3 ms·

I think people dismiss how much AML regulations are directly linked to preventing crime from being efficient. There’s a reason that scammers ask for gift cards,

by rtpg 3y ago

I think people dismiss how much AML regulations are directly linked to preventing crime from being efficient. There’s a reason that scammers ask for gift cards, and it’s not “just” because of traceability reasons (mules have always been a thing) Countries have varying levels of fraud and organized scams, and I think stuff like AML compliance flows play a bigger part than people appreciate

jgilias 3y ago
Yes, and one could argue that banning end to end encryption and doing preventive monitoring of all communications would render crime even less efficient. I think it’s just natural that in a democratic society people fall on different parts of the spectrum when it comes to thinking of what the correct trade-off should be. Recently Lyn Alden posted how her wire transfer to her family in Egypt to cover some mortgage payments got blocked. I mean, if a celebrity (in some circles) with known family ties to Egypt experiences this, what chances do we mere mortals have? Making a 10k payment to an African country basically lands you in AML red “don’t do business with” lists. And sure enough, maybe most people doing this are financing terrorists, what do I know. But I think there’s a meaningful debate to be had here.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  This argument did it for me. > banning e2ee would render crime evem less efficient Yeah, don't care if criminals use something that helps us all protect ourselves and reveal or be vulnerable only to disclose that which we CHOOSE. Like, the real choose, not Apple's "choose" what we want or you can't use everything
  - hanniabu 3y ago
    Can't have it both ways
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      So you...agree...right?
      - hanniabu 3y ago
        No, you can't say you want encryption even if bad guys use it but then say crypto is bad because bad guys use it
        Obscurity4340 3y ago
        That is nowhere near what I was saying, I'm saying that this is the quote that resonated most with me because it tries to take away yet another thing that protects us all, not just criminals, businesses, and criminal_businesses
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      In case you're referring to the Apple thing—umm, ya they can. They have the NoDataCollected checkmark designation in the AppStore's Privacy Nutrition Labels. Anything they make is offefed/made 3rd party also and is therefore evidence they could have collected no data but consciously choose to design things in such a was that they are being disingenuous when they say they only collect the absolute minimum amount of data required for functionality
matheusmoreira 3y ago
We don't dismiss it. We know it makes life hard for criminals. We just don't care. It's still the financial arm of warrantless global surveillance. It's the government working around its due process restrictions by getting private corporations to do the dirty work. As such, it should absolutely be opposed and resisted on principle. The USA was literally founded upon principles like these. Look how far from the ideal it's fallen. If you're gonna sacrifice freedom for security, might as well go all the way and become a fascist state.
- kstenerud 3y ago
  I'd call the alternative (unlimited wealth and power for the criminal organizations because the government can't touch it) a far worse outcome. It's always about moves and countermoves. There's no such thing as the perfect system. So we have to settle for something that at least works most of the time.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    It's a politico-technological arms race. Government makes laws, people make technology that gets around the laws. With every iteration, they need to increase their tyranny to maintain the same amount of control over the people. The result is either an uncontrollable population or a totalitarian state. The only question is: how much tyranny are you willing to tolerate before the government becomes worse than the criminals you want to stop?
    - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
      That’s not really the case. The government mostly just makes one law that says “hey, bank, it’s your responsibility to know your customer and their source of wealth and God forbid you can’t when we come asking”. I wonder what proportion of all Americans have actually had any kind of material interaction with KYC/AML. My guess is it’s approximately none of them.
      - matheusmoreira 3y ago
olalonde 3y ago
Sure, AML might be beneficial if it had no cost. It does make crime slightly more inefficient. However, AML has a massive cost. It makes legal transactions inefficient as well. Billions of people are unbanked and underbanked, in large part thanks to AML. It forces money transmitters to carry out what amounts to extrajudicial punishment on people and industries deemed "at risk". The estimated global cost of compliance amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Imagine if all those wasted resources instead went to chasing terrorists & human traffickers for those actual crimes.
- miohtama 3y ago
  Here is on the cost of AML https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1725366 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1... We could also make traffic accidents go zero by putting a police at every crossroads.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Aerbil313 3y ago
    People are not dumb, at least when it costs this much. AML exists for a reason, which I believe is collecting intel for three letter agencies to ensure USA’s continued dominance over the rest of the world.

by rtpg 3y ago

jgilias 3y ago

Yes, and one could argue that banning end to end encryption and doing preventive monitoring of all communications would render crime even less efficient. I think it’s just natural that in a democratic society people fall on different parts of the spectrum when it comes to thinking of what the correct trade-off should be. Recently Lyn Alden posted how her wire transfer to her family in Egypt to cover some mortgage payments got blocked. I mean, if a celebrity (in some circles) with known family ties to Egypt experiences this, what chances do we mere mortals have? Making a 10k payment to an African country basically lands you in AML red “don’t do business with” lists. And sure enough, maybe most people doing this are financing terrorists, what do I know. But I think there’s a meaningful debate to be had here.

Obscurity4340 3y ago
This argument did it for me. > banning e2ee would render crime evem less efficient Yeah, don't care if criminals use something that helps us all protect ourselves and reveal or be vulnerable only to disclose that which we CHOOSE. Like, the real choose, not Apple's "choose" what we want or you can't use everything
- hanniabu 3y ago
  Can't have it both ways
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    So you...agree...right?
    - hanniabu 3y ago
      No, you can't say you want encryption even if bad guys use it but then say crypto is bad because bad guys use it
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        That is nowhere near what I was saying, I'm saying that this is the quote that resonated most with me because it tries to take away yet another thing that protects us all, not just criminals, businesses, and criminal_businesses
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    In case you're referring to the Apple thing—umm, ya they can. They have the NoDataCollected checkmark designation in the AppStore's Privacy Nutrition Labels. Anything they make is offefed/made 3rd party also and is therefore evidence they could have collected no data but consciously choose to design things in such a was that they are being disingenuous when they say they only collect the absolute minimum amount of data required for functionality

matheusmoreira 3y ago

We don't dismiss it. We know it makes life hard for criminals. We just don't care. It's still the financial arm of warrantless global surveillance. It's the government working around its due process restrictions by getting private corporations to do the dirty work. As such, it should absolutely be opposed and resisted on principle. The USA was literally founded upon principles like these. Look how far from the ideal it's fallen. If you're gonna sacrifice freedom for security, might as well go all the way and become a fascist state.

kstenerud 3y ago
I'd call the alternative (unlimited wealth and power for the criminal organizations because the government can't touch it) a far worse outcome. It's always about moves and countermoves. There's no such thing as the perfect system. So we have to settle for something that at least works most of the time.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  It's a politico-technological arms race. Government makes laws, people make technology that gets around the laws. With every iteration, they need to increase their tyranny to maintain the same amount of control over the people. The result is either an uncontrollable population or a totalitarian state. The only question is: how much tyranny are you willing to tolerate before the government becomes worse than the criminals you want to stop?
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    That’s not really the case. The government mostly just makes one law that says “hey, bank, it’s your responsibility to know your customer and their source of wealth and God forbid you can’t when we come asking”. I wonder what proportion of all Americans have actually had any kind of material interaction with KYC/AML. My guess is it’s approximately none of them.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago

olalonde 3y ago

Sure, AML might be beneficial if it had no cost. It does make crime slightly more inefficient. However, AML has a massive cost. It makes legal transactions inefficient as well. Billions of people are unbanked and underbanked, in large part thanks to AML. It forces money transmitters to carry out what amounts to extrajudicial punishment on people and industries deemed "at risk". The estimated global cost of compliance amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Imagine if all those wasted resources instead went to chasing terrorists & human traffickers for those actual crimes.

miohtama 3y ago
Here is on the cost of AML https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1725366 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1... We could also make traffic accidents go zero by putting a police at every crossroads.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Aerbil313 3y ago
  People are not dumb, at least when it costs this much. AML exists for a reason, which I believe is collecting intel for three letter agencies to ensure USA’s continued dominance over the rest of the world.