4 ms·

So your solution is?

mcv 4y ago
Actually know your customers. Like real banks do. Relying on a free text description on the payment is completely useless.
- leokennis 4y ago
  Yeah because terrorists will definitely not lie when they open a bank account! Also…how would KYC stop a terrorist from abusing your mothers bank account to transfer money? This is why you need KYC and also transaction screening (and also X, Y and Z).
  - mcv 4y ago
    Yes, but transaction screening should rely on information about the accounts involved, and not the descriptions on the payments. Because those mean nothing.
- matthews2 4y ago
  The real bank that I use in the UK cares about what you put in the reference field. Putting something like "AK47" as the reference quickly results in a phone call from them telling you to not do that.
  - croes 4y ago
    Would it be a problem for a US bank?
- astura 4y ago
  "Real banks" also will block transactions with the "wrong" keywords in them. They are literally required to do this. For example: Chase Bank blocks California man’s online payment over service dog’s ‘terrorist’ name https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/chase-bank-blocks-online-payment-dog-terrorist-article-1.2579947 https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/chase-bank-blocks-onl... These stories are really common. Usually a phone call fixes it.
ImHereToVote 4y ago
Not wage financial war?
- leokennis 4y ago
  Come again? Just to make sure we’re on the same page, your opinion is that terrorists should be free to use existing financial instruments (bank accounts, PayPal etc.) to transfer funds for their terrorist needs? Or am I misunderstanding?
  - vinyl7 4y ago
    That might be less harmful than being overzealous and banning every innocent person.
  - nnx 4y ago
    Yes, because the cost of pretending to “do something” is far too high (unbanking unprivileged people and a huge % of the world just because they aren’t born in the ‘right’ country or with the right name) for absolutely no result! By analogy, would members of the KYC/AML cult have the opinion that terrorists should be free to use roads for their terrorists needs? The solution is police roadblocks and checks every kilometer or so?
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    Hmm. Maybe? Wouldn't it make more sense to allow these transactions to proceed but report them for investigation? Aiding terrorist organizations is a crime. Wouldn't it be better to know who's doing it? It feels like it would make more sense than automated block lists and account closures. It's sort of similar to how bone-headed the shutdown of Backpage was. Backpage actively and willingly worked with the police to investigate human trafficking etc... It was basically a giant honeypot. From what I've read, when they were shut down the government lost a valuable tool and ally in the fight against sex slavery.
  - ImHereToVote 4y ago
    What's wrong with going through the courts?
KeplerBoy 4y ago
Have a system in place to resolve these false positives quickly and painlessly? Of course all positives are going to be false positives, but what did you expect? Fighting international terrorism one regex at a time?
- leokennis 4y ago
  A system. You mean like sending the owner of the flagged transaction an e-mail? Like what happened exactly in this case? Also, curious about your source that all screening positives are false positives. Can you link to that?

mcv 4y ago

Actually know your customers. Like real banks do. Relying on a free text description on the payment is completely useless.

leokennis 4y ago
Yeah because terrorists will definitely not lie when they open a bank account! Also…how would KYC stop a terrorist from abusing your mothers bank account to transfer money? This is why you need KYC and also transaction screening (and also X, Y and Z).
- mcv 4y ago
  Yes, but transaction screening should rely on information about the accounts involved, and not the descriptions on the payments. Because those mean nothing.
matthews2 4y ago
The real bank that I use in the UK cares about what you put in the reference field. Putting something like "AK47" as the reference quickly results in a phone call from them telling you to not do that.
- croes 4y ago
  Would it be a problem for a US bank?
astura 4y ago
"Real banks" also will block transactions with the "wrong" keywords in them. They are literally required to do this. For example: Chase Bank blocks California man’s online payment over service dog’s ‘terrorist’ name https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/chase-bank-blocks-online-payment-dog-terrorist-article-1.2579947 https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/chase-bank-blocks-onl... These stories are really common. Usually a phone call fixes it.

ImHereToVote 4y ago

Not wage financial war?

leokennis 4y ago
Come again? Just to make sure we’re on the same page, your opinion is that terrorists should be free to use existing financial instruments (bank accounts, PayPal etc.) to transfer funds for their terrorist needs? Or am I misunderstanding?
- vinyl7 4y ago
  That might be less harmful than being overzealous and banning every innocent person.
- nnx 4y ago
  Yes, because the cost of pretending to “do something” is far too high (unbanking unprivileged people and a huge % of the world just because they aren’t born in the ‘right’ country or with the right name) for absolutely no result! By analogy, would members of the KYC/AML cult have the opinion that terrorists should be free to use roads for their terrorists needs? The solution is police roadblocks and checks every kilometer or so?
- claytongulick 4y ago
  Hmm. Maybe? Wouldn't it make more sense to allow these transactions to proceed but report them for investigation? Aiding terrorist organizations is a crime. Wouldn't it be better to know who's doing it? It feels like it would make more sense than automated block lists and account closures. It's sort of similar to how bone-headed the shutdown of Backpage was. Backpage actively and willingly worked with the police to investigate human trafficking etc... It was basically a giant honeypot. From what I've read, when they were shut down the government lost a valuable tool and ally in the fight against sex slavery.
- ImHereToVote 4y ago
  What's wrong with going through the courts?

KeplerBoy 4y ago

Have a system in place to resolve these false positives quickly and painlessly? Of course all positives are going to be false positives, but what did you expect? Fighting international terrorism one regex at a time?

leokennis 4y ago
A system. You mean like sending the owner of the flagged transaction an e-mail? Like what happened exactly in this case? Also, curious about your source that all screening positives are false positives. Can you link to that?