6 ms·
> Realistically, KYC might deter a small fraction – let's say about 1% – of these malefactors. You may as well say, "KYC might deter a large fraction - let's s
by verall 3y ago
> Realistically, KYC might deter a small fraction – let's say about 1% – of these malefactors.
You may as well say, "KYC might deter a large fraction - let's say about 99% of these malefactors"
There's no evidence provided for these numbers. It's one thing to make an assumption which is counter to your argument - "Even if 99% of criminals are deterred, it creates an unconscionable burden upon those whose identities are stolen" or etc.
It's quite another just to assume your own argument. Let's assume cops prevent 99% of crime - it's worth their brutality or whatever. Let's assume cops prevent 1% of crime - we would be better off with 1% more crime and no cops or whatever.
It's absolutely pointless.
The article goes on to immediately compare KYC with widespread facial recognition. Why are these equivalent?
They could at least try to engage with arguments for KYC - that large financial institutions should not be making life easier for criminals. Historically, a bank obviously knew their customers - they had to open the accounts in person, talk with the bank manager, etc.
- logicchains 3y ago>The article goes on to immediately compare KYC with widespread facial recognition. Why are these equivalent They're both violations of people's privacy. >There's no evidence provided for these numbers And KYC proponents provide no empirical evidence that KYC has actually led to a measurable reduction in organised crime. The onus should be on them to demonstrate why it's effective enough to justify the violation of citizens' privacy that it entails.
- verall 3y agoI'm not defending KYC here (tho I think it is necessary personally). I'm just requesting the author actually try to make an argument.
- tptacek 3y agoSo is a license plate. Privacy is not an absolute right.
- hobobaggins 3y ago> Privacy is not an absolute right. This is meaningless.
- tptacek 3y agoYou mean to say "nothing is an absolute right". Yes. If you want me to be more precise, I'll say that privacy is a lesser right, one that is important but that is nonetheless frequently and deliberately compromised in the service of other rights. You get to weird places if you try to wrap an entire worldview around privacy the way people do expression or self-determination, because privacy does not have that standing.
- jaredklewis 3y agoSure, but the fact that KYC is not motivated by data is not a license just to pull numbers out of your ass.
- nostrebored 3y agoCame here to post this. Having worked in an industry with strict kyc requirements and worked for a well known payment processor, if they were only catching 1% then some truly absurd amount of business is fraudulent.
- nostrademons 3y agoCurious about numbers. Many people underestimate the scale of business in general, because they're not good at intuiting extremely large numbers. For example, an abuse tech might see 10,000 pending cases for the month and say "Wow, we catch so much fraud with this technology", but if there are a billion transactions per month, then it's very possible that those 10,000 cases represent only 1% of the million fraudulent transactions and only 1 in a thousand transactions is actually fraudulent.
- MattPalmer1086 3y agoSo if, according to the stats plucked out of thin air, KYC isn't doing enough to stop things they presumably think are bad, I assume the article author wants even stricter controls? Oh wait, they don't. Just ditch it and let anyone move money around with no controls. I'm sure that would work out fine.
- hobobaggins 3y ago> Just ditch it and let anyone move money around with no controls. I'm sure that would work out fine. It did, for thousands of years. The only thing that's new is the ability to track every penny and person from cradle to grave and the incessant and ever-growing desire for those in power to control those who aren't.
- MattPalmer1086 3y agoHmmmm... I think carrying a lot of gold around and limited transport and security put certain limits on who could do that easily...
- rokkitmensch 3y agoUltra-infrequent use case. Hawala and European credit networks largely mooted it.
- MattPalmer1086 3y agoWell, the OP did say thousands of years. But I take your point, money transfer without moving physical gold has been possible for hundreds of years for sure.
- roenxi 3y agoOne of the reasons people use gold is because carrying it around is actually pretty easy. Eg, wandering the streets with a few million in gold bars is no challenge. You can carry it in a bag and the odds of someone checking your bag for millions of dollars in hard assets is low. Not to mention that if the gold is banked then it probably didn't need transport because it was being transported too and from a bank.
- perlclutcher 3y agoYes, they could have cited some sources, but the number is spot on. It's an overestimate, even. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Studies/Illicit_financial_flows_2011_web.pdf https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Studies/Il... > Globally, it appears that much less than 1% (probably around 0.2%) of the proceeds of crime laundered via the financial system are seized and frozen. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1725366 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1... > the confiscation rate might be 0.07 percent. In other words, despite ubiquitous money laundering controls, criminals retain up to 99.93 percent of criminal proceeds.
- hobobaggins 3y agoClearly we need more money laundering controls then. (/s)
- namdnay 3y agothat's like saying that nearly nobody robs banks so there's no point having so much security in banks. the real question is what would the figures be if there were no checks? and KYC isn't only for money laundering, it's also for tax fraud