4 ms·

It is about KYC. This is how they get their foot in the door.

by akyu 6y ago

yowlingcat 6y ago
Yep, that's my exact point. That's what makes KYC such an important obligation from the firm's standpoint because the only way you can prove that you did everything within your power to obey it is to require it before the user is allowed touch any kind of asset on platform.
- bequanna 6y ago
  Why should non-US residents who are consumers of a non-US based service be subject to US KYC?
  - pfisch 6y ago
    Because money laundering is a crime that doesn't recognize borders. If the US wants to take a strong anti money laundering position that is something I agree with. It is hard not to when you see awful people taking over governments the world over and stealing completely insane amounts of wealth from the people. This isn't nickel and dime crimes. These are insane crimes that do damage to billions of people on scales you can't even measure. These people should honestly face life imprisonment, but they never do.
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      How far does it go? Invade other countries to spread democracy and rule of law? And how much privacy do you violate to stop bad actors? You're okay with AML laws, which are a form of warrantless financial mass-surveillance, so how about wiretapping all communications as well? How about prohibiting end-to-end-encryption, and public access to strong cryptography? As money becomes wholly digital, you will need warrantless mass-surveillance of all communication to maintain warrantless mass-surveillance of all financial transactions.
      - yowlingcat 6y ago
        > How far does it go? How far does what go? Your imagination? Your hyperbole? I suppose you will be stopping El Chapo with a thick copy of The Fountainhead. Grow up.
        CryptoPunk 6y ago
        I personally think the US has a tradition of liberty, in the Constitution and stretching back to Habeas Corpus, that is worth protecting, and shouldn't be using any sort of mass-surveillance of private interactions. Warrantless mass surveillance is the kind of law enforcement strategy used by authoritarian states like China's. The reason the power of the state ought to be checked is that the people who work in the state can pose a threat to others, just as anyone can. A threat analysis that does not include the state itself as a potential threat vector, and only considers the threats that emerge when the state cannot invade everyone and anyone's privacy at its whim, is wholly incomplete.
        yowlingcat 6y ago
        I'd like to think the US has a tradition of liberty as well. But I /know/ the US has a tradition of operating as the world's de-facto global enforcer, especially post WWII. The ship of mass-surveillance has sailed. Does that mean I think we should throw up our hands and accept it? No. As I assume you'd agree with, I think it's wrong, and I want to see it eventually unwound. With that said, I'm suspicious of litigating the sin of the ship having left the port. I'm more curious to see where the ship has set sail too. Fundamentally, the US dollar has the power it has because it is backed by the US military. And the US military has the power it has because it established America's pole position as global superpower. So if you're going to talk about unwinding a regime of mass-surveillance, I'd like to think you're also going to talk about how, practically speaking, America moves back into an isolationist geopolitical doctrine not seen since pre WWI at latest. I'll be honest, I really wouldn't mind seeing that. But I also don't really see it happening, because it requires America to cede its global superpower status and return to existence as a mere regional power. Now, you've said a lot of things about how things "should" be, but you haven't really talked about practically "how" they've come to be the way they are, or how we may get them to be another way. So I'll ask you directly: just how do you propose we get this country enriched by and enmeshed in war to this grand higher existence you envision?
    - yowlingcat 6y ago
      You're getting downvoted but you're right. Ideally, we'd live in a world where highly sophisticated multinational cartel like entities don't regularly abuse markets to launder their ill gotten gains and finance their operations. Perhaps your downvoters (and mine too) in this thread would like to argue that it's a slippery slope akin to surveillance to accept AML laws which a priori purport to protect us from the effects of these crimes while only taking freedom further away and creating more space for despotic selective enforcement. I'm sympathetic to this argument, but only to a point. Another side to this argument is that AML laws should be resisted not just because they are right or wrong, but because they are ineffective. My problem is while I may have sympathies to these ideas in theory, in practice, proactively addressing, enforcing and prosecuting money laundering is something just about every government has a vested interest in doing because governments fund themselves through taxation. I can understand the desire to limit government AML overstep and surveillance, but wouldn't that simply mean that we leave AML enforcement and surveillance to the private markets? Would it mean we somehow reform society so there would be no nee for money laundering in the first place because we've eradicated criminal enterprise in the first place? I'll be the first to admit I don't have an answer for you. I'd say I wonder if the downvoters do, but I think we both know the answer to that.
      - vmception 6y ago
        My thoughts on the matter is that the US and other governments deputized financial intermediaries to perform surveillance and pre-emptive enforcement. This is merely a convenience they’ve gotten in a coincidental electronic transfer system that required those intermediaries. They didnt have it before and they wont have it after. These governments have not been granted any additional rights over money flows and as the intermediaries become unnecessary, it will be prudent for them to remember bot to waste public resources grasping for the convenience of warrantless surveillance. Their ability to implement seamless automated anti money laundering procedures and enforcement evaporates, and they would be better off unburdening people now instead of trying to push for a right they never actually had. They’ll have to create new tools to deter and prosecute whatever behavior they are actually trying to stop.
    - Aerroon 6y ago
      And who protects the world from the US when they inevitably play kingmaker in a foreign country again? Quite a few despotic regimes saw their beginnings in US meddling.
    - IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
      Did you know the US is the biggest money launderer jurisdiction in the world? This does not bode well for your moral high ground

It is about KYC. This is how they get their foot in the door.

by akyu 6y ago

It is about KYC. This is how they get their foot in the door.

Yep, that's my exact point. That's what makes KYC such an important obligation from the firm's standpoint because the only way you can prove that you did everything within your power to obey it is to require it before the user is allowed touch any kind of asset on platform.

bequanna 6y ago
Why should non-US residents who are consumers of a non-US based service be subject to US KYC?
- pfisch 6y ago
  Because money laundering is a crime that doesn't recognize borders. If the US wants to take a strong anti money laundering position that is something I agree with. It is hard not to when you see awful people taking over governments the world over and stealing completely insane amounts of wealth from the people. This isn't nickel and dime crimes. These are insane crimes that do damage to billions of people on scales you can't even measure. These people should honestly face life imprisonment, but they never do.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    How far does it go? Invade other countries to spread democracy and rule of law? And how much privacy do you violate to stop bad actors? You're okay with AML laws, which are a form of warrantless financial mass-surveillance, so how about wiretapping all communications as well? How about prohibiting end-to-end-encryption, and public access to strong cryptography? As money becomes wholly digital, you will need warrantless mass-surveillance of all communication to maintain warrantless mass-surveillance of all financial transactions.
    - yowlingcat 6y ago
      > How far does it go? How far does what go? Your imagination? Your hyperbole? I suppose you will be stopping El Chapo with a thick copy of The Fountainhead. Grow up.
      - CryptoPunk 6y ago
        I personally think the US has a tradition of liberty, in the Constitution and stretching back to Habeas Corpus, that is worth protecting, and shouldn't be using any sort of mass-surveillance of private interactions. Warrantless mass surveillance is the kind of law enforcement strategy used by authoritarian states like China's. The reason the power of the state ought to be checked is that the people who work in the state can pose a threat to others, just as anyone can. A threat analysis that does not include the state itself as a potential threat vector, and only considers the threats that emerge when the state cannot invade everyone and anyone's privacy at its whim, is wholly incomplete.
        yowlingcat 6y ago
        I'd like to think the US has a tradition of liberty as well. But I /know/ the US has a tradition of operating as the world's de-facto global enforcer, especially post WWII. The ship of mass-surveillance has sailed. Does that mean I think we should throw up our hands and accept it? No. As I assume you'd agree with, I think it's wrong, and I want to see it eventually unwound. With that said, I'm suspicious of litigating the sin of the ship having left the port. I'm more curious to see where the ship has set sail too. Fundamentally, the US dollar has the power it has because it is backed by the US military. And the US military has the power it has because it established America's pole position as global superpower. So if you're going to talk about unwinding a regime of mass-surveillance, I'd like to think you're also going to talk about how, practically speaking, America moves back into an isolationist geopolitical doctrine not seen since pre WWI at latest. I'll be honest, I really wouldn't mind seeing that. But I also don't really see it happening, because it requires America to cede its global superpower status and return to existence as a mere regional power. Now, you've said a lot of things about how things "should" be, but you haven't really talked about practically "how" they've come to be the way they are, or how we may get them to be another way. So I'll ask you directly: just how do you propose we get this country enriched by and enmeshed in war to this grand higher existence you envision?
  - yowlingcat 6y ago
    You're getting downvoted but you're right. Ideally, we'd live in a world where highly sophisticated multinational cartel like entities don't regularly abuse markets to launder their ill gotten gains and finance their operations. Perhaps your downvoters (and mine too) in this thread would like to argue that it's a slippery slope akin to surveillance to accept AML laws which a priori purport to protect us from the effects of these crimes while only taking freedom further away and creating more space for despotic selective enforcement. I'm sympathetic to this argument, but only to a point. Another side to this argument is that AML laws should be resisted not just because they are right or wrong, but because they are ineffective. My problem is while I may have sympathies to these ideas in theory, in practice, proactively addressing, enforcing and prosecuting money laundering is something just about every government has a vested interest in doing because governments fund themselves through taxation. I can understand the desire to limit government AML overstep and surveillance, but wouldn't that simply mean that we leave AML enforcement and surveillance to the private markets? Would it mean we somehow reform society so there would be no nee for money laundering in the first place because we've eradicated criminal enterprise in the first place? I'll be the first to admit I don't have an answer for you. I'd say I wonder if the downvoters do, but I think we both know the answer to that.
    - vmception 6y ago
      My thoughts on the matter is that the US and other governments deputized financial intermediaries to perform surveillance and pre-emptive enforcement. This is merely a convenience they’ve gotten in a coincidental electronic transfer system that required those intermediaries. They didnt have it before and they wont have it after. These governments have not been granted any additional rights over money flows and as the intermediaries become unnecessary, it will be prudent for them to remember bot to waste public resources grasping for the convenience of warrantless surveillance. Their ability to implement seamless automated anti money laundering procedures and enforcement evaporates, and they would be better off unburdening people now instead of trying to push for a right they never actually had. They’ll have to create new tools to deter and prosecute whatever behavior they are actually trying to stop.
  - Aerroon 6y ago
    And who protects the world from the US when they inevitably play kingmaker in a foreign country again? Quite a few despotic regimes saw their beginnings in US meddling.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
    Did you know the US is the biggest money launderer jurisdiction in the world? This does not bode well for your moral high ground