4 ms·

KYC or you're liable. Interesting solution. It's kinda amazing it's not already that way (since advertisers need to get paid). I guess it would make it harder t

by kurthr 3y ago

KYC or you're liable. Interesting solution. It's kinda amazing it's not already that way (since advertisers need to get paid). I guess it would make it harder to advertise, if you're not already big so that could hurt little guys, but so is scamming customers.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
KYC just incentivizes discrimination. Eventually ends up with innocent people not being able to get bank accounts or rent hotel rooms because they get associated with prior probabilities that do not necessarily apply to them, aka discrimination. Punishing scammers to dissuade and reduce the quantity of scammers is the government’s job and should not be laid on businesses, for a well functioning high trust society. If international jurisdictions are a problem, then the national government needs to provide an identify verification API for businesses so they know the customer they are dealing with is subject to the legal system of the country.
- Nursie 3y ago
  This is nonsense. Businesses are not above the law and claiming that you are only a proxy or that what you do is too complex shouldn't get you out of having to follow those laws. We're talking KYC (or direct liability) for businesses here. There is nothing discriminatory about it.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    I specifically wrote why know your customer laws are bad. A law that makes a bank liable for their customer’s illegal actions harms people who kind of sort of look like they could be doing something illegal, even if they are innocent. Plainly discriminatory. A law that makes hotels liable for human trafficking harms people who “look” like human traffickers. Guess what, now people who want to pay with cash or don’t have an ID or don’t fit whatever other profile are no longer welcome at a hotel. Again, obviously discriminatory since people who didn’t do anything illegal are being punished. These aren’t made up examples, these are real life examples. The government is literally telling a business they have to judge someone without the person being able to provide a defense, like they would in a court of law.
    - Nursie 3y ago
      If you sell something to the public, you must abide by certain regulations. A law that says "Amazon must know their sellers and be able to pass the consumer on to those sellers, or it is liable itself as a backstop" might indeed shut some people out of Amazon's marketplace who cannot comply. But those people would not be allowed to legally retail to the public anyway, as they couldn't fulfil those requirements > The government is literally telling a business they have to judge someone without the person being able to provide a defense, like they would in a court of law. A business, not a someone, and there are all sorts of compliance rules you could complain about doing exactly the same thing.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        A business is someone. And KYC should just be the government providing an identify verification API so that in the event there is a problem, the government knows who to go after. Government leaders just want to be able to point fingers at as many people as possible with KYC laws (which do more than just require the business to verify who they are doing business with). A business should know who they are transacting with, but a business should not be vetting them for illegal activities. That is a job for courts. Businesses can even be required to report who buys what and how much (for example, bulk supplies to make methamphetimine or explosives), but the business should not be using nebulous heuristics such as credit score or income or other non illegal things to figure out who may or may not be a criminal. Last example, the US government should require online marketplaces to know who they are doing business with, and it should be someone within US jurisdiction. The US government should also provide the online marketplaces with an identity verification API to do this. So when a product sold on Amazon causes a problem, it should be easily possible for the government to charge the seller with a crime, and dole out an appropriate punishment.
Animats 3y ago
That's for ads. For online retail, the site that takes the money is the retailer. Period. The platform and the sellers can fight out who pays for returns and warranty problems. After the customer gets paid.

by kurthr 3y ago

lotsofpulp 3y ago

KYC just incentivizes discrimination. Eventually ends up with innocent people not being able to get bank accounts or rent hotel rooms because they get associated with prior probabilities that do not necessarily apply to them, aka discrimination. Punishing scammers to dissuade and reduce the quantity of scammers is the government’s job and should not be laid on businesses, for a well functioning high trust society. If international jurisdictions are a problem, then the national government needs to provide an identify verification API for businesses so they know the customer they are dealing with is subject to the legal system of the country.

Nursie 3y ago
This is nonsense. Businesses are not above the law and claiming that you are only a proxy or that what you do is too complex shouldn't get you out of having to follow those laws. We're talking KYC (or direct liability) for businesses here. There is nothing discriminatory about it.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  I specifically wrote why know your customer laws are bad. A law that makes a bank liable for their customer’s illegal actions harms people who kind of sort of look like they could be doing something illegal, even if they are innocent. Plainly discriminatory. A law that makes hotels liable for human trafficking harms people who “look” like human traffickers. Guess what, now people who want to pay with cash or don’t have an ID or don’t fit whatever other profile are no longer welcome at a hotel. Again, obviously discriminatory since people who didn’t do anything illegal are being punished. These aren’t made up examples, these are real life examples. The government is literally telling a business they have to judge someone without the person being able to provide a defense, like they would in a court of law.
  - Nursie 3y ago
    If you sell something to the public, you must abide by certain regulations. A law that says "Amazon must know their sellers and be able to pass the consumer on to those sellers, or it is liable itself as a backstop" might indeed shut some people out of Amazon's marketplace who cannot comply. But those people would not be allowed to legally retail to the public anyway, as they couldn't fulfil those requirements > The government is literally telling a business they have to judge someone without the person being able to provide a defense, like they would in a court of law. A business, not a someone, and there are all sorts of compliance rules you could complain about doing exactly the same thing.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      A business is someone. And KYC should just be the government providing an identify verification API so that in the event there is a problem, the government knows who to go after. Government leaders just want to be able to point fingers at as many people as possible with KYC laws (which do more than just require the business to verify who they are doing business with). A business should know who they are transacting with, but a business should not be vetting them for illegal activities. That is a job for courts. Businesses can even be required to report who buys what and how much (for example, bulk supplies to make methamphetimine or explosives), but the business should not be using nebulous heuristics such as credit score or income or other non illegal things to figure out who may or may not be a criminal. Last example, the US government should require online marketplaces to know who they are doing business with, and it should be someone within US jurisdiction. The US government should also provide the online marketplaces with an identity verification API to do this. So when a product sold on Amazon causes a problem, it should be easily possible for the government to charge the seller with a crime, and dole out an appropriate punishment.

Animats 3y ago

That's for ads. For online retail, the site that takes the money is the retailer. Period. The platform and the sellers can fight out who pays for returns and warranty problems. After the customer gets paid.