6 ms·

And if it's for human trafficking? Payment processors are made up of people, and people have to have the freedom of drawing a moral line they won't cross. The r

And if it's for human trafficking? Payment processors are made up of people, and people have to have the freedom of drawing a moral line they won't cross. The real problem as I see it is that payment processing is a near monopoly. Better competition and smaller players would almost guarantee that every transaction except the most egregious would have a willing payment processor. Diversity is so often the best answer over a one size fits all rule.

polski-g 3y ago
> Payment processors are made up of people, and people have to have the freedom of drawing a moral line they won't cross Not for services deemed important enough: > U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who cited her religious beliefs in refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
darkerside 3y ago
It's odd to me that the way to combat this is to freeze money. Yes, money is the lifeblood, but that means you can also follow the money to the source. Wouldn't you want to do that instead of freezing it and killing the lead?
- tchaffee 3y ago
  Depends on the case. If you already know who belongs to a terrorist organization then maybe stopping the money and limiting the ability to terrorize would be a higher priority.
- elzbardico 3y ago
  Well, it looks like a lot of this is designed to make the job of law enforcement easier because politicians that seem "tough" on crime have better election prospects. Freezing the money is far more dramatic and provides nice numbers for said politician's re-election campaign.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Sometimes the people who own that money are out of jurisdictional reach.
cortesoft 3y ago
If you know it is for human trafficking, why would you cut off the payment instead of arresting the people?
- tchaffee 3y ago
  Where did I say instead? You should do both.
- lazide 3y ago
  Because arresting people requires evidence and due process, which is work.
  - neves 3y ago
    If there's no evidence or due process, then you don't know.
    - lazide 3y ago
      Won't know what?
      - codehalo 3y ago
        You don't know if the money was used for trafficking. Are you reading what you are writing?
        lazide 3y ago
        Are you reading what you are writing? People can (and do) know things without having enough evidence to stand up in court. It’s how 99% of everything works, frankly. Banks right now are denying transactions because they ‘know’ it’s fraud, based on ML models and probability and no other evidence. If you require someone to not ‘know’ something until they have enough evidence they could prove it in court, they won’t be able to function. Even investigators don’t have to meet that bar.
kelnos 3y ago
How do you know it's for human trafficking? Are you deputized by the government to act as judge and jury? If you think something might be for human trafficking, you report it to law enforcement and let them deal with it. They'll gather evidence, build a case, make arrests, and hand things off to a DA/prosecutor who will file charges. Or, at some point, someone will decide it's not human trafficking, or at least that there isn't enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and drop the case. All that is just due process, and a payment processor should not be given that responsibility. Both because I don't think they'd want it (it costs money and carries liability), and because we shouldn't trust them with it (private corporations shouldn't be allowed to apply the force of law).
- tchaffee 3y ago
  > How do you know it's for human trafficking? It's a thought experiment. There are surely cases in life in which you know for sure that crime is being committed. What you're asking for though is that due criminal process be a part of denying a payment. Which seems extremely heavy handed. If my payment processing company doesn't want to help sell guns, or help with human trafficking, or hell, doesn't want to support the meat industry, then I should be able to run my business according to those ethical choices. My company isn't sending someone to jail. They are just refusing to accept a payment. There is no need for due criminal process to refuse a payment. Should it be illegal to start a vegan payment processing company?
  - kubanczyk 3y ago
    > There are surely cases in life in which you know for sure that crime is being committed These are the cases of having evidence, right? Which should be reported. > I should be able to run my business according to those ethical choices. My company isn't sending someone to jail. They are just refusing to accept a payment. There is no need for due criminal process to refuse a payment. And if two or three large businesses cover 99% of a given market (payment market), how about some anti-monopolistic legal protections? Them colluding to stop the meat industry, continuing your example, would be a monopolistic practice.

polski-g 3y ago

> Payment processors are made up of people, and people have to have the freedom of drawing a moral line they won't cross Not for services deemed important enough: > U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who cited her religious beliefs in refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

darkerside 3y ago

It's odd to me that the way to combat this is to freeze money. Yes, money is the lifeblood, but that means you can also follow the money to the source. Wouldn't you want to do that instead of freezing it and killing the lead?

tchaffee 3y ago
Depends on the case. If you already know who belongs to a terrorist organization then maybe stopping the money and limiting the ability to terrorize would be a higher priority.
elzbardico 3y ago
Well, it looks like a lot of this is designed to make the job of law enforcement easier because politicians that seem "tough" on crime have better election prospects. Freezing the money is far more dramatic and provides nice numbers for said politician's re-election campaign.
kelnos 3y ago
Sometimes the people who own that money are out of jurisdictional reach.

cortesoft 3y ago

If you know it is for human trafficking, why would you cut off the payment instead of arresting the people?

tchaffee 3y ago
Where did I say instead? You should do both.
lazide 3y ago
Because arresting people requires evidence and due process, which is work.
- neves 3y ago
  If there's no evidence or due process, then you don't know.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Won't know what?
    - codehalo 3y ago
      You don't know if the money was used for trafficking. Are you reading what you are writing?
      - lazide 3y ago
        Are you reading what you are writing? People can (and do) know things without having enough evidence to stand up in court. It’s how 99% of everything works, frankly. Banks right now are denying transactions because they ‘know’ it’s fraud, based on ML models and probability and no other evidence. If you require someone to not ‘know’ something until they have enough evidence they could prove it in court, they won’t be able to function. Even investigators don’t have to meet that bar.

kelnos 3y ago

How do you know it's for human trafficking? Are you deputized by the government to act as judge and jury? If you think something might be for human trafficking, you report it to law enforcement and let them deal with it. They'll gather evidence, build a case, make arrests, and hand things off to a DA/prosecutor who will file charges. Or, at some point, someone will decide it's not human trafficking, or at least that there isn't enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and drop the case. All that is just due process, and a payment processor should not be given that responsibility. Both because I don't think they'd want it (it costs money and carries liability), and because we shouldn't trust them with it (private corporations shouldn't be allowed to apply the force of law).

tchaffee 3y ago
> How do you know it's for human trafficking? It's a thought experiment. There are surely cases in life in which you know for sure that crime is being committed. What you're asking for though is that due criminal process be a part of denying a payment. Which seems extremely heavy handed. If my payment processing company doesn't want to help sell guns, or help with human trafficking, or hell, doesn't want to support the meat industry, then I should be able to run my business according to those ethical choices. My company isn't sending someone to jail. They are just refusing to accept a payment. There is no need for due criminal process to refuse a payment. Should it be illegal to start a vegan payment processing company?
- kubanczyk 3y ago
  > There are surely cases in life in which you know for sure that crime is being committed These are the cases of having evidence, right? Which should be reported. > I should be able to run my business according to those ethical choices. My company isn't sending someone to jail. They are just refusing to accept a payment. There is no need for due criminal process to refuse a payment. And if two or three large businesses cover 99% of a given market (payment market), how about some anti-monopolistic legal protections? Them colluding to stop the meat industry, continuing your example, would be a monopolistic practice.