4 ms·

Unconstitutional.

by systemvoltage 2y ago

Unconstitutional.

freeone3000 2y ago
Is it? How? Which bit of KYC for SaaS violates which right?
- kolanos 2y ago
  Isn't this a clear violation of the 4th amendment? > “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things ... Note it says "the people" and not "citizens of the United States". Everyone has this protection within U.S. borders, SCOTUS has ruled to this effect. So the government forcing yet more private companies to do their unconstitutional bidding seems like something that should b opposed. I believe banks being required to collect KYC came about through The Patriot Act. If this trend continues, you'll need to verify your identity to use any service.
  - freeone3000 2y ago
    That isn’t just a trend, that’s actually this proposed rule change! Banks collecting KYC actually started with the Banking Secrecy Act of 1970. This was tried in the Supreme Court case California Bankers Association v Schultz (1974). It holds that recordkeeping requirements do not constitute a privacy violation under the 4th amendment absent reporting requirements. Since this new rule (2024) applies only to foreign entities and OFAC controls provide penalties for domestic companies, there’s no fifth amendment issue either (which is a shame imo, the 5th amendment argument in Bankers v Schultz seems incredibly shaky). There’s no reporting requirements or new crime being created here; the intention is to “”aid”” IaaS providers in complying with OFAC requirements, and, when a warrant is issued, the actual identities of the customers to be known.
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    > If this trend continues, you'll need to verify your identity to use any service. Once we started to send "National Security Letters" to public libraries after PATRIOT to find out what people were reading, this future became an inevitability.
greyface- 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause If it imposed KYC on intra-state customers, or non-commercial services, then it would be a different story.
Zak 2y ago
What provision of the constitution does it violate? Do you know of court precedents that support that claim? I'm not writing this to argue against your position, but to help people craft effective comments to submit in response to the proposed regulation. Federal agencies are not responsive to comments about people disliking a proposed rule, but are very responsive to concrete examples of why it might be legally problematic.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dr-detroit 2y ago
  [dead]
- kolanos 2y ago
  The fourth amendment? > “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things ...
  - EGG_CREAM 2y ago
    How does verifying your identity in any way violate that, though? You have a physical address that you live at, and the government verifies that you are the person living at that address, and that is not violating the fourth amendment. This would be pretty similar to that.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      Of course the words are open to interpretation but "unreasonable searches" seem to encompass this sort of thing. Usually it's taken case by case and reasons would need to be given for every individual being searched. This is a blanket excuse to search every interaction without a reason.
    - 2y ago

Unconstitutional.

freeone3000 2y ago

Is it? How? Which bit of KYC for SaaS violates which right?

kolanos 2y ago
Isn't this a clear violation of the 4th amendment? > “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things ... Note it says "the people" and not "citizens of the United States". Everyone has this protection within U.S. borders, SCOTUS has ruled to this effect. So the government forcing yet more private companies to do their unconstitutional bidding seems like something that should b opposed. I believe banks being required to collect KYC came about through The Patriot Act. If this trend continues, you'll need to verify your identity to use any service.
- freeone3000 2y ago
  That isn’t just a trend, that’s actually this proposed rule change! Banks collecting KYC actually started with the Banking Secrecy Act of 1970. This was tried in the Supreme Court case California Bankers Association v Schultz (1974). It holds that recordkeeping requirements do not constitute a privacy violation under the 4th amendment absent reporting requirements. Since this new rule (2024) applies only to foreign entities and OFAC controls provide penalties for domestic companies, there’s no fifth amendment issue either (which is a shame imo, the 5th amendment argument in Bankers v Schultz seems incredibly shaky). There’s no reporting requirements or new crime being created here; the intention is to “”aid”” IaaS providers in complying with OFAC requirements, and, when a warrant is issued, the actual identities of the customers to be known.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  > If this trend continues, you'll need to verify your identity to use any service. Once we started to send "National Security Letters" to public libraries after PATRIOT to find out what people were reading, this future became an inevitability.

greyface- 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause If it imposed KYC on intra-state customers, or non-commercial services, then it would be a different story.

Zak 2y ago

What provision of the constitution does it violate? Do you know of court precedents that support that claim? I'm not writing this to argue against your position, but to help people craft effective comments to submit in response to the proposed regulation. Federal agencies are not responsive to comments about people disliking a proposed rule, but are very responsive to concrete examples of why it might be legally problematic.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dr-detroit 2y ago
[dead]
kolanos 2y ago
The fourth amendment? > “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things ...
- EGG_CREAM 2y ago
  How does verifying your identity in any way violate that, though? You have a physical address that you live at, and the government verifies that you are the person living at that address, and that is not violating the fourth amendment. This would be pretty similar to that.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    Of course the words are open to interpretation but "unreasonable searches" seem to encompass this sort of thing. Usually it's taken case by case and reasons would need to be given for every individual being searched. This is a blanket excuse to search every interaction without a reason.
  - 2y ago