if you are all just going to vote for Biden again anyway, stop complaining
You're suffering from Biden Derangement Syndrome.
We have 4 days to contest KYC being required by internet services
381–390 of 395 posts
Re: We have 4 days to contest KYC being required by internet services
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah that's a clever way to avoid having the rules struck down as unconstitutional. In practice though to avoid liability and possibly jail time, providers will have to assume that every customer is a foreigner until they "prove" their US citizenship (by uploading the same ID and other documentation required by foreigners).
It sseems unconstitutional to me. that's just me though.
It does to me as well, but unfortunately our opinions don't matter. Only the opinions of the nine supreme Court justices do.
Re: We have 4 days to contest KYC being required by internet services
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious if the spammers will find a way around this. I would actually like to be ID'd by a provider if that also meant they had no un-ID'd customers. I'd expect their IP range would start to get a pretty good reputation.
The spammers are criminals. They'll just use ID scans and info from data breaches of other companies. Requiring more companies to collect them makes it even worse because now there are more places to exfiltrate them and it makes it easier for criminals to commit identity theft against financial institutions etc. There are also non-"criminals" who are more than willing to use their actual ID for the sort of things tha…
And now more people will have thier passports pinched as they'll be opening themselves up to more opportunities to have it stolen.
It'll be great to get ready for that overseas trip, or while returning, to find out you need to now visit an embassy as a forged version of it is now in use.
Re: We have 4 days to contest KYC being required by internet services
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all of us are enlightened. Wouldn't you mind telling us what those technologies are?
Their username says it all: https://landscape.cncf.io/
Since the "vet" maybe didnt give it away, 95% of the cncf landscape is a trashfire joke of hodge podgey vc funded golang crap.
This site is so damn funny. I reply to a burner account in a day old thread, and then my comment is downmodded less than 60 seconds later. Points to some shockingly pathetic behavior, dang maybe you could check the IP on that alt account, might be interesting.
Re: We have 4 days to contest KYC being required by internet services
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
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…
The bank can choose to require such identification of their customers for their own business purposes independent of any regulation requiring them to do so.
Re: We have 4 days to contest KYC being required by internet services
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
> 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
Re: We have 4 days to contest KYC being required by internet services
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is mentioned, but the scope is significantly larger if you read the fulltext.
Given that top GPUs are sanctioned, I'm sure preventing access to them remotely is a part of this. But just generally speaking, doing any malicious crap out of an EC2 instance is an easy way for a foreign actor in China/Russia/Iran to look more legit.
As if they won't just use a stolen identity. And like usual the victim will never even find out because it won't show up on their credit report.
Re: We have 4 days to contest KYC being required by internet services
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that top GPUs are sanctioned, I'm sure preventing access to them remotely is a part of this. But just generally speaking, doing any malicious crap out of an EC2 instance is an easy way for a foreign actor in China/Russia/Iran to look more legit.
As if they won't just use a stolen identity. And like usual the victim will never even find out because it won't show up on their credit report.
Of course, people who want to circumvent laws will always attempt to do so. That doesn't mean all legal mitigations are useless.
Re: We have 4 days to contest KYC being required by internet services
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm just saying, your earlier comment would have been better without the sentence: "Unsubscribe links and highly effective spam filters were already completely standard when the law was passed in 2003."
[deleted]
Re: We have 4 days to contest KYC being required by internet services
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm just saying, your earlier comment would have been better without the sentence: "Unsubscribe links and highly effective spam filters were already completely standard when the law was passed in 2003."
The person you're replying to is not the person you're quoting.
But also, the people with unsubscribe links now but not in 2002 would still commonly send their messages from a consistent address, making it easy to block them if you wanted to, and making even primitive spam filters highly effective against them. Meanwhile the people who randomize their from address to prevent this are the people who still don't have a functioning unsubscribe link.