Topic: KYC Safe or Threat - page 2. (Read 698 times)

I don't like it either but what they can do otherwise? If they will have audit and they won't be able to show from where they got money then it will looks like money laundering. In other hand they can loose potential customers, even for bounty hunters (unfortunately in most bounty topic the team reserves any changes if they need to do).

KYC related to ICO's is a pure threat. Noone from these KYC providers, and I spoke with few of them in person on BtcMiami, can tell why they are collecting this and that. Because there is no written requirements for this usecase. These KYC-ICO providers just simply employ scare tactics against wanna-get-rich-fast "entrepreneurs" and just bank their money. Price is $4-10/person. To add to this - you can get in prison in many countries for storing people private information on your server without accreditation and certification.

This is the best way to balance the privacy interests with the KYC/AML/CFT requirements.  Entities that perform crypto/fiat conversion are generally licensed in some form in their jurisdictions.  My view is that these entities should participate in a decentralized pool.  Access to specific information on file will be by permission only (i.e. you give permission to XYZ ICO/ITO to access the minimum information necessary).  It's similar to how credit reporting agencies work, they keep a file on everyone that is accessible (normally) by your consent only.  This will be much tighter data control than those old databases, obviously, and the data allowance will not be "all or nothing", there will be different levels of data available based on what is required by the ICO/ITO.  It's one of the ideas that we've got on tap for FinTech SRO, should help to greatly reduce fraud and potential identity theft/KYC data theft issues.

Best regards,
Ben

Its an issue about not only hackers but the people that are collecting the data.  Who's to say that someone does not offer them $100k for the data?

It actually is a great question, if KYC is a threat or provides a necessary safety.

My answer is both.

1. There is always a risk induced from sharing personal sensitive information. And as much as we would love to be anonym all the time, it is a matter of public safety to have a way to check, if a person brings extra risks with its presence somewhere. KYC is generally dedicated to prevent such risk exposure transfer from a person to a mutual entity, which may suffer serious losses and/or damage to its reputation, and therefore losses to owners and clients. In that way KYC provides safety.

2. There is always a risk of personal data leakage and misuse by the current data collecting agents. Their design is simply unreliable, since there is a lot of people involved (people do mistakes both willingly and unwillingly), the data storage and transfer channels are almost always imperfect and vulnerable to attacks, a lot of 3rd parties have a "legal access" to such private data, even if it is against interests of the data originator. So currently, KYC brings extra risks for privacy, makes person more vulnerable to fraud and identity theft, and even puts family safety at risk, since most of the time residency address is a part of the required KYC.

The best way to deal with it is the decentralized KYC repositories with the selective decentralized data control and the forced data fragmentation for every step of its processing and storage. I won't name any project, yet there are some. They will certainly have difficulties working out a deal with countless government agencies, yet it looks doable without screwing safety entirely (I've discussed it several times at think tanks, there are solutions).

Too risky. But then again most of the exchanges require this now. It is very risky to give your personal information to any company or any form of government.

It's a danger. It's a big risk, a safe bet is to just wait for a coin to hit an exchange.

The Key sucks ^.^ Lmfao

The way with selfie and lettering seems in general humiliating to human dignity, IMHO 

KYC is needed because of regulations. But really it wont stop the criminals. It is so easy to just get a stolen ID for them and use that.
And for us it is a security risk. So KYC is pointless and just gives us risk. Maybe for bounties to avoid someone having multiple account is where it could be useful.
Or like bittrex, which demands a selfie with todays date and bittrex written. Then at least the risk of stolen ID is reduced by alot.

I agree with the opinion that it is dangerous. Not everyone knows how to save personal data in a responsible manner, unfortunately.
but on the account of money laundering ... it seems to me that such a sort of people will not stop by KYC

I have been thinking about this issue for a while... And came to the conclusion that it isn't the tool that is the problem but the user.

A good example is Roger Stone, once his father was dying from cancer, he chose to broke the law and find weed for his dying father, to alleviate his pain, as it worked better than opoids on him.

So, do you think this man is a criminal for helping his own father suffer less before dying? if you do... good luck.

But to comeback to the original problem, it's not the means to transact on things against the will of another one (human trafficing, terrorism, etc), but the act. And an act can't be accomplished by a transaction, by this I mean it's the act of an individual, and this act (human slavery, terrorism, corruption) that should lead to the death of the perpetrators.

as you can see hillary clinton didn't use bitcoin and was able to setup the largest known criminal operation in the usa. The podestas for example, did they need bitcoin to be recognized in portugal concerning madelane mccann?

as you can maybe now understand, it's the actors that must be stoped. not the mean of payment. Stoping payment means, is just a nice feel good trick that the real terrorists, human trafficers and co will use to monopolize transactions means, and like paypal, credit card and co ban assange from receiving txs.

I hope you will understand better the enemy, and if you are it... again, good luck.

Exactly, personal safety first.

While this may be a way to protect your personal data I would rather advise against this, since it could have negative consequences for you. It will depend on the legal system of your home country but things like soliciting the forgery of documents and fraud immediately come to my mind.

I think one should never use their real identity for online KYC.
Only this way you can protect yourself against abuse.

It's obvious that a lot of the ICOs out there have one goal: stealing your personal data.

A quick fix could be splitting online and offline personal data.
Online profile should not be valid offline and vice versa.
This will stop offline abuse of online personal data and vice versa.

It matters alot which type of crypto project you giving your details ,if it's a legit exchange.....i feel it's a bit safe as it's protecting my funds but it's like a threat giving your kyc to these many ICOs coming out everyday.......i feel like they will use the information for their own benefit and to our own demise

I think this is absolutely unacceptable. If a bounty campaign does not explicitly state at its beginning that it will require KYC, such conditions should in no way be introduced retroactively. The problem is that you won’t have any leverage on the campaign managers. You have actually entered into a contract with them once you are accepted in the bounty campaign and it can’t simply be altered unliaterally by introducing KYC requirements. However, it will not be worth the effort to enforce your right.

By the way, what the community think about such cases when project team declared the KYC procedure for bounty hunters post factum.

This is acceptable? Or not?

I think they should use another way of doing the KYC because lately there have been many accusations about several projects, ico, and it is not known what would happen with the data that is sent and what use they would give in case of fraud and theft of the identities

It is the right of the ICO team to keep close all the details of their customers, and if they can't, then, they are seriously imposing threat to people in their project.