Topic: KYC Safe or Threat (Read 703 times)

Yes, i can agree with your opinion so please don't send you KYC to that companies and if you don't believe them better don't participate in bounties and ICO also. No one is forcing you to upload the documents in the ICO or bounties, it is completely based on your interest.

It could be a good thing in helping out figuring out what's a good ICO and what isn't. Obviously someone looking to scam is less likely to go the KYC route, they just want your money. But it it's a trusted company, one can at least trust that they are not scammers.

I think that KYC is a serious threat to personal security. Your data can simply be sold to any persons - and they can find out that you are investing in cryptocurrencies, where you live, etc.

In my opinion KYC is necessary part of crowdsale, because it permit disqualify most of fake investors.
The main problem of KYC is safety of personal data. As for me, i'm not sure that my data is securely stored and protected from hacking.

KYC has both advantages and little disadvantages.

As there are lot of scams that are being faced by many traders, since it is hard to traced the person's identity. In one case recently, a person was blackmailed and he was forced to transfer his bitcoins that were lot of worth to another person's account. Since, the victim doesnt have his KYC atatched to his wallet, the police cannot legally confirm if the original bitcoin wallet was belonged to the victim, based on the identity process.

On the other hand, there are certain risks such as from hackers, if our details go to them, that will be an advantage for them to get more details from us without our knowledge.

The problem is "There is none 100% in this world", KYC made to fight AML, but in other case I hate it because broke the essence of crypto
I dont what other people do with my Real Identity and yeah, This Era We dont trust each other.
Say NO KYC because it can risk our life, although you have Best Security on it, someday it will be leaked and your bad life started from here.

Know your customer known with the acronyms (KYC) is the essential regulatory requirements for the survival of crypto-currency in the digital world, project owners scrutinize investors for authentication using this innovation, Talking about the safety of KYC, this should be a huge challenge for the offeror of tokens or coins. Although it is in the best interest of the token investors that KYC is carried out properly, the information received from the investors which comprise of the name, address, an official ID, proof of residency and birthdate, this are computed and compared with the legal database to ensure conformity. This is still in its infancy stage with time KYC will become a norm in the crypto-community and the issue of safety regarding the personal information provided by investors will no longer be a thing to be worried about.

As far as I am concern, KYC is more on security but we cannot remove the fact that it comes with a risk or threat. The objective of the KYC is to identity theft, prevent terrorist financing, money laundering and financial fraud. KYC allows us to understand the customer better and manage risks prudently. KYC collects and verifies basic details of the customers like:
-Name and authorized signatures
-Legal status of the legal entity or a person
-Identity of the beneficial controllers and owners of the account

Now adays KYC is very common with ICO's and I believe it is good for us.

Yeah I completely agree with you. It is needed to save our own work and security purpose. KYC make to safe both end. Sometimes happened unexpected transaction. KYC needed to skip that unexpected threat.     

Yes you are right. 1st of all it was never created for us customers it was created to controll money by governence but it ended with risk only for us. Goverment diesel not risk anything at all...

In my opinion KYC is generally a threat. There is really very little reason for it except a form of government control. It is not for our benefit in any way and does not help us to improve our lives. It simply puts us at risk and allows scammers another way to get your information. In saying this I understand why exchanges and banks require it but in an ICO it is just a restraint to small investors.

KYC is needed, but not too soon. As agreed with the starting point of this thread, how do we know that these crypto exchanges of middlemen will be able to keep our data very safe. Even the big corporations which have been in the game for long enough face hacking issues and all sorts of data breach. Even see what Facebook is facing recently. However, we can't go too long without KYC all in the name of anonymity, coz it will turn into chaos.

It’s as safe as providing your Kyc details to any private sector Banks. Digital Wallets are now regulated by the RBI. At the end it’s the consumer trust what matters. Until a data breach happens all public and private sector banks and companies are good so having faith , trust and confidence is all what you can do.

KYC always has a risk of sharing personal information, if the information is stolen, it is very dangerous for users. That is the problem we need to look at. I do not like KYC

The Key that's supposed to provide security of identity got hacked in the middle of their ICO and tons of personal data was stolen. People got scammed in their Telegram group
by the harder whom took over the moderation of the group. The whole KYC thing in my opinion defeats the anonymity that crypto stands for.  If a person uses multiple accounts to participate in a bounty and he qualifies for the payment in the two accounts, I would say the person should be paid. I can't even imagine running a signature campaigns on double accounts, its a lot of work except maybe the person has an ample time for this forum

I think it is good to know your customers in any business,
 KYC is established as a regulation for banking sector to fight fraud, money laundering and illicit activities. This is a new concept for Icos but there should be security of personal information of investors and should not be disclose with anyone.

It depends on your point of view,in my opinion,KYC is not a threat to your data from a security point of view.
But on the other hand,KYC threatens one of the fundamentals of bitcoin which is anonymous transactions,with many projects demanding for KYC,it would be hard to remain anonymous.

For bounty hunters, no country requires KYC. At least, not a single project has justified this legally.

Unfortunatelly there are always such possibility that your data will be used to fraud (never know).
Back to the topic, I think it's easier and cheaper to require from everyone without any exceptions KYC instead of checking which country require which not and in the end if you do mistake will get subpoena.

KYC is a threat. It should not be implemented where the country of origin of the ICO is not requiring KYC for the participants or investors. I noticed that some ICOs are implementing this even if it is not required.

They are changing the rules at the end of the ICO campaign requiring even the bounty hunters who are not investors, to submit themselves for KYC. It's a bad bad thing as I doubt it could be used to fraud.

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.

Of course KYC is a threat.

The FIANCIA project in its spreadsheet published the personal phones of those who passed the KYC.
Does someone else want to go through this procedure?

KYC is often one of the requirements for the platform or exchange to operate legally within its jurisdiction.
sometimes there is no choice.
either the platform is compliant or it risks being closed down / deemed illigal.

I think it's a great way to earn some extra cash by solving all gathered personal data to black market.

In my opinion KYC brakes one of the main idea of crypto-world - anonymity.

Anonymity is in trend now, and it worth a lot.

Of course its a threat.

Half the large companies cant secure personal data, most exchanges have been hacked at some point so what makes you think your personal I.D will held securely.

There are many projects out there that can prove identity such as The Key or Civic. The problem is that the ICOs are not managing this issue correctly and that makes them loose prospective investors. Like myself.

KYC faced the real security issues. Someone can steal your data by hacking the platform and use it for criminal purpose. But in other hand, crypto world still finding the best ways how to protect crypto transaction form money laundery, human trafficking and drugs transaction.

I think, its a big responsibelity to keep KYC data safe. If not, crypto will had bad ending.