4 ms·

KYC in the context of internet services stands for "violating the 4th Amendment".

ryanisnan 2y ago
I don't disagree with your premise that KYC enables governments to violate the 4th amendment, but in general, for certain industries this is just generally a really good idea. Banking is the first industry where I encountered KYC, and it strikes me as being obviously good there. Isn't effectively the majority of what the Snowden leaks covered essentially violating the 4th amendment?
- willmadden 2y ago
  What is being proposed here will be used as a tool of fear by the government to suppress speech it doesn't like. Comparing what one individual did in the past to a formal government policy doxxing away peoples' 4th amendment rights is a strawman argument.
  - ryanisnan 2y ago
    I think we don't understand each other. I'm not giving a moral or legal judgement on what Snowden in particular did. I'm saying, the information he disclosed showed a vast and total violation of American's 4th amendment rights on behalf of the US government. This KYC requirement seems to me, at a glance, as being a small erosion of our digital privacy.
    - freedomben 2y ago
      You're not wrong, but there is an important big difference between this and the Snowden revelations: The Snowden stuff was illegal and was being done in secret, and once exposed they had to stop. It was considered bad and embarrassing. This would be legal, and will set a strong precedent.
      - webspinner 2y ago
        They still haven't stopped.
      - Repulsion9513 2y ago
        > The Snowden stuff was illegal I would say "unconstitutional" (it was on its face legal), but yup. > and was being done in secret Do open secrets count? We all knew they were spying. > and once exposed they had to stop BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
- always2slow 2y ago
  >Banking is the first industry where I encountered KYC, and it strikes me as being obviously good there. This is not obvious to me as my experience has been largely negative post-KYC/9-11 vs pre-KYC/9-11. I am a legal law abiding citizen [and voter!] and it's just added extra hassle on various occasions and then the background anxiety of knowing an institution with crappy security track records hold a photocopy of my ID. And yet all the things KYC was supposed to prevent still continue unabated: money laundering, terrorist financing, identity theft, and financial fraud. I'm curious to hear why you think it's obviously good and if you were using these services before KYC.
  - willmadden 2y ago
    The people who donated to the Canadian truckers' protest had their accounts frozen by the Trudeau regime because of KYC. The problem is that there are no checks and balances preventing banks from freezing assets because they want to or the government told them to. Banking needs to be a right, and unless someone is convicted of a crime involving the bank account's assets, banks and governments should not be able to freeze them. There can be exceptions for fraud like FTX where there will be a significant financial harm to other individuals if the assets aren't frozen, but what we have today is unchecked government financial terrorism against individuals they do not like, and now they want to extend that terrorism to speech.
  - ryanisnan 2y ago
    I am familiar with KYC from a banker's perspective (at least that of a close relative who was a bank manager). KYC helped them by deny-listing abusive clients between branches, or by allowing the bank to develop heuristics for things like allowing customers to bypass cheque clearing times. From an end-user perspective, I've had no hangups personally but I do share your grievances about yet-another-shoddy institution holding a photocopy of my ID. My bank truncates passwords when setting them, and when logging in, without telling the user. It boggles the mind.
    - always2slow 2y ago
      Thanks for replying I appreciate the insight, although as someone else mentioned the most obvious use (to me) for KYC is censorship / de-banking and I think that was it's intended purpose all along because there's nothing about KYC that specifically enables the two things you mentioned that couldn't be done by a bank on it's own.
- rangestransform 2y ago
  KYC basically means that the job of collecting evidence to prosecute potential (read: non-existent yet) crimes has fallen to yourself and your bank/cloud provider/etc., rather than forcing the government to collect evidence to prosecute a crime. Essentially an end-run around the 4th amendment and the whole idea of "innocent until proven guilty".
  - webspinner 2y ago
    That's similar to what I said in my comment to the department. " Under the fourth amendment, this would be an unconstitutional general warrant. I thought we did away with those long ago. It does not describe the particular things to be seized."
- webspinner 2y ago
  Well yes, so does FISA.
oliv__ 2y ago
Thank God for the Constitution
webspinner 2y ago
Yes! If they put it into the entire internet infrastructure, it's considered a general warrant. Hmm... I thought we did away with those in 1789.

I don't disagree with your premise that KYC enables governments to violate the 4th amendment, but in general, for certain industries this is just generally a really good idea. Banking is the first industry where I encountered KYC, and it strikes me as being obviously good there. Isn't effectively the majority of what the Snowden leaks covered essentially violating the 4th amendment?

willmadden 2y ago
What is being proposed here will be used as a tool of fear by the government to suppress speech it doesn't like. Comparing what one individual did in the past to a formal government policy doxxing away peoples' 4th amendment rights is a strawman argument.
- ryanisnan 2y ago
  I think we don't understand each other. I'm not giving a moral or legal judgement on what Snowden in particular did. I'm saying, the information he disclosed showed a vast and total violation of American's 4th amendment rights on behalf of the US government. This KYC requirement seems to me, at a glance, as being a small erosion of our digital privacy.
  - freedomben 2y ago
    You're not wrong, but there is an important big difference between this and the Snowden revelations: The Snowden stuff was illegal and was being done in secret, and once exposed they had to stop. It was considered bad and embarrassing. This would be legal, and will set a strong precedent.
    - webspinner 2y ago
      They still haven't stopped.
    - Repulsion9513 2y ago
      > The Snowden stuff was illegal I would say "unconstitutional" (it was on its face legal), but yup. > and was being done in secret Do open secrets count? We all knew they were spying. > and once exposed they had to stop BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
always2slow 2y ago
>Banking is the first industry where I encountered KYC, and it strikes me as being obviously good there. This is not obvious to me as my experience has been largely negative post-KYC/9-11 vs pre-KYC/9-11. I am a legal law abiding citizen [and voter!] and it's just added extra hassle on various occasions and then the background anxiety of knowing an institution with crappy security track records hold a photocopy of my ID. And yet all the things KYC was supposed to prevent still continue unabated: money laundering, terrorist financing, identity theft, and financial fraud. I'm curious to hear why you think it's obviously good and if you were using these services before KYC.
- willmadden 2y ago
  The people who donated to the Canadian truckers' protest had their accounts frozen by the Trudeau regime because of KYC. The problem is that there are no checks and balances preventing banks from freezing assets because they want to or the government told them to. Banking needs to be a right, and unless someone is convicted of a crime involving the bank account's assets, banks and governments should not be able to freeze them. There can be exceptions for fraud like FTX where there will be a significant financial harm to other individuals if the assets aren't frozen, but what we have today is unchecked government financial terrorism against individuals they do not like, and now they want to extend that terrorism to speech.
- ryanisnan 2y ago
  I am familiar with KYC from a banker's perspective (at least that of a close relative who was a bank manager). KYC helped them by deny-listing abusive clients between branches, or by allowing the bank to develop heuristics for things like allowing customers to bypass cheque clearing times. From an end-user perspective, I've had no hangups personally but I do share your grievances about yet-another-shoddy institution holding a photocopy of my ID. My bank truncates passwords when setting them, and when logging in, without telling the user. It boggles the mind.
  - always2slow 2y ago
    Thanks for replying I appreciate the insight, although as someone else mentioned the most obvious use (to me) for KYC is censorship / de-banking and I think that was it's intended purpose all along because there's nothing about KYC that specifically enables the two things you mentioned that couldn't be done by a bank on it's own.
rangestransform 2y ago
KYC basically means that the job of collecting evidence to prosecute potential (read: non-existent yet) crimes has fallen to yourself and your bank/cloud provider/etc., rather than forcing the government to collect evidence to prosecute a crime. Essentially an end-run around the 4th amendment and the whole idea of "innocent until proven guilty".
- webspinner 2y ago
  That's similar to what I said in my comment to the department. " Under the fourth amendment, this would be an unconstitutional general warrant. I thought we did away with those long ago. It does not describe the particular things to be seized."
webspinner 2y ago
Well yes, so does FISA.

oliv__ 2y ago

Thank God for the Constitution

webspinner 2y ago

Yes! If they put it into the entire internet infrastructure, it's considered a general warrant. Hmm... I thought we did away with those in 1789.