[codetrotter]

> we should insist that KYC be solely performed by banks

That sounds like a great way of preventing anyone who doesn’t have a bank account from being able to use services at all.

There are ~1.7 Billion people in the world that are unbanked.

Even in the US alone there are around 55 million unbanked adults. (2018 numbers)

I think we should push for the opposite. Less KYC all around.

[theturtletalks]

KYC is actually a clever trick by the government to pass the buck to the banks to verify if transactions are illegal or not. The main reason is that when you are dealing with the government, you are innocent until proven guilty. Using the banks to money launder? It’s up to the government to prove it and bring charges or its business as usual for you.

With banks having that power, you’re guilty until you prove innocence. Haven’t committed any crimes? Doesn’t matter, you’re banned by default and after you provide ID, we’ll let you bank. Oh and if for any reason, we can ban you and you have no recourse. We won’t tell you the reason either. It’s a great way for the government to not actually go after the money launderers and give the keys of doing business to a select few.

[Terr_]

Are you similarly against KYC rules when it comes to people trying to exchange scrap bundles of copper wire they "found lying around" into cash?

There's always room for reform, but it's not as if the concept of due-diligence was invented just recently for banking alone.

[lmm]

> Are you similarly against KYC rules when it comes to people trying to exchange scrap bundles of copper wire they "found lying around" into cash?

I'm against them if they're opaquely administered by private entities, yes. That's guaranteed to be abused. The problem isn't having rules, the problem is having no due process and no oversight or recourse.

[Terr_]

It seems to me you don't want less-legislation as much as different-legislation.

In a "hands off" scenario where the only only factor for companies becomes "avoid losing a civil lawsuit for Failing To Do Enough to stop a criminal you assisted", they will still create an opaque system with no due-process/oversight/recourse. They will do that by default, because it's cheaper.

[lmm]

> In a "hands off" scenario where the only only factor for companies becomes "avoid losing a civil lawsuit for Failing To Do Enough to stop a criminal you assisted", they will still create an opaque system with no due-process/oversight/recourse. They will do that by default, because it's cheaper.

I can understand the theoretical argument that they would. But in reality they didn't prior to the (relatively) recent AML laws, and other entities not subject to those laws largely don't.

[superkuh]

Are you similarly for KYC rules when it comes to people making DMCA and other legal claims?

It seems like KYC is always applied in situations that hurt the individual person and protect the incorporated person. Never the other way.

[Terr_]

I'm not sure what you mean. The DMCA is big piece of crap, but it does have penalties if someone files a DMCA claim regarding content they know isn't theirs to manage.

Alas, it does not extent to penalizing the (duly-authorized) filers who make claims they know are frivolous bullshit, but that's a 'nother can of worms.

[superkuh]

One of the biggest problems with the DMCA is that it is unaccountable for those submitting legal claims anonymously. They should have to identify themselves to submit a legal claim of ownership.

> https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/02/17/the-invisible-campaign-t... To remove something from google's search they copy the text, they create a fake website / company with a URL with copied text then submit a DMCA claim saying theirs is the original. Google automatically rubberstamp approves it and the URL/text they want removed from the search index is removed.

There's a simple and easy solution: there should be "know your customer" for claimaints for laws requiring companies to follow up on legal claims like DMCA reports. KYC is obviously socially accepted and easily implemented since it's being required for so many other things. The whole basis of an adversarial legal system is that you need two legal persons on either side. This is a context in which you have to wonder why it isn't already like that.

[gaadd33]

Have those penalties ever been widely implemented? My understanding is most wrong claims just result in the person making the claim say "whoops sorry my bad" and nothing happens.

[gregjor]

I don't think KYC laws keep people un-banked. According to the Federal Reserve only about 5% of adult Americans don't have a bank account. KYC is relatively easy to comply with, about the same as getting a library card. But if a person has a history of writing bad checks or running up overdrafts they can't get a bank account. And some percentage of Americans don't trust banks and remain un-banked by choice.

Source for your claim of 55 million unbanked American adults? That's 21% of the 2020 US adult population, and four times higher than what the Fed reports. If America had 55 million potential customers banks would be tripping over each other opening new accounts at McDonalds.

[codetrotter]

> I don't think KYC laws keep people un-banked.

That’s not what I’m saying.

What I mean is, if only banks do KYC then all payments will be required to go through banks.

That will be a disaster for the unbanked.

And instead of pushing for KYC being performed by banks only, we should push for less KYC in the first place.