3 ms·

I think this is great for AML, and also for making the activities of institutional buyers of real estate a little clearer. I'm reminded of this article specific

I think this is great for AML, and also for making the activities of institutional buyers of real estate a little clearer. I'm reminded of this article specifically: https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/veritas-san-francisco-landlord/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/veritas-san-franci...

singleshot_ 3y ago
It’s also great for sending a swat team to your house, which might have a bit more sudden of an impact than the change you’re envisioning.
- tptacek 3y ago
  What does this have to do with SWAT teams?
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    If a person knows where another person lives, the first person can send a heavily armed SWAT detachment to the second person’s home. This is one reason my home is held in trust, so it’s a little more difficult for some idiot to try this. I imagine if this route was banned, it would be a lot easier to figure out where a person lives, which would generally result in decreased privacy, safety, and security.
- Centigonal 3y ago
  The proposed FinCEN rule is specific to non-financed (i.e. all-cash) transfers to companies or trusts. That in itself rules out the vast majority of private individuals. I'm sure they could also add carve-outs for primary residences or otherwise reduce the impact of this rule on private individuals. That being said, I think the number of people who live in fear of being swatted in their homes is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the number of people who rent a home owned by a mysterious and unaccountable corporate landlord.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    That’s really nice to know. I’m not sure whether my situation would qualify under that rule, thought. I do appreciate you sharing that detail. Carve-out for a primary residence would be nice but in that circumstance, it still seems like someone over at the government knows where I live, which is suboptimal. That being left aside, I am concerned about home intrusions much more than I am with economic equity for all _and_ I don’t think this measure will be a particularly effective control on the latter.

singleshot_ 3y ago

It’s also great for sending a swat team to your house, which might have a bit more sudden of an impact than the change you’re envisioning.

tptacek 3y ago
What does this have to do with SWAT teams?
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  If a person knows where another person lives, the first person can send a heavily armed SWAT detachment to the second person’s home. This is one reason my home is held in trust, so it’s a little more difficult for some idiot to try this. I imagine if this route was banned, it would be a lot easier to figure out where a person lives, which would generally result in decreased privacy, safety, and security.
Centigonal 3y ago
The proposed FinCEN rule is specific to non-financed (i.e. all-cash) transfers to companies or trusts. That in itself rules out the vast majority of private individuals. I'm sure they could also add carve-outs for primary residences or otherwise reduce the impact of this rule on private individuals. That being said, I think the number of people who live in fear of being swatted in their homes is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the number of people who rent a home owned by a mysterious and unaccountable corporate landlord.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  That’s really nice to know. I’m not sure whether my situation would qualify under that rule, thought. I do appreciate you sharing that detail. Carve-out for a primary residence would be nice but in that circumstance, it still seems like someone over at the government knows where I live, which is suboptimal. That being left aside, I am concerned about home intrusions much more than I am with economic equity for all _and_ I don’t think this measure will be a particularly effective control on the latter.