimes they are not listened to. Are you telling me you have never worked at a company (and have no friends who have worked at companies) where BS was released to the public because a PM, stakeholder, or leader overrode what UX or Engineering said or warned about? Then you are lucky.
4. There exists the possibility that Escrow.com has been fooled by someone forging a document. If you are 100% sure that has never happened, then I’d ask how you know that! :) But it’s possible that systems and humans might be fooled by a changed document.
5. Whether or not Escrow.com can recognize a forged document isn’t the main point of my article. At all. When written well, article titles can help you know the main idea of the article. My main point is that: with this system in place, what are companies who have these types of policies doing about people who don’t have any records in their name? Do they really have no way to include them? What information do they need and why? How can we design and build systems that include people who might not have the one document that you need? These are questions for the reader to consider and take back to their teams.
6. I find it interesting that people who love to say “educate yourself” and “you need to do more research” or the like rarely point you to an article that would give you the information they think you need. In the time it took you to battle yourself based on things you made up about me, you could have sent me an article or two explaining how when built correctly, systems can recognize 100% of forged cell phone bills and never miss one.
7. I’m happy to be called out, but it would make more sense to call me out on something I actually think or believe. It doesn’t make sense to shit on me for what I supposedly think of developers (who while generally not great at UX are absolute heroes doing an often thankless job I could never do) or to shit on me for not doing more research about how 100% of forgeries are always caught… when my article is about the human side of what do people do who are caught in ANY situation where they don’t have documents with their name or the right piece of information. And why don’t companies have other ways to verify this data. I recently called a credit card company. To verify me, they asked me for a recent address, who I lived with there, and the month that person was born. Those are things I would know without needing a document I can’t legally produce.

I hope you can reread your comment and get to the source of your anger at me. Because I don’t know who you’re fighting, but it can’t be me. I don’t believe the things you claim that I do.