4 ms·

Then payment processors either need to either 1) be able to determine with 100% certainty whether something is legal or 2) be given broad immunity with respect

Then payment processors either need to either 1) be able to determine with 100% certainty whether something is legal or 2) be given broad immunity with respect to customers' illegal activities as long as they weren't strictly aware. The problem is that 1) is not possible and 2) incentivizes these intermediaries from keeping track of what their customers do, which then opens door to all kinds of criminal activities. Money laundering becomes virtually impossible to prosecute in that environment, which then makes other criminal activities substantially more profitable.

blagie 4y ago
If I were to list my top 10 problems in life, money laundering would not make the list. I would like payment processors to operate like common carriers. I prefer not having private law enforcement, and having it done by government agencies. The extent to which I want the government to have access to my day-to-day purchases is another matter, but even that's better than commercial operations where I have no recourse.
- candybar 4y ago
  Money laundering isn't a big problem for you right now precisely because the world works the way it does, rather than the way you wish it did. The relationship between money laundering and corruption is well-established and globally, corruption is one of the biggest problems if you care about human welfare.
  - blagie 4y ago
    If I were to make a list of my top-10 problems, corruption would be near the top. None of the cases I've seen involved money laundering. If I were to make a trade-off, I would implement many more transparency measures for organizations, not for individuals. If I can see what happens in my local school, municipal government, corporation, university, church, and non-profit, that would cut down on all the corruption I've seen, dramatically. I see no downsides to transparency measures which don't impact individuals, and they have a lot more impact than corporations snooping on me. Indeed, in one case I saw corruption, corporate snooping meant that the corrupt place had more leverage over a whistleblower. That's no good.
    - candybar 4y ago
      If you don't understand the connection between money laundering and corruption, you certainly do not have a very strong understanding of the problem of corruption. Also, good luck having "transparency measures" in a world where intermediaries are allowed immunity as long as they don't know stuff.
      - blagie 4y ago
        Nice. Switch from discussion to insults. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is clearly an idiot who doesn't understand things. Yes, I do understand the connection between corruption and money laundering. That touches on one form of corruption. There are many others. If I were to eliminate corruption, I'd take measures like: - Extend laws like FOIA and Open Meetings, dramatically, so we have a much clearer understanding of government. In particular, I'd extend enforcement and penalties. Wilful violations should be criminal. - Extend such laws to cover non-profits as well. I should be able to ask a church, a university, or any other organization exempt from taxes for documents, or sit in on governance meetings. - Put in stronger whistleblower protections, and eliminate a lot of the power of NDA / non-disparage / etc agreements - Increase SEC-mandated transparency measures ... and so on. Those have nothing to do with money laundering, and to me, are strict wins. Very little of the corruption I've seen involves bags of money. Most corruption involves things like (not directly financial) preferential treatment. If I give you a raise you don't deserve, give your child preferential treatment at my school, or cut a sweet deal for your company, that doesn't show up in a Paypal transaction.
        candybar 4y ago
        > Very little of the corruption I've seen involves bags of money. As I said, that's precisely because the world works the way it does, rather than the way you wish it did. The bottleneck for lots of otherwise extremely profitable criminal endeavors is their reliance on traditional financial intermediaries. > That touches on one form of corruption. I'm talking about the type of corruption that keeps entire countries from developing economically. I don't know what you're on about. And no, your series of suggestions, which amount to saying make the current regulations stronger, doesn't come close to closing a huge loophole created by giving blanket immunity to financial intermediaries. Edit: honestly it sounds like you ran into some unfortunate situation somewhere and hold a personal grudge. But that's not a particularly meaningful basis for policy recommendation, especially given that it's quite clear that you don't understand the domain particularly well. > Most corruption involves things like (not directly financial) preferential treatment. If I give you a raise you don't deserve, give your child preferential treatment at my school, or cut a sweet deal for your company, that doesn't show up in a Paypal transaction. Most corruption is like this when you live in a country where corruption isn't much of a problem.

blagie 4y ago

If I were to list my top 10 problems in life, money laundering would not make the list. I would like payment processors to operate like common carriers. I prefer not having private law enforcement, and having it done by government agencies. The extent to which I want the government to have access to my day-to-day purchases is another matter, but even that's better than commercial operations where I have no recourse.

candybar 4y ago
Money laundering isn't a big problem for you right now precisely because the world works the way it does, rather than the way you wish it did. The relationship between money laundering and corruption is well-established and globally, corruption is one of the biggest problems if you care about human welfare.
- blagie 4y ago
  If I were to make a list of my top-10 problems, corruption would be near the top. None of the cases I've seen involved money laundering. If I were to make a trade-off, I would implement many more transparency measures for organizations, not for individuals. If I can see what happens in my local school, municipal government, corporation, university, church, and non-profit, that would cut down on all the corruption I've seen, dramatically. I see no downsides to transparency measures which don't impact individuals, and they have a lot more impact than corporations snooping on me. Indeed, in one case I saw corruption, corporate snooping meant that the corrupt place had more leverage over a whistleblower. That's no good.
  - candybar 4y ago
    If you don't understand the connection between money laundering and corruption, you certainly do not have a very strong understanding of the problem of corruption. Also, good luck having "transparency measures" in a world where intermediaries are allowed immunity as long as they don't know stuff.
    - blagie 4y ago
      Nice. Switch from discussion to insults. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is clearly an idiot who doesn't understand things. Yes, I do understand the connection between corruption and money laundering. That touches on one form of corruption. There are many others. If I were to eliminate corruption, I'd take measures like: - Extend laws like FOIA and Open Meetings, dramatically, so we have a much clearer understanding of government. In particular, I'd extend enforcement and penalties. Wilful violations should be criminal. - Extend such laws to cover non-profits as well. I should be able to ask a church, a university, or any other organization exempt from taxes for documents, or sit in on governance meetings. - Put in stronger whistleblower protections, and eliminate a lot of the power of NDA / non-disparage / etc agreements - Increase SEC-mandated transparency measures ... and so on. Those have nothing to do with money laundering, and to me, are strict wins. Very little of the corruption I've seen involves bags of money. Most corruption involves things like (not directly financial) preferential treatment. If I give you a raise you don't deserve, give your child preferential treatment at my school, or cut a sweet deal for your company, that doesn't show up in a Paypal transaction.
      - candybar 4y ago
        > Very little of the corruption I've seen involves bags of money. As I said, that's precisely because the world works the way it does, rather than the way you wish it did. The bottleneck for lots of otherwise extremely profitable criminal endeavors is their reliance on traditional financial intermediaries. > That touches on one form of corruption. I'm talking about the type of corruption that keeps entire countries from developing economically. I don't know what you're on about. And no, your series of suggestions, which amount to saying make the current regulations stronger, doesn't come close to closing a huge loophole created by giving blanket immunity to financial intermediaries. Edit: honestly it sounds like you ran into some unfortunate situation somewhere and hold a personal grudge. But that's not a particularly meaningful basis for policy recommendation, especially given that it's quite clear that you don't understand the domain particularly well. > Most corruption involves things like (not directly financial) preferential treatment. If I give you a raise you don't deserve, give your child preferential treatment at my school, or cut a sweet deal for your company, that doesn't show up in a Paypal transaction. Most corruption is like this when you live in a country where corruption isn't much of a problem.