6 ms·

I would want to see regulations where banks are explicitly forbidden from blocking legal transactions. If it's legal then banks should have no choice but to ha

I would want to see regulations where banks are explicitly forbidden from blocking legal transactions. If it's legal then banks should have no choice but to handle it.

HWR_14 5y ago
The issue there is when it comes to likely fraudulent transactions. Like, a bank shouldn't have to give you 10MM in US currency because you hand them a "totally real check from Bill Gates" that looks like it was printed off a laserjet printer. But, they do make laserjet printed checks and maybe Gates uses them for the lulz. All transactions have some likelihood of fraud, so it's a fuzzy line.
croes 5y ago
The banks of the power and lobbyists to make certain things illegal.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
The biggest problem with this is that we already have regulations than punish banks for processing illegal transactions. If you don't want that, and you want the banks not to refuse any legal transactions, that's easy. They then don't refuse to process any transactions at all. If you do want them to refuse illegal transactions, and they're allowed to refuse legal transactions, that makes it easy for the bank because then they just refuse anything marginal even if it's totally legitimate. This is what we have now. It's not a problem for the bank but it's a big problem for the people getting unjustly locked out. Expecting the bank to process no illegal transactions and all legal transactions is an impossible burden, because nobody actually knows what that means. The meaning of a lot of laws isn't even settled until they get litigated in court and set a precedent. It would require the bank to be infallible, and know everything about everybody's business, because a mistake in either direction would incur penalties. So which one do you want? (The first one actually looks pretty good when you consider the alternatives. Let the police be the police and the bank be the bank.)
- sverhagen 5y ago
  Isn't that a false choice, that's only phrased to cater to the "that makes it easy for the bank"? They are now categorically refusing certain businesses. If those businesses could at least appeal and demonstrate that they are within the law, why wouldn't banks be mandated to process the transactions? This could go with some sort of safe haven for the banks, that if they did this review process that they won't be liable if an illegal transaction slips through. (And sure, some illegal transactions would slip through, but I'm convinced that this is already the case.)
  - pjc50 5y ago
    Possibly, but those businesses tend to be the ones that lack political cover and that a large section of the public and political sphere would happily ban anyway.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    Challenging it in court is an impossible burden for most people, so the most important thing is the default. Do we want the bank to assume you're a criminal, or do we want to assume you're innocent and make the police be the ones to prove if you're not?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - toyg 5y ago
      The DMCA, with all its faults, outlines a challenge process performed largely outside the courts. Something similar could be done for banks: bank shuts down account for company, company appeals providing some proof, bank files proof somewhere and reinstates. If the bank is then sued by government or third party, it is "safe-havened" by such proof. If proof is found to be false, the company is responsible, not the bank.
      - Isinlor 5y ago
        Yes, that's sounds like a very reasonable system. I like that it shift burden of law enforcement from banks onto actual law enforcement system with proper checks and balances.
0xy 5y ago
It's a very difficult task to determine if a transaction is legal or not, sometimes impossible. Regulations differ not only on the country and state level, but sometimes the city level. For example, can you buy alcohol in Delaware? Well, not if it's Sunday. How about a weekday? Not if it's between 1am and 9am. Can you buy alcohol in New Jersey on Sunday? Sure, well not if you're in Bergen County. That's one product. How do you propose these companies codify the entire world's regulations? It would require thousands of people to maintain the rule engine.
- sverhagen 5y ago
  So, are you suggesting that credit card firms no longer process liquor transactions? I think it's understood that there are nuanced difficulties, but does that mean they should categorically shut out entire industries? (I feel like for liquor we generally fall on the side of "no".)
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  The bar should be, is this business legally allowed to conduct business, not finer grained. It’s on the business not not break local laws.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "For example, can you buy alcohol in Delaware?" Next, TESLA eula will forbid you from going to questionable establishments, and the car will shut off if you arwle going to a strip club. USSR couldn't dream of this level of surveillance, turns out the trick was to privatise it.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    "I am sorry Dave, I am afraid I can't let you do that" Only it won't be delivered by AI, but by a compliance script tied to geo-blocked locations. It will get extra tricky for cars to navigate when their owners are child molesters and have to stay 10 miles away from houses with children in it. Onwards to our glorious future!
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
makeitdouble 5y ago
We would need at least _one_ chain of bank - payment processor that only works on payment fees and has a public mandate of letting the maximum transactions go through. Basically a pubic service PSP with loss financed by govs. I'm not holding my breath, and I can't imagine what could realistically be done at our level to be even an inch closer to that ideal. It's depressing.
makeitdouble 5y ago
We would need at least _one_ chain of bank - payment processor that only works on payment fees and has a public mandate of letting the maximum transactions go through. Basically a pubic service PSP with loss financed by govs. I'm not holding my breath, and I can't see a single action I could take that would bring us even a millimeter closer to this goal. It's depressing.
dotancohen 5y ago
I believe that the concept is called Common Carrier in other fields and legislation is very well established and developed.
Kalium 5y ago
From the way you frame this, you seem to think legal or illegal is an easy thing for a bank to evaluate quickly and accurately. Is that a correct statement of your position?
i21QMgplhRJs2OL 5y ago
More likely to get the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
Imnimo 5y ago
What would be the impact on consumer protections like chargebacks if banks were forced to process transactions they deemed to have a high risk of fraud?
ars 5y ago
> I would want to see regulations where banks are explicitly forbidden from blocking legal transactions. I want the same thing from web service providers - if the content is legal then Amazon, etc. should not be permitted to refuse service. Twitter should not be permitted to have its own terms and conditions, rather they should follow the law - it's either illegal, and ban the person, or it's legal and they must leave it up. Maybe put a limit like: If your number of registered users is at least 5% of the US adult population, then a new set of rules kicks in. There are some details I don't have answers for: What if someone posts things that are legal, but offtopic for the location? I don't want to prevent moderators from removing that kind of thing, but I also don't want them using it as a false reason. I'm sure there are other edge cases I have not thought of.
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  That literally flies in the face of the first amendment. Forcing a website to host something they don’t like is compelled speech. They’re private corporations and can do what they want. The courts are very clear on that. If you want them to be forced to host everyone, you nationalize them into a utility.
  - ars 5y ago
    That's what a common carrier is. It's not such a stretch to apply that to general purpose hosts. And if what you say is right, how can the parent propose requiring banks to process any legal transaction?
nobody9999 5y ago
>If it's legal then banks should have no choice but to handle it. Right. But banks are regulated by the US Federal government. And according to US federal law[0], possessing and selling cannabis is just as illegal as possessing and selling methamphetamine or heroin. As such, unless and until that changes, the banks aren't going to involve themselves in what the US Federal government deems a felony, regardless of what the several states do. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

I would want to see regulations where banks are explicitly forbidden from blocking legal transactions. If it's legal then banks should have no choice but to handle it.

HWR_14 5y ago

The issue there is when it comes to likely fraudulent transactions. Like, a bank shouldn't have to give you 10MM in US currency because you hand them a "totally real check from Bill Gates" that looks like it was printed off a laserjet printer. But, they do make laserjet printed checks and maybe Gates uses them for the lulz. All transactions have some likelihood of fraud, so it's a fuzzy line.

croes 5y ago

The banks of the power and lobbyists to make certain things illegal.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

The biggest problem with this is that we already have regulations than punish banks for processing illegal transactions. If you don't want that, and you want the banks not to refuse any legal transactions, that's easy. They then don't refuse to process any transactions at all. If you do want them to refuse illegal transactions, and they're allowed to refuse legal transactions, that makes it easy for the bank because then they just refuse anything marginal even if it's totally legitimate. This is what we have now. It's not a problem for the bank but it's a big problem for the people getting unjustly locked out. Expecting the bank to process no illegal transactions and all legal transactions is an impossible burden, because nobody actually knows what that means. The meaning of a lot of laws isn't even settled until they get litigated in court and set a precedent. It would require the bank to be infallible, and know everything about everybody's business, because a mistake in either direction would incur penalties. So which one do you want? (The first one actually looks pretty good when you consider the alternatives. Let the police be the police and the bank be the bank.)

sverhagen 5y ago
Isn't that a false choice, that's only phrased to cater to the "that makes it easy for the bank"? They are now categorically refusing certain businesses. If those businesses could at least appeal and demonstrate that they are within the law, why wouldn't banks be mandated to process the transactions? This could go with some sort of safe haven for the banks, that if they did this review process that they won't be liable if an illegal transaction slips through. (And sure, some illegal transactions would slip through, but I'm convinced that this is already the case.)
- pjc50 5y ago
  Possibly, but those businesses tend to be the ones that lack political cover and that a large section of the public and political sphere would happily ban anyway.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  Challenging it in court is an impossible burden for most people, so the most important thing is the default. Do we want the bank to assume you're a criminal, or do we want to assume you're innocent and make the police be the ones to prove if you're not?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - toyg 5y ago
    The DMCA, with all its faults, outlines a challenge process performed largely outside the courts. Something similar could be done for banks: bank shuts down account for company, company appeals providing some proof, bank files proof somewhere and reinstates. If the bank is then sued by government or third party, it is "safe-havened" by such proof. If proof is found to be false, the company is responsible, not the bank.
    - Isinlor 5y ago
      Yes, that's sounds like a very reasonable system. I like that it shift burden of law enforcement from banks onto actual law enforcement system with proper checks and balances.

0xy 5y ago

It's a very difficult task to determine if a transaction is legal or not, sometimes impossible. Regulations differ not only on the country and state level, but sometimes the city level. For example, can you buy alcohol in Delaware? Well, not if it's Sunday. How about a weekday? Not if it's between 1am and 9am. Can you buy alcohol in New Jersey on Sunday? Sure, well not if you're in Bergen County. That's one product. How do you propose these companies codify the entire world's regulations? It would require thousands of people to maintain the rule engine.

sverhagen 5y ago
So, are you suggesting that credit card firms no longer process liquor transactions? I think it's understood that there are nuanced difficulties, but does that mean they should categorically shut out entire industries? (I feel like for liquor we generally fall on the side of "no".)
rich_sasha 5y ago
The bar should be, is this business legally allowed to conduct business, not finer grained. It’s on the business not not break local laws.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"For example, can you buy alcohol in Delaware?" Next, TESLA eula will forbid you from going to questionable establishments, and the car will shut off if you arwle going to a strip club. USSR couldn't dream of this level of surveillance, turns out the trick was to privatise it.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  "I am sorry Dave, I am afraid I can't let you do that" Only it won't be delivered by AI, but by a compliance script tied to geo-blocked locations. It will get extra tricky for cars to navigate when their owners are child molesters and have to stay 10 miles away from houses with children in it. Onwards to our glorious future!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

makeitdouble 5y ago

We would need at least _one_ chain of bank - payment processor that only works on payment fees and has a public mandate of letting the maximum transactions go through. Basically a pubic service PSP with loss financed by govs. I'm not holding my breath, and I can't imagine what could realistically be done at our level to be even an inch closer to that ideal. It's depressing.

makeitdouble 5y ago

We would need at least _one_ chain of bank - payment processor that only works on payment fees and has a public mandate of letting the maximum transactions go through. Basically a pubic service PSP with loss financed by govs. I'm not holding my breath, and I can't see a single action I could take that would bring us even a millimeter closer to this goal. It's depressing.

dotancohen 5y ago

I believe that the concept is called Common Carrier in other fields and legislation is very well established and developed.

Kalium 5y ago

From the way you frame this, you seem to think legal or illegal is an easy thing for a bank to evaluate quickly and accurately. Is that a correct statement of your position?

i21QMgplhRJs2OL 5y ago

More likely to get the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point

Imnimo 5y ago

What would be the impact on consumer protections like chargebacks if banks were forced to process transactions they deemed to have a high risk of fraud?

ars 5y ago

> I would want to see regulations where banks are explicitly forbidden from blocking legal transactions. I want the same thing from web service providers - if the content is legal then Amazon, etc. should not be permitted to refuse service. Twitter should not be permitted to have its own terms and conditions, rather they should follow the law - it's either illegal, and ban the person, or it's legal and they must leave it up. Maybe put a limit like: If your number of registered users is at least 5% of the US adult population, then a new set of rules kicks in. There are some details I don't have answers for: What if someone posts things that are legal, but offtopic for the location? I don't want to prevent moderators from removing that kind of thing, but I also don't want them using it as a false reason. I'm sure there are other edge cases I have not thought of.

colejohnson66 5y ago
That literally flies in the face of the first amendment. Forcing a website to host something they don’t like is compelled speech. They’re private corporations and can do what they want. The courts are very clear on that. If you want them to be forced to host everyone, you nationalize them into a utility.
- ars 5y ago
  That's what a common carrier is. It's not such a stretch to apply that to general purpose hosts. And if what you say is right, how can the parent propose requiring banks to process any legal transaction?

nobody9999 5y ago

>If it's legal then banks should have no choice but to handle it. Right. But banks are regulated by the US Federal government. And according to US federal law[0], possessing and selling cannabis is just as illegal as possessing and selling methamphetamine or heroin. As such, unless and until that changes, the banks aren't going to involve themselves in what the US Federal government deems a felony, regardless of what the several states do. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act