10 ms·

That might make sense if the bank wasn't also acting as an agent for the government, with potentially severe, life-changing consequences if they hear something

That might make sense if the bank wasn't also acting as an agent for the government, with potentially severe, life-changing consequences if they hear something they don't like. If the question was purely for my protection, then I could simply answer "I don't wish to share that information." But I can't actually answer like that, because it's too risky. There's also no option to opt out of such investigations. I didn't request the bank to protect me from my own actions. When there's a credit card transaction that they suspect is fraudulent, they ask "did you authorize that transaction?" That's fine, and that's all they need to know. Asking me who I'm paying and why, with implied duress, is a completely unwarranted violation of my privacy. There's also a serious issue with an assumption of guilt in these cases. Look at the case of Donald Trump right now, suing Capital One because they closed over 300 Trump business accounts due to suspected money laundering. In Trump's case, I can well believe that there was some kind of corruption, money laundering, or other criminal activity going on. The man is a documented criminal. But the bank is making a decision to penalize someone, potentially severely, without any meaningful due process. Guilty until proven innocent. For someone without the resources Trump has to challenge something like that, what chance do they have of getting a fair outcome? This is all completely unacceptable in a supposedly civilized society, and you should not be defending it.

pocksuppet 7d ago
> If the question was purely for my protection, then I could simply answer "I don't wish to share that information." Fraudsters would tell you to answer the question by saying "I don't wish to share that information." but the bank would still be on the hook for paying you back from the fraudster. In a sane society, though, you could say "I'm buying wholesale drugs to distribute on the street" and then bank wouldn't care.
- antonvs 7d ago
  > Fraudsters would tell you to answer the question by saying "I don't wish to share that information." Fraudsters breathe air, therefore we should criminalize breathing air? You need to think just a teensy bit harder about what you’re saying. > the bank would still be on the hook for paying you back from the fraudster. You’d need to explain that. If I send a wire transfer, and I tell the bank that I chose to send it voluntarily if they ask, how would they be on the hook? You’re trying to use an imaginary and unrealistic situation to justify a dystopian surveillance state. Are you Peter Thiel perhaps?
  - anonymars 7d ago
    Firstly, you seem to be conflating "know your customer"/anti-money-laundering stuff with "please explain why you're wiring this money because we don't want you to get scammed" But let's assume you're 99th percentile and won't get scammed or will own up to it and eat the loss (talk is usually cheap and plentiful on that point). I'm not sure how often you interact with the general public but suffice it to say that the "expected value" of banks asking why their clients are performing an unusual and largely irrevocable transaction (in contrast to paying a merchant with a credit card) is probably pretty good, just like a cashier asking why you're spending hundreds on Apple gift cards. But also you're assuming that it's always going to be "you" that they are asking: if your account was compromised (and everyone thinks they're too smart to be tricked), should it be easy for someone to just wire all the money out, aaaaaand it's gone? That's separate from KYC/AML, which I think is a trickier issue. I will say this though, if a bank showed me the door and I had to take my money elsewhere, that would be less problematic than one of the tech giants capriciously deciding to close my account, which I think illustrates the larger issue about a lack of recourse for being arbitrarily locked out of commerce with private businesses in disruptive ways. Itself a cousin of terms of service that force you to give up rights, and can be changed at any time As an aside, I don't think you need to make sneering personal attacks to make your points
    - antonvs 7d ago
      > Firstly, you seem to be conflating "know your customer"/anti-money-laundering stuff with "please explain why you're wiring this money because we don't want you to get scammed" Do you have any way to back that up? Because the question about what the transfer is for is pretty clearly an AML question. > should it be easy for someone to just wire all the money out, aaaaaand it's gone? Yes, you have to resort to extreme cases to try to support your point. That wasn't what I was talking about. > I will say this though, if a bank showed me the door and I had to take my money elsewhere, that would be less problematic Yes, when you have unimaginable levels of privilege, life seems very simple to you. Go and read articles like https://medium.com/@Srikantranjan/the-hidden-risk-why-the-global-banking-system-is-quietly-freezing-innocent-accounts-fc4a37445af8 https://medium.com/@Srikantranjan/the-hidden-risk-why-the-gl... or https://www.newsweek.com/institutions-are-freezing-innocent-users-funds-12182533 https://www.newsweek.com/institutions-are-freezing-innocent-... if you want to get some real information about what the "general public" has to deal with, you elitist prick. > As an aside, I don't think you need to make sneering personal attacks to make your points You're defending the actions of a reprehensible and despicable regime with ridiculously simplistic “think of the children” style arguments that doesn’t even attempt to address the points I’ve raised. You didn't even respond about the guilty until proven innocent point. Perhaps you're just blitheringly ignorant and lack the cognitive capacity to recognize that, but from where I stand you deserve far worse than I've given.

pocksuppet 7d ago

> If the question was purely for my protection, then I could simply answer "I don't wish to share that information." Fraudsters would tell you to answer the question by saying "I don't wish to share that information." but the bank would still be on the hook for paying you back from the fraudster. In a sane society, though, you could say "I'm buying wholesale drugs to distribute on the street" and then bank wouldn't care.

antonvs 7d ago
> Fraudsters would tell you to answer the question by saying "I don't wish to share that information." Fraudsters breathe air, therefore we should criminalize breathing air? You need to think just a teensy bit harder about what you’re saying. > the bank would still be on the hook for paying you back from the fraudster. You’d need to explain that. If I send a wire transfer, and I tell the bank that I chose to send it voluntarily if they ask, how would they be on the hook? You’re trying to use an imaginary and unrealistic situation to justify a dystopian surveillance state. Are you Peter Thiel perhaps?
- anonymars 7d ago
  Firstly, you seem to be conflating "know your customer"/anti-money-laundering stuff with "please explain why you're wiring this money because we don't want you to get scammed" But let's assume you're 99th percentile and won't get scammed or will own up to it and eat the loss (talk is usually cheap and plentiful on that point). I'm not sure how often you interact with the general public but suffice it to say that the "expected value" of banks asking why their clients are performing an unusual and largely irrevocable transaction (in contrast to paying a merchant with a credit card) is probably pretty good, just like a cashier asking why you're spending hundreds on Apple gift cards. But also you're assuming that it's always going to be "you" that they are asking: if your account was compromised (and everyone thinks they're too smart to be tricked), should it be easy for someone to just wire all the money out, aaaaaand it's gone? That's separate from KYC/AML, which I think is a trickier issue. I will say this though, if a bank showed me the door and I had to take my money elsewhere, that would be less problematic than one of the tech giants capriciously deciding to close my account, which I think illustrates the larger issue about a lack of recourse for being arbitrarily locked out of commerce with private businesses in disruptive ways. Itself a cousin of terms of service that force you to give up rights, and can be changed at any time As an aside, I don't think you need to make sneering personal attacks to make your points
  - antonvs 7d ago
    > Firstly, you seem to be conflating "know your customer"/anti-money-laundering stuff with "please explain why you're wiring this money because we don't want you to get scammed" Do you have any way to back that up? Because the question about what the transfer is for is pretty clearly an AML question. > should it be easy for someone to just wire all the money out, aaaaaand it's gone? Yes, you have to resort to extreme cases to try to support your point. That wasn't what I was talking about. > I will say this though, if a bank showed me the door and I had to take my money elsewhere, that would be less problematic Yes, when you have unimaginable levels of privilege, life seems very simple to you. Go and read articles like https://medium.com/@Srikantranjan/the-hidden-risk-why-the-global-banking-system-is-quietly-freezing-innocent-accounts-fc4a37445af8 https://medium.com/@Srikantranjan/the-hidden-risk-why-the-gl... or https://www.newsweek.com/institutions-are-freezing-innocent-users-funds-12182533 https://www.newsweek.com/institutions-are-freezing-innocent-... if you want to get some real information about what the "general public" has to deal with, you elitist prick. > As an aside, I don't think you need to make sneering personal attacks to make your points You're defending the actions of a reprehensible and despicable regime with ridiculously simplistic “think of the children” style arguments that doesn’t even attempt to address the points I’ve raised. You didn't even respond about the guilty until proven innocent point. Perhaps you're just blitheringly ignorant and lack the cognitive capacity to recognize that, but from where I stand you deserve far worse than I've given.