3 ms·

> the regulations that require institutions moving money between two parties to positively identify each of those two parties. There is much more to it than th

by antonvs 1mo ago

> the regulations that require institutions moving money between two parties to positively identify each of those two parties. There is much more to it than that. If that were all KYC was, it wouldn't need regulations, because banks would need to do it anyway. I've had banks straight out ask me, on the phone, what a wire transfer that I executed via their online system was for. And unlike, say, a traffic stop where when the cop starts fishing for things unrelated to the stop, you can exercise your right to remain silent, in the banking scenario the consequences for that can be losing access to your account, losing funds, and everything that follows from that. Some of the info required by KYC: * Why the customer wants an account * Expected types of transactions * Expected source and approximate volume of funds * For businesses, the nature of the business and expected banking activity * Source of funds This can all translate into very invasive questions, especially when you do something that a computer system or middle manager thinks is suspicious, like sending money to your mother in another country.

anonymars 1mo ago
> I've had banks straight out ask me, on the phone, what a wire transfer that I executed via their online system was for Wire transfers are also a common source of fraud; it's common for banks to ask about them so their customers don't unwittingly send their money into a black hole
- antonvs 1mo ago
  That might make sense if the bank wasn't also acting as an agent for the government, with potentially severe, life-changing consequences if they hear something they don't like. If the question was purely for my protection, then I could simply answer "I don't wish to share that information." But I can't actually answer like that, because it's too risky. There's also no option to opt out of such investigations. I didn't request the bank to protect me from my own actions. When there's a credit card transaction that they suspect is fraudulent, they ask "did you authorize that transaction?" That's fine, and that's all they need to know. Asking me who I'm paying and why, with implied duress, is a completely unwarranted violation of my privacy. There's also a serious issue with an assumption of guilt in these cases. Look at the case of Donald Trump right now, suing Capital One because they closed over 300 Trump business accounts due to suspected money laundering. In Trump's case, I can well believe that there was some kind of corruption, money laundering, or other criminal activity going on. The man is a documented criminal. But the bank is making a decision to penalize someone, potentially severely, without any meaningful due process. Guilty until proven innocent. For someone without the resources Trump has to challenge something like that, what chance do they have of getting a fair outcome? This is all completely unacceptable in a supposedly civilized society, and you should not be defending it.
  - pocksuppet 1mo ago
    > If the question was purely for my protection, then I could simply answer "I don't wish to share that information." Fraudsters would tell you to answer the question by saying "I don't wish to share that information." but the bank would still be on the hook for paying you back from the fraudster. In a sane society, though, you could say "I'm buying wholesale drugs to distribute on the street" and then bank wouldn't care.
    - antonvs 1mo ago
      > Fraudsters would tell you to answer the question by saying "I don't wish to share that information." Fraudsters breathe air, therefore we should criminalize breathing air? You need to think just a teensy bit harder about what you’re saying. > the bank would still be on the hook for paying you back from the fraudster. You’d need to explain that. If I send a wire transfer, and I tell the bank that I chose to send it voluntarily if they ask, how would they be on the hook? You’re trying to use an imaginary and unrealistic situation to justify a dystopian surveillance state. Are you Peter Thiel perhaps?
      - anonymars 29d ago
        Firstly, you seem to be conflating "know your customer"/anti-money-laundering stuff with "please explain why you're wiring this money because we don't want you to get scammed" But let's assume you're 99th percentile and won't get scammed or will own up to it and eat the loss (talk is usually cheap and plentiful on that point). I'm not sure how often you interact with the general public but suffice it to say that the "expected value" of banks asking why their clients are performing an unusual and largely irrevocable transaction (in contrast to paying a merchant with a credit card) is probably pretty good, just like a cashier asking why you're spending hundreds on Apple gift cards. But also you're assuming that it's always going to be "you" that they are asking: if your account was compromised (and everyone thinks they're too smart to be tricked), should it be easy for someone to just wire all the money out, aaaaaand it's gone? That's separate from KYC/AML, which I think is a trickier issue. I will say this though, if a bank showed me the door and I had to take my money elsewhere, that would be less problematic than one of the tech giants capriciously deciding to close my account, which I think illustrates the larger issue about a lack of recourse for being arbitrarily locked out of commerce with private businesses in disruptive ways. Itself a cousin of terms of service that force you to give up rights, and can be changed at any time As an aside, I don't think you need to make sneering personal attacks to make your points

by antonvs 1mo ago

anonymars 1mo ago

> I've had banks straight out ask me, on the phone, what a wire transfer that I executed via their online system was for Wire transfers are also a common source of fraud; it's common for banks to ask about them so their customers don't unwittingly send their money into a black hole

antonvs 1mo ago
That might make sense if the bank wasn't also acting as an agent for the government, with potentially severe, life-changing consequences if they hear something they don't like. If the question was purely for my protection, then I could simply answer "I don't wish to share that information." But I can't actually answer like that, because it's too risky. There's also no option to opt out of such investigations. I didn't request the bank to protect me from my own actions. When there's a credit card transaction that they suspect is fraudulent, they ask "did you authorize that transaction?" That's fine, and that's all they need to know. Asking me who I'm paying and why, with implied duress, is a completely unwarranted violation of my privacy. There's also a serious issue with an assumption of guilt in these cases. Look at the case of Donald Trump right now, suing Capital One because they closed over 300 Trump business accounts due to suspected money laundering. In Trump's case, I can well believe that there was some kind of corruption, money laundering, or other criminal activity going on. The man is a documented criminal. But the bank is making a decision to penalize someone, potentially severely, without any meaningful due process. Guilty until proven innocent. For someone without the resources Trump has to challenge something like that, what chance do they have of getting a fair outcome? This is all completely unacceptable in a supposedly civilized society, and you should not be defending it.
- pocksuppet 1mo ago
  > If the question was purely for my protection, then I could simply answer "I don't wish to share that information." Fraudsters would tell you to answer the question by saying "I don't wish to share that information." but the bank would still be on the hook for paying you back from the fraudster. In a sane society, though, you could say "I'm buying wholesale drugs to distribute on the street" and then bank wouldn't care.
  - antonvs 1mo ago
    > Fraudsters would tell you to answer the question by saying "I don't wish to share that information." Fraudsters breathe air, therefore we should criminalize breathing air? You need to think just a teensy bit harder about what you’re saying. > the bank would still be on the hook for paying you back from the fraudster. You’d need to explain that. If I send a wire transfer, and I tell the bank that I chose to send it voluntarily if they ask, how would they be on the hook? You’re trying to use an imaginary and unrealistic situation to justify a dystopian surveillance state. Are you Peter Thiel perhaps?
    - anonymars 29d ago
      Firstly, you seem to be conflating "know your customer"/anti-money-laundering stuff with "please explain why you're wiring this money because we don't want you to get scammed" But let's assume you're 99th percentile and won't get scammed or will own up to it and eat the loss (talk is usually cheap and plentiful on that point). I'm not sure how often you interact with the general public but suffice it to say that the "expected value" of banks asking why their clients are performing an unusual and largely irrevocable transaction (in contrast to paying a merchant with a credit card) is probably pretty good, just like a cashier asking why you're spending hundreds on Apple gift cards. But also you're assuming that it's always going to be "you" that they are asking: if your account was compromised (and everyone thinks they're too smart to be tricked), should it be easy for someone to just wire all the money out, aaaaaand it's gone? That's separate from KYC/AML, which I think is a trickier issue. I will say this though, if a bank showed me the door and I had to take my money elsewhere, that would be less problematic than one of the tech giants capriciously deciding to close my account, which I think illustrates the larger issue about a lack of recourse for being arbitrarily locked out of commerce with private businesses in disruptive ways. Itself a cousin of terms of service that force you to give up rights, and can be changed at any time As an aside, I don't think you need to make sneering personal attacks to make your points