[logicchains]

>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]

I'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]

So is a license plate. Privacy is not an absolute right.

[hobobaggins]

> Privacy is not an absolute right.

This is meaningless.

[tptacek]

You 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]

Sure, but the fact that KYC is not motivated by data is not a license just to pull numbers out of your ass.