It's simply just a regulatory requirement for them to let some of their users accept and send BAT tokens in a legal matter.
Do we know why, though? There are hundreds of exchanges which trade crypto without involving fiat, which don't need KYC. There are crypto gambling sites which don't need KYC. Why is Brave, which also doesn't touch fiat, different?
Topic: Brave, the so called "privacy" browser now requires KYC! - page 2. (Read 646 times)
And I suppose that one day they may ask their regular users to pass KYC...
It will happen, I am 100% certain of that. The whole idea that you are being paid out in this manner just by installing an app without filling in personal information, is something that governments don't like. They want to know who is being paid out, and then what they will be doing with their funds. Currently that's not the case and it's only a matter of time before Brave will comply.Brave is a business. It's subject to regulations set up within the countries they operate in. They either abide or be forced to halt operations. I know what option they will choose.
I haven't used Brave browser, but I believed that's very promising project with great future. Now I have mixed feelings about it.
It's a promising project until you get to deal with the legal side of operating a business. Governments are catching up on the developments here quicker than ever before. I expect way more similar moves that will force seemingly innocent crypto businesses to comply and lose their main use case now people have to do KYC. 
Well all of the good things I was talking about brave. For fuck sake.
I love brave, not gonna lie, its really good, and it doesn't crash as often as Chrome certainly. But it certainly does suck that they are asking for KYC for BAT payments, that's very sucky of them.
I love brave, not gonna lie, its really good, and it doesn't crash as often as Chrome certainly. But it certainly does suck that they are asking for KYC for BAT payments, that's very sucky of them.
I disagree with you here. Even if it doesn't affect me directly, I no longer want to support a browser which advertises itself as having a strong privacy focus, whilst simultaneously mandating KYC for part of their userbase. KYC is completely antithetical to everything they should be standing for.
Yeah well we don't live in a perfect world, and if a company wants to integrate crypto payments whilst operating or having its users living in a country that requires KYC, they have to abide by their terms regardless of what they focus point of the company is. Its literally impossible for any corporate to integrate crypto payment mechanisms without asking for user's KYC. With the amount of people getting scammed, people are willing to give their KYC to corporate companies for additional security. In fact, many people don't understand how valuable KYC actually is, so privacy for them doesn't matter.. 
There are already people on brave forums saying they can't pass verification because they're from 'bad' countries (Iran) or they don't even know why because Uphold won't tell them. If you actually want to make use of BAT you're at the whim of an unrelated company. All this could have been avoided if they just moved to a free country line Binance did.
I think topic title is a bit clickbait. Regular users of Brave browser aren't required to pass KYC. Only publishers will have to that. Still, browser which focus on privacy and KYC is strange. And I suppose that one day they may ask their regular users to pass KYC... I haven't used Brave browser, but I believed that's very promising project with great future. Now I have mixed feelings about it.
I thought Brave could be privacy-respecting browser for non-geek or technical illiterate, but looks like i was wrong.
They should know they'll be forced to apply KYC on their browser, maybe they shouldn't push their BAT too hard.
Anyway, it's unfortunate to see they prioritize BAT rather than their original goal which shown on their homepage.
Only because someone else "pay" for all of us in form of donation, source-code contributor, tester, host mirror server (such as mirror of linux software repository) and run node (such as Tor relay)
They should know they'll be forced to apply KYC on their browser, maybe they shouldn't push their BAT too hard.
Anyway, it's unfortunate to see they prioritize BAT rather than their original goal which shown on their homepage.
There is noting free in this world. They let us to use their free product but we pay them without our data.
There are actually quite a lot of free services which will respect your privacy. Tails, Firefox, Tor, DDG. Have a look here for privacy respecting alternatives to most pieces of software: https://prism-break.org/Only because someone else "pay" for all of us in form of donation, source-code contributor, tester, host mirror server (such as mirror of linux software repository) and run node (such as Tor relay)
Isn't this dangerous for other governments? Especially when one government owns ID documents of your citizens?
It's not just USA, other governments do the same. Here, you might find this interesting: https://restoreprivacy.com/5-eyes-9-eyes-14-eyes/TL;DR: US and other countries share and collect data of their citizens (even citizens from countries that are not part of the international alliance) between them.
But just like centralized exchanges NEED to implement KYC at some point (due to their government laws) or they will get shutdown, I think Brave actually needs to do that if they want to keep going with their idea of giving BAT tokens to publishers.
It's simply just a regulatory requirement for them to let some of their users accept and send BAT tokens in a legal matter.
Do we know why, though? There are hundreds of exchanges which trade crypto without involving fiat, which don't need KYC. There are crypto gambling sites which don't need KYC. Why is Brave, which also doesn't touch fiat, different?There is noting free in this world. They let us to use their free product but we pay them without our data.
There are actually quite a lot of free services which will respect your privacy. Tails, Firefox, Tor, DDG. Have a look here for privacy respecting alternatives to most pieces of software: https://prism-break.org/ What are they doing with your passport?
I don't think it's that they're going to do something with it per se, but my guess that it's most likely just a requirement from the government, simply because money is involved.Btw why are governments so quiet? I understood companies want to know their customers and get rid of illegal things without knowing who did that. Maybe it's not related to this topic but just think, why are they in silent? This company operates from USA, almost all of USA exchanges, social networks and etc steal and get our data, so in overall huge data is under control of USA government. Isn't this dangerous for other governments? Especially when one government owns ID documents of your citizens?
They're aren't actually quiet lately. Have you seen the recent senate committee hearing concerning Libra? It was almost all attacks on Zuckerberg and Facebook that they didn't keep their word concerning their user's data.Also, it's not like Uphold is requiring KYC for their financial gain. It's most likely because it's a regulatory requirement.
the biggest issue I see is that companies like Brave are using"privacy" and other cypherpunk fundamentals only as an advertisement. Are they really comprised with that ideals of a Free web?
I was reading that they allow publishers only to withdrawal funds after kyc, and even so to a custodial service that doesn't allow you to have the privatekeys (uphold "wallet").
Yes. It's actually a good browser for privacy purposes due to it's tracker blocking features. Also, it's open source.I was reading that they allow publishers only to withdrawal funds after kyc, and even so to a custodial service that doesn't allow you to have the privatekeys (uphold "wallet").
And again, the KYC requirements are more likely for regulatory requirements. Because yes, the company runs in San Francisco CA.
the biggest issue I see is that companies like Brave are using"privacy" and other cypherpunk fundamentals only as an advertisement. Are they really comprised with that ideals of a Free web?
I was reading that they allow publishers only to withdrawal funds after kyc, and even so to a custodial service that doesn't allow you to have the privatekeys (uphold "wallet").
That uphold wallet is just another custodial service like Freewallet and so many out there, which will freeze your funds whenever they want, making your funds hostage until you give them more docs, or more information or whatever.
It's is just a bank, but without all the laws and regulations which also protect us, not only them.
There is no reason to use any of those services, just use a traditional bank or visa and Google ads.
This is why Bitcoin is different from all those companies and cryptocurrencies. Because it is free from all that.
I was reading that they allow publishers only to withdrawal funds after kyc, and even so to a custodial service that doesn't allow you to have the privatekeys (uphold "wallet").
That uphold wallet is just another custodial service like Freewallet and so many out there, which will freeze your funds whenever they want, making your funds hostage until you give them more docs, or more information or whatever.
It's is just a bank, but without all the laws and regulations which also protect us, not only them.
There is no reason to use any of those services, just use a traditional bank or visa and Google ads.
This is why Bitcoin is different from all those companies and cryptocurrencies. Because it is free from all that.
~snip~
Not really, it all depends on your threat model and how high it's set.
How?Not really, it all depends on your threat model and how high it's set.
You will ask me to use duckduckgo.com for my search engine?
About Brave, as long as they don't track me, sell my data or some shady stuff like this, I don't care about what KYC they implement *for publishers only*; If they need to do that in the eyes of the law/government, they will obviously do.
They won't sell the data to a third party or anything like that because, as it says in the link I posted above in this topic, they don't store the data that you provide, Uphold does since they're the ones who require and will receive the KYC info. But these days it is really hard to protect your privacy.
Wait, one thing is to protect yourself against tracking cookies , Google ads etc. You may choose to give a fuck about that, and that's ok.
Another very different stuff is requiring passport or driver's licence to be able to use a browser. (Even as a publisher, it was required before)
It's very invasive. That's not a privacy matter anymore, but it also involves your reputation, safety, etc. What are they doing with your passport?
This principle applies to so many things in modern life. A bunch of my friends use various smart home devices - Google, Amazon, whatever. They say it's super convenient: "Add x to my shopping list" or "What's the weather like tomorrow". I say I'd rather spend 10 seconds doing these things myself than having every single word that is every said inside my house being sent to and recorded on who knows how many servers around the world. You like the convenience of connecting with friends on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.? Then you are giving away all your data to these companies to use anyway they want and sell to anyone they want.
There is noting free in this world. They let us to use their free product but we pay them without our data.I think we are living in an age now where more and more people are taking their privacy seriously. But it really comes down to the preference of either choosing privacy or going with easy custom made features designed by the companies to compromise your privacy.
I know that. But just like centralized exchanges NEED to implement KYC at some point (due to their government laws) or they will get shutdown, I think Brave actually needs to do that if they want to keep going with their idea of giving BAT tokens to publishers. What else should they do? Just give up on their idea or go against their law enforcement agencies? As long as they have good intentions and only ask for KYC when needed (for publishers in this case) I'm cool with that. But that's me (I also hate KYC btw).
I have not used their browser so I have no idea about the user friendliness of their service. It seems like KYC is needed only to use the token not for using the browser. So, in my opinion everything comes down to the service they are offering. If they can provide top notch service and if the users find their browser is more comfortable than those exists (like chrome), they will get a group of 
Btw why are governments so quiet? I understood companies want to know their customers and get rid of illegal things without knowing who did that. Maybe it's not related to this topic but just think, why are they in silent? This company operates from USA, almost all of USA exchanges, social networks and etc steal and get our data, so in overall huge data is under control of USA government. Isn't this dangerous for other governments? Especially when one government owns ID documents of your citizens?
Just installed this Brave browser because of the rewards. Not expecting at all but it's good to have a slight bit of rewards for my browsing experience. Not reading the whole terms yet but obviously, internal transactions involving BAT payments and rewards would be affected by the KYC but still, people can freely use the browser. So for those who earned up rewards decently up to now, no choice but to comply with the KYC or just give up their earned rewards.
I don't want the idea of KYC but will just consider it if I found it necessary to do.
I disagree with you here. Even if it doesn't affect me directly, I no longer want to support a browser which advertises itself as having a strong privacy focus, whilst simultaneously mandating KYC for part of their userbase. KYC is completely antithetical to everything they should be standing for.
As much as I agree with you, I don't think they just have any choice besides going full à la Binance and head over to Malta instead to run away from laws. It's simply just a regulatory requirement for them to let some of their users accept and send BAT tokens in a legal matter. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do it in the first place if it wasn't enforced. Ultimately, hey, it's optional! We non-BAT users can just freely use the browser freely without any KYC at all.
Again, I hope this KYC thing with Uphold is just mandatory. Hopefully they could let their users accept and send BAT in a protocol level. Though I'm not sure how that's going to work in terms of regulations.
I disagree with you here. Even if it doesn't affect me directly, I no longer want to support a browser which advertises itself as having a strong privacy focus, whilst simultaneously mandating KYC for part of their userbase. KYC is completely antithetical to everything they should be standing for.
I know that. But just like centralized exchanges NEED to implement KYC at some point (due to their government laws) or they will get shutdown, I think Brave actually needs to do that if they want to keep going with their idea of giving BAT tokens to publishers. What else should they do? Just give up on their idea or go against their law enforcement agencies? As long as they have good intentions and only ask for KYC when needed (for publishers in this case) I'm cool with that. But that's me (I also hate KYC btw). You can choose: either have your privacy or more convenience.
This principle applies to so many things in modern life. A bunch of my friends use various smart home devices - Google, Amazon, whatever. They say it's super convenient: "Add x to my shopping list" or "What's the weather like tomorrow". I say I'd rather spend 10 seconds doing these things myself than having every single word that is every said inside my house being sent to and recorded on who knows how many servers around the world. You like the convenience of connecting with friends on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.? Then you are giving away all your data to these companies to use anyway they want and sell to anyone they want.About Brave, as long as they don't track me, sell my data or some shady stuff like this, I don't care about what KYC they implement *for publishers only*; If they need to do that in the eyes of the law/government, they will obviously do.
I disagree with you here. Even if it doesn't affect me directly, I no longer want to support a browser which advertises itself as having a strong privacy focus, whilst simultaneously mandating KYC for part of their userbase. KYC is completely antithetical to everything they should be standing for. How?
You will ask me to use duckduckgo.com for my search engine? I have no problem to use tor browser in fact I do use firefox with tor connection but asking me to use duckduckgo.com is boring.
I do not like it. The annoying part is that everytime when you are going to search for anything you are starting it from the scratch since the browser does not know anything about your interest, preference. I know that's the goal but these days we are so much addicted with technology that if you ask someone to add 122 + 123 (just picked some random number) then they will look for a calculator.
You can choose: either have your privacy or more convenience. You will ask me to use duckduckgo.com for my search engine? I have no problem to use tor browser in fact I do use firefox with tor connection but asking me to use duckduckgo.com is boring.
I do not like it. The annoying part is that everytime when you are going to search for anything you are starting it from the scratch since the browser does not know anything about your interest, preference. I know that's the goal but these days we are so much addicted with technology that if you ask someone to add 122 + 123 (just picked some random number) then they will look for a calculator.
If you let Google track your location 24/7, they will give you cool custom alerts, suggestions, timelines, custom searches, etc... But they need to keep tracking you for that. If you don't mind, sure. But some people prefer to do a hard search on DuckDuckGo than having Google know what you like, think and even the porn you watch. What else do they even do with that data?
About Brave, as long as they don't track me, sell my data or some shady stuff like this, I don't care about what KYC they implement *for publishers only*; If they need to do that in the eyes of the law/government, they will obviously do.
~snip~
Not really, it all depends on your threat model and how high it's set.
How?Not really, it all depends on your threat model and how high it's set.
You will ask me to use duckduckgo.com for my search engine? I have no problem to use tor browser in fact I do use firefox with tor connection but asking me to use duckduckgo.com is boring.
I do not like it. The annoying part is that everytime when you are going to search for anything you are starting it from the scratch since the browser does not know anything about your interest, preference. I know that's the goal but these days we are so much addicted with technology that if you ask someone to add 122 + 123 (just picked some random number) then they will look for a calculator.
This is completely off-topic, but I'll respond anyway.
Sure, if you don't mind being tracked by Google and have your data on display for hundreds of advertisers, do use Google.
Though if you care about such things, then you might want to opt for Duckduckgo.
Now, I actually use Duckduckgo myself and it's definitely not quite as good as Google, but also not that bad that you can't use it.
Jump to: