351–360 of 395 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think everyone has a sour taste left over from decades of half-baked laws written by politicians that don't understand the basics of the internet or technology in general. With that said, I also don't understand the issues people are having with this.
I wonder how they deal with the (hopefully) constant abuse reports aimed at them from providers who are tired of their shady customers doing shady things from their IPs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
KYC stands for Know Your Customer, and is a core regulation in banking. So we can pivot off that and work through what a bank does to verify your identity. I signed up for a Mercury bank account a few months back for my Delaware corporation without talking to anyone, so I'll use that as a template. I can't remember the exact steps, but tl;dr submit a passport photo / driver's license photo and a photo I take in the a…
> a photo I take in the app itself So what else did they pull off your phone? Location data, personal photos, personal files, wifi connections near by, microphone data, ongoing location data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We established the Fed (and later, the FDIC) because people were sick and tired of bankers controlling monetary policy and wiping out their life savings. How the Fed turned into the ancap Boogeyman is the real destructive force in our society.
And not long after we got the great depression, and more recently the destruction of the housing market by pinning interest rates near zero bidding property into infinity and then jacking rates up to disenfranchise the youth while everyone else sits on negative real rates mortgages for 30 years that they'll only give up for a kings ransom. The only thing worse than a bunch private bankers controlling monetary policy,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We established the Fed (and later, the FDIC) because people were sick and tired of bankers controlling monetary policy and wiping out their life savings. How the Fed turned into the ancap Boogeyman is the real destructive force in our society.
"We" didn't establish anything. An elite few met at The Meeting at Jekyll Island to discuss the matter and the public had zero say in it. Just like we continue to have no say in government today. Bills are rammed through congress and the president's desk and they just rubber stamp everything put out by the deep state or they risk getting CP'd by the intelligence apparatus. The main group of opposition to the Fed was…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You need more than this to get on an aeroplane, but that also applies to domestic flights in the UK. Can you clarify what you mean by "more than this"? I've travelled on many domestic flights within the UK, and ID is not routinely checked. > If this was your best example of governments lying and changing the rules Ouch. The common travel area has its origins way back in 1923, the rules are clear, no-one is lying. I…
When did you last travel on a UK domestic flight? You definitely need government issued ID. You are suggesting that having to show any photographic ID is the same as having to show a passport . That's obviously silly. No one has to prove that "they are entitled to not show a passport" by showing British or Irish ID. This is a fantasy. On the boat everyone, British, Irish or other, has to show ID of some kind. No one…
"a spokesperson for the CAA, said: “UK aviation security regulations do not require a passenger’s identity to be checked for security purposes prior to boarding a domestic flight, in the same way when travelling within the mainland on a train or bus. Any further requirement on behalf of the carrier to provide identification may be a condition of travel by the carrier itself.”"
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/british...
The talking point we should be using is: if banks know their customers, we don’t have to. The trail of knowing ones customers always leads to payments and finance. If we are accepting payment for our services with standard bank card transactions or wire transfers, etc., then the knowing of the customer can be centralized at the banks.
The problem is that KYC, being a cost centre with no upside other than "it's imposed on us by law", immediately turns into a box-checking exercise.
The industry will barf up some terrible "compliance in a box" solution, everyone will use it, it will eventually get databreached, and the people who brought us Bulletproof Hosting back in the Viagra Spam era will come back with Bulletproof Rack Full Of Quadros.
A number of threads seem to assume that KYC (or identity check) implies that your biometrics or gov ID data is collected/stored by the provider, but it does not have to be. The identity check is typically done by a trusted 3rd party that can delete the data right after the identity check (and can be required to do so). So you basically end up guaranteeing that the name, address and D.O.B that you provided to the IaaS…
I trust a "trusted third party" far, far less. Inevitably it's a data hoarder like our credit-bureau overlords, which has commercial motivations to ask for more data than needed, and hold it longer than necessary, and will likely suffer only a slap on the wrist when they inevitably data-breach.
We really needed a coherent plan for national and digital ID 20 years ago, but as they say, the second best time would be now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, I guess I wouldn't call it invading privacy, that's sounds a bit overwrought to me. Then banks invade my privacy, the DMV invades my privacy, etc. There's always tradeoffs, I respect people's concern about them, and I wish there was a gentler to say it.
> Then banks invade my privacy, the DMV invades my privacy, etc. That is a reasonable and factually accurate statement. > There's always tradeoffs, I respect people's concern about them, and I wish there was a gentler to say it. The tradeoff here is astonishingly bad. Studies have shown that AML/KYC have an effectiveness of less than a fraction of one percent. They continue to proliferate because their largest costs…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, unsubscribe links were definitely not universal in 2003 and they barely are today. But the situation has definitely improved in the last 20 years.
The point is the rules are daft. A sensible rule would require a functioning unsubscribe process in the email, which every piece of software would then automate as an unsubscribe link. The actual rule requires people to be able to unsubscribe via a postal mailing address , which is unreasonable and ridiculous.