The "it's OK if you have nothing to hide" mindset seem to be prevalent among the public, at least where I am. They don't mind having CCTVs everywhere so they definitely won't mind KYC.
Few are concerned with money laundering unless they've been a victim or know one though there is the fear of bank fraud so if they think a policy can prevent criminals from running away with money, they'd agree to it. This also ties in with the perception that crypto is used to facilitate these transfers.
Topic: What people think about the KYC/AML/CFT security theatre outside of our bubble? (Read 160 times)
June 27, 2019, 06:10:44 AM
June 27, 2019, 04:36:50 AM
KYC and AML certainly has its legitimate side, and is needed in certain circumstances.
However it's quite clear that ever since 9/11 'anti-terrorism' has been used as an excuse to implement a huge surveillance program, KYC and AML being only part of it. Governments have led the way in exploiting this climate of fear to suck up valuable personal data, and companies such as Facebook and Google have seen the opportunity to make money, and leapt on board. Now everyone is at it, it's become the new normal. Download any app on your phone, and in the terms and conditions it wants access to your contacts, your photos, your location, your call history etc etc. This sort of stuff is way out of control and it needs legislating against. But that's not likely to happen as governments are at it as well. Here in the UK we have security cameras on every corner. Everything is recorded. Privacy has gone. Protest might also soon be gone - look at the recent protesters in Hong Kong in huge queue to buy train tickets with cash because they didn't want their card purchase history tracked by China and linking them to being part of the protests.
It's one thing to implement KYC/AML and surveillance / data gathering to prevent fraud and to protect consumers, quite another when the purpose is to harvest data just in order to a) monetise it, or b) control and subdue the population.
One encouraging sign is that data privacy is becoming more of an issue in the mainstream, and is in the news with Facebook scandals etc. I hope that something is done.
However it's quite clear that ever since 9/11 'anti-terrorism' has been used as an excuse to implement a huge surveillance program, KYC and AML being only part of it. Governments have led the way in exploiting this climate of fear to suck up valuable personal data, and companies such as Facebook and Google have seen the opportunity to make money, and leapt on board. Now everyone is at it, it's become the new normal. Download any app on your phone, and in the terms and conditions it wants access to your contacts, your photos, your location, your call history etc etc. This sort of stuff is way out of control and it needs legislating against. But that's not likely to happen as governments are at it as well. Here in the UK we have security cameras on every corner. Everything is recorded. Privacy has gone. Protest might also soon be gone - look at the recent protesters in Hong Kong in huge queue to buy train tickets with cash because they didn't want their card purchase history tracked by China and linking them to being part of the protests.
It's one thing to implement KYC/AML and surveillance / data gathering to prevent fraud and to protect consumers, quite another when the purpose is to harvest data just in order to a) monetise it, or b) control and subdue the population.
One encouraging sign is that data privacy is becoming more of an issue in the mainstream, and is in the news with Facebook scandals etc. I hope that something is done.
June 22, 2019, 04:23:09 PM
Pros and cons mate, kYC/AML has its good and bad sides really, when viewed from angle X, then it's a good and needed regulation, but when viewed from another angle, the reverse is the case.
It keeps away impersonators,thieves,bad guys in general and it also makes it easy to track and trace them.
But on another end it distorts privacy, it intrudes and gives up anonymity and vital documents which is in itself also not good.
I think the determining factor would be the purpose why you need to carry out KYC or AML, if it's worth it, if it's a trusted body(that you can trust with your documents),etc.if it's for a worthy purpose then it makes sense.
For example in the crypto world, most users give up their identity just to claim some shit tokens on an ICO, those documents most times fall into the hands of scammers and untrustworthy people who use it for ill purposes, now that's an example of a lame purpose to give out vital documents about yourself.
It keeps away impersonators,thieves,bad guys in general and it also makes it easy to track and trace them.
But on another end it distorts privacy, it intrudes and gives up anonymity and vital documents which is in itself also not good.
I think the determining factor would be the purpose why you need to carry out KYC or AML, if it's worth it, if it's a trusted body(that you can trust with your documents),etc.if it's for a worthy purpose then it makes sense.
For example in the crypto world, most users give up their identity just to claim some shit tokens on an ICO, those documents most times fall into the hands of scammers and untrustworthy people who use it for ill purposes, now that's an example of a lame purpose to give out vital documents about yourself.
June 22, 2019, 02:24:49 PM
What people think about the KYC/AML/CFT security theatre outside of our social bubble?
The general perception of such laws and regulations is negative in our social bubble.
But what about the general population of voters?
Do they think these regulations (government and financial service provider's surveillance programs) are good for the good guys and accept the "nothing to hide" argument?
Maybe the majority of people think it's worth the privacy invasion and risk of identity theft (because you need to submit all your personal data to the financial service providers) and it is a low price to pay for government's ability to track criminals and terrorist?
Last but not least - "think of the children" argument. You don't want paedophiles to use the financial system to fund child abuse?
Maybe only paedophiles, terrorist, money launderers, corrupt politicians and tax evaders whine about the good KYC/AML/CFT laws and law abiding citizens have nothing to hide from the Big Brother?
(I am not proponent of the KYC/AML/CFT laws, only want to provoke a discussion.)
The general perception of such laws and regulations is negative in our social bubble.
But what about the general population of voters?
Do they think these regulations (government and financial service provider's surveillance programs) are good for the good guys and accept the "nothing to hide" argument?
Maybe the majority of people think it's worth the privacy invasion and risk of identity theft (because you need to submit all your personal data to the financial service providers) and it is a low price to pay for government's ability to track criminals and terrorist?
Last but not least - "think of the children" argument. You don't want paedophiles to use the financial system to fund child abuse?
Maybe only paedophiles, terrorist, money launderers, corrupt politicians and tax evaders whine about the good KYC/AML/CFT laws and law abiding citizens have nothing to hide from the Big Brother?
(I am not proponent of the KYC/AML/CFT laws, only want to provoke a discussion.)
Jump to: