4 ms·
I'm guessing you didn't meant to come off as bigoted but I have a lot of friends named Mohammad, none of whom have any legal issues, nor are any of them members
by jbm 15y ago
I'm guessing you didn't meant to come off as bigoted but I have a lot of friends named Mohammad, none of whom have any legal issues, nor are any of them members of terrorist organizations. If the attitude towards me sending money to one of them for any number of legitimate reasons is baseless suspicion, maybe many people like me will wind up looking for alternatives - like bitcoin.
At the expense of karma, allow me to add that in an odious legal atmosphere where prosecutors consider photographing chicken coops as terrorism, it won't just be people with funny terrorist-sounding names winding up using Bitcoin.
- GFischer 15y agoI'm not the poster, but I also work for a regulated industry, and I have to comply with those regulations, which I certainly don't agree with (and even campaigned against). I also guess that Smirnoff didn't mean it that way either. So, it's probably not Western Union who's to blame when sending money to Mohammed (or José Rodriguez which is an extremely common name here) is a big hassle for all parties involved, it's the regulators. The only thing WU can be blamed for is for working within the rules. It's not bigotry by WU. As he said, if services start providing money transfers (using Bitcoin or whatever) without complying with regulations, they'll probably will have to be based somewhere outside the US's influence, and will eventually be blocked and impeded in the US (see: online poker, only worse)