5 ms·

KYC is required for various terrorism prevention and (moreso) tax reporting reasons, and that's for everywhere, not just Google in the US. What specifically cau

by judge2020 3y ago

KYC is required for various terrorism prevention and (moreso) tax reporting reasons, and that's for everywhere, not just Google in the US. What specifically caused it to fail? Using a different name than what was on your identity verification documents? Not being a registered corporation with valid tax withholding information?

Nextgrid 3y ago
You could however be honest and do KYC before onboarding a customer - instead they're happy to let them run ads and end up keeping the money under the excuse of a KYC failure (which they don't have much incentive to rectify).
- Auracle 3y ago
  I suppose they’re afraid of the process putting a damper on signups. The middle of the road option would be to have an easy signup and then you can complete KYC at any point before your first payment.
  - pyrale 3y ago
    Apparently though, they're not afraid of the process preventing people from accessing their money. The middle road option if they want to delay KYC checks would be to have customer support available to unstuck people when the system fails.
    - xboxnolifes 3y ago
      The middle road is allow signup, but require KYC within a few weeks to continue using.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  I think KYC can't ever be honest because at its very foundational core it is the idea that you've let yourself willingly be deputized by the government to spy on those customers without a valid search warrant. To spy on them and report them for non-crimes, and to deny them services because the specific numbers are above arbitrary thresholds, at arbitrary thresholds, and yes... even below those. If you're already empowered by the feds to do all these things, what's a little dishonesty on top of all that? As long as you don't fuck over the feds themselves, they'll surely look the other way when bilk free advertising dollars out of those probably-terrorists.
JohnMakin 3y ago
There was no reason given, no appeal process, can't contact anyone at Google to try to sort it out. Just failed. I understand why it's necessary, but they also have zero incentive for it to be good or even functional.
- bjtitus 3y ago
  > can't contact anyone at Google to try to sort it out This is a huge problem with most tech companies. There is little to no human support which ends up with a complete loss of access to accounts and, sometimes, funds. Because the accounts are usually free or funds lost are way too tiny to warrant a suit, there is little to no accountability.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Yep. This is one of the huge reasons why I avoid doing business with/depending on/being exposed to tech companies, especially of the FAANG variety. It is demonstrably too risky.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  Ok but if you're supposed to arbitrate disputes then you must be able to contact someone to start that arbitration process, if there's no one to contact then I guess you could go to small claims and get the money.
  - salawat 3y ago
    Ah. Here's the genius part though, and the real business innovation of tech: >Make a software platform everyone just agrees to click through EULA's for >Someone realizes, wait, this is a contract. I'm supposed to be able to negotiate. >Nigh impossible to get in contact with legal. >If you do, they just ignore you. >Get more people to do it. >Business goes under rather than actually try to exist in a world where everyone doesn't just mindlessly accept terms. Or >To many small claims court cases, National Court system encourages private arbitration >Still too expensive. To be quite frank, and though I'm loathe to make encourage people to send business at lawyers... We live in a world that is entirely the result of our refusal to challenge terms. So many abusive businesses would disappear overnight if suddenly their legal bills went through the roof. There's no good faith in the vast majority of contracts anymore because all of it is take it or leave it levels of abusive.
safety1st 3y ago
The parent wasn't objecting to KYC. They were objecting to "once you fail automated ID verification once, you're banned from attempting it again, and Google keeps the several thousand dollars they owe you." This pattern of facts doesn't look like a terrorism prevention system, it looks like theft, you would have a good case in any court with this pattern of facts.
JoshTriplett 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

Nextgrid 3y ago

You could however be honest and do KYC before onboarding a customer - instead they're happy to let them run ads and end up keeping the money under the excuse of a KYC failure (which they don't have much incentive to rectify).

Auracle 3y ago
I suppose they’re afraid of the process putting a damper on signups. The middle of the road option would be to have an easy signup and then you can complete KYC at any point before your first payment.
- pyrale 3y ago
  Apparently though, they're not afraid of the process preventing people from accessing their money. The middle road option if they want to delay KYC checks would be to have customer support available to unstuck people when the system fails.
  - xboxnolifes 3y ago
    The middle road is allow signup, but require KYC within a few weeks to continue using.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
I think KYC can't ever be honest because at its very foundational core it is the idea that you've let yourself willingly be deputized by the government to spy on those customers without a valid search warrant. To spy on them and report them for non-crimes, and to deny them services because the specific numbers are above arbitrary thresholds, at arbitrary thresholds, and yes... even below those. If you're already empowered by the feds to do all these things, what's a little dishonesty on top of all that? As long as you don't fuck over the feds themselves, they'll surely look the other way when bilk free advertising dollars out of those probably-terrorists.

JohnMakin 3y ago

There was no reason given, no appeal process, can't contact anyone at Google to try to sort it out. Just failed. I understand why it's necessary, but they also have zero incentive for it to be good or even functional.

bjtitus 3y ago
> can't contact anyone at Google to try to sort it out This is a huge problem with most tech companies. There is little to no human support which ends up with a complete loss of access to accounts and, sometimes, funds. Because the accounts are usually free or funds lost are way too tiny to warrant a suit, there is little to no accountability.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Yep. This is one of the huge reasons why I avoid doing business with/depending on/being exposed to tech companies, especially of the FAANG variety. It is demonstrably too risky.
bryanrasmussen 3y ago
Ok but if you're supposed to arbitrate disputes then you must be able to contact someone to start that arbitration process, if there's no one to contact then I guess you could go to small claims and get the money.
- salawat 3y ago
  Ah. Here's the genius part though, and the real business innovation of tech: >Make a software platform everyone just agrees to click through EULA's for >Someone realizes, wait, this is a contract. I'm supposed to be able to negotiate. >Nigh impossible to get in contact with legal. >If you do, they just ignore you. >Get more people to do it. >Business goes under rather than actually try to exist in a world where everyone doesn't just mindlessly accept terms. Or >To many small claims court cases, National Court system encourages private arbitration >Still too expensive. To be quite frank, and though I'm loathe to make encourage people to send business at lawyers... We live in a world that is entirely the result of our refusal to challenge terms. So many abusive businesses would disappear overnight if suddenly their legal bills went through the roof. There's no good faith in the vast majority of contracts anymore because all of it is take it or leave it levels of abusive.

safety1st 3y ago

The parent wasn't objecting to KYC. They were objecting to "once you fail automated ID verification once, you're banned from attempting it again, and Google keeps the several thousand dollars they owe you." This pattern of facts doesn't look like a terrorism prevention system, it looks like theft, you would have a good case in any court with this pattern of facts.

JoshTriplett 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming