Independent Know Your Customer Providers
Pelle Braendgaard
is Know Your Customer. I've been thinking about how to solve this.
So let me just throw this out there.
Rather than individual financial services firms doing Know Your
Customer. How about a solution based on OpenID and OAuth.
A new customer wants to sign up with a financial service provider:
1. User logs in to financial service provider using openid (http://openid.net)
2. An account with limited rights is created
3. The user is then redirected to an independent financial service
provider of his choice using the OAuth Token Dance (http://oauth.net)
4. The "Know Your Customer" (KYC) logs the user in using openid
5. KYC provider asks the user if he/she wants to share their personal
information with the financial service provider.
6. If User has already registered once with KYC provider the user is
redirected back to financial service provider who can now access a
hcard page of users details
7. If User has not registered with KYC before the KYC process starts.
See comment below.
8. User is redirected back to financial service provider
9. When KYC process is complete it pings the Financial Service
Provider to let it know the data is available
10. When FSP has KYC data they lift restrictions on account
KYC companies could offer a service where they use whatever technique
is best in their country to perform Know Your Customer. In some
countries this could be using national Identity cards. In others it
could be scanning and uploading id and proof of address.
Any one have any comments? Anyone would like to try starting a KYC
provider in your country?
--
http://agree2.com - Reach Agreement!
http://extraeagle.com - Solutions for the electronic Extra Legal world
http://stakeventures.com - Bootstrapping blog
Leslie P. Polzer
wrote:
> KYC companies could offer a service where they use whatever technique
> is best in their country to perform Know Your Customer. In some
> countries this could be using national Identity cards. In others it
> could be scanning and uploading id and proof of address.
>
> Any one have any comments? Anyone would like to try starting a KYC
> provider in your country?
right?
Pelle Braendgaard
use such as service as this is where most of the headache in setting
up such as business is. As such I don't think there is a real need to
"require" it as pretty much every government requires a financial
services business to do KYC.
This could be a very profitable business over time. During the first
year or two it might be slow, but with patience this could grow to be
as big a business as the credit reporting business are today.
Entrepreneurs who go into this would also be fantastic acquisition
targets for the credit reporting agencies.
P
Leslie P. Polzer
Pelle Braendgaard wrote:
>
> I think it would be a no brainer for a financial services provider to
> use such as service as this is where most of the headache in setting
> up such as business is. As such I don't think there is a real need to
> "require" it as pretty much every government requires a financial
> services business to do KYC.
Just to get this straight, what's your definition of an FSP?
Would this for example only be banks (and other institutions handling
the flow of money) or also shops or other endpoints that offer
products and services for money?
I also initially thought that your proposal with OpenID and OAuth
would primarily provide an advantage for the customer because
his personal data are safe. But you seem to imply that this would
also be a benefit to the FSPs?
Leslie
Pelle Braendgaard
When I say FSP I mean banks, payment systems, investment companies and
any other business who have a legal requirement to perform KYC.
It is of course a benefit to the end user as you say. For the
financial service providers KYC is nothing but a cost and a burden
placed on them by the regulators. PayPal has managed to streamline it
making it one of their most important competitive advantages. Most
FSP's don't have the smarts and resources of PayPal do streamline this
globally. A startup able to focus on only this problem and reduce
costs for the FSP's would have a huge market.
The advantage to the FSP as I mentioned is a cost saving but also
allows me to offer services outside my national market. I could start
a bank and immediately have access to customers wherever there is a
KYC provider. Even PayPal would be a potential customer here. Look at
their supported country list https://www.paypal.com/worldwide/. I'm
willing to bet that most of the reasons they don't allow Receive in so
many countries is because they haven't solved the KYC issue there yet.
If I was to do start one in the US market I would look at the verid
which is now owned by RSA http://www.rsa.com/node.aspx?id=3347. Other
countries such as Denmark, Estonia and Spain have national ID
certificates that could be verified.
A super simple service that might work well in many third word
countries could be an agency network. The same franchise networks who
now do Western Union/MoneyGram are perfectly equipped to do in person
ID checks of national ID cards.
Pelle
Leslie P. Polzer
> When I say FSP I mean banks, payment systems, investment companies and
> any other business who have a legal requirement to perform KYC.
need to do here in Germany (i.e. via ID card). Do you know why that
could be?
> It is of course a benefit to the end user as you say. For the
> financial service providers KYC is nothing but a cost and a burden
> placed on them by the regulators.
really exists, and that customers are not holding duplicate accounts?
Apart from that I roughly got it now what KYC is about.
From that I deduce that it's much easier to do this in the country
one is living in because becoming a KYC provider means knowing
the appropriate laws of the country.
Now let's say I'm interested in becoming an independent
OAuth KYC provider. What needs to be done?
* get to know the laws (this could be hard if you're not a lawyer
and cannot afford one)
* write software
* market it to the FSPs
I think I could only perform the second step really well.
Leslie
Pelle Braendgaard
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Leslie P.
Polzer<leslie...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I can't remember Paypal asking proof of my identity like other banks
> need to do here in Germany (i.e. via ID card). Do you know why that
> could be?
They invented a system where all they need for normal personal
accounts is the verification of a bank account or credit card. They
perform a small transaction with a random amount to verify you and
thereby know you.
This depends on them having direct links to the banking system in each
country where they support this. For a business account they now
require ID and proof of address. At least they had me upload faxed
copy of passport and proof of address on the Danish version the other
day.
Depending on the country, I think they change the rules.
> But isn't it also in the interest of FSPs to know that their customer
> really exists, and that customers are not holding duplicate accounts?
The KYC provider would still have to provide this information to the
FSP. However they don't need to go through the process themselves and
customize the process for each country.
> Apart from that I roughly got it now what KYC is about.
It is a really annoying subject that unfortunately doesn't make a lot
of sense, but hey we are forced to do so. I'll see what I can find
about EU legislation. The US KYC legislation is mainly in the Patriot
act as far as I remember.
> From that I deduce that it's much easier to do this in the country
> one is living in because becoming a KYC provider means knowing
> the appropriate laws of the country.
Absolutely. It's the perfect application to outsource locally.
>
> Now let's say I'm interested in becoming an independent
> OAuth KYC provider. What needs to be done?
>
> * get to know the laws (this could be hard if you're not a lawyer
> and cannot afford one)
>
> * write software
>
> * market it to the FSPs
>
> I think I could only perform the second step really well.
You are right about these 3 points.
We should probably set up a wiki where we can do research on the local
laws. You might be able do a fair amount of research yourself by
contacting the relevant authorities in Germany. And then just have a
lawyer check it over.
Software you're right is probably the easiest for all of us.
Marketing I don't think would be that hard. In the beginning the agile
banking community is likely to be fairly small and we will likely all
know each other. So don't let that stop you.
I'd love to see you make a go at it. Even if you wrote the software
you might be able to find a partner with legal background later on.
P
Leslie P. Polzer
> redirected back to financial service provider who can now access a
> hcard page of users details
What kind of details would be shared apart from the minimum
information
needed in the country?
Leslie P. Polzer
> It is a really annoying subject that unfortunately doesn't make a lot
> of sense, but hey we are forced to do so. I'll see what I can find
> about EU legislation.
> We should probably set up a wiki where we can do research on the local
> laws. You might be able do a fair amount of research yourself by
> contacting the relevant authorities in Germany. And then just have a
> lawyer check it over.
is an excellent plan to present to VC players.
Here a Wiki would be even more effective because we could
gather business plans and inspirations that each Agile Banking
project can use to present the basic of AB to potential VC
investors.
> Marketing I don't think would be that hard. In the beginning the agile
> banking community is likely to be fairly small and we will likely all
> know each other. So don't let that stop you.
offering its services to existing non-agile banking companies.
Thanks a lot so far for your patience, determination and professional
attitude, Pelle. I appreciate it.
Leslie
Pelle Braendgaard
to encode in a standard html page.
This is the main page describing it:
http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard
With regards to what the minimum details are. It is probably country
specific. My guess would be the minimum a bank asks you for.
Name
Address
Phone number
Address
National ID Number
Instinctively I'm scared by having national ID's floating around.
Maybe (I'm just thinking out loud) as part of the regular KYC you just
certify to the FSP that you have their verified ID number on file.
Then you could charge them extra for a copy of it, if they need it for
tax reporting etc.
Pelle Braendgaard
easy to get setup.
With regard to VC's it might be a good idea to get some VC's
interested in whats going on, so they can follow the conversation and
help fund some of the businesses I'm sure will come out of this. I'll
contact some I know and everyone else please do the same.
You could probably get some non Agile Banking people as customers. I
hadn't really thought about that. But there may several smaller FSP's
today that would use such a service.
P
Leslie P. Polzer
Pelle Braendgaard
P
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Leslie P.
Polzer<leslie...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Here's the new Wiki page: http://wiki.github.com/opentransact/opentransact/know-your-customer
> >
>
Leslie P. Polzer
"Open" means here that the underlying technology (OAuth and friends)
is open and that the processes that are part of a service provider's
offerings are as transparent as possible.
openkyc.org should become a place to advertise open-source KYC
frameworks and service providers.
openkyc.com should present Open KYC at a professional level. We can
have appropriate per-country
subdomains. I intend to be the first Open KYC provider for Germany.
Planetary Jim
> frameworks and service providers.
I find it curious that resolving the banking crisis using open source
software seems to involve supporting the state and the banking cartel
that caused the crisis through the use of perfidious "know your
customer" and "know your customer's customer" invasions of privacy to
the nth level.
Perhaps I have been invited to participate with statists and others
who support the death machine that slaughters children in many
countries for the benefit of arms merchants (death merchants) and
banking gangsters.
The laws that limit access to the banking industry include the know
your customer laws, and are designed not to be of service in combating
fraud, nor theft (which private associations in the alternative
currency business have been doing for years, and at which they have a
much better proven track record) but to limit the competition for the
banking gangsters, interfere with financial privacy, and provide
pretexts for attacking innocent parties.
Charles Wyble
Planetary Jim wrote:
>> openkyc.org should become a place to advertise open-source KYC
>> frameworks and service providers.
>
> I find it curious that resolving the banking crisis using open source
> software seems to involve supporting the state and the banking cartel
> that caused the crisis through the use of perfidious "know your
> customer" and "know your customer's customer" invasions of privacy to
> the nth level.
Well..... this is a compromise between the completely closed banking
system we have now, and an open and transparent one bounded by the
current regulations.
Leslie P. Polzer
Planetary Jim wrote:
> I find it curious that resolving the banking crisis using open source
> software seems to involve supporting the state and the banking cartel
> that caused the crisis through the use of perfidious "know your
> customer" and "know your customer's customer" invasions of privacy to
> the nth level.
I'm not sure how to judge the current state of affairs, but
I definitely know that Open and Independent KYC providers can make
it more transparent and the customer's personal data more safe.
> The laws that limit access to the banking industry include the know
> your customer laws, and are designed not to be of service in combating
> fraud, nor theft (which private associations in the alternative
> currency business have been doing for years, and at which they have a
> much better proven track record) but to limit the competition for the
> banking gangsters,
From what little I know KYC primarily exists to prevent money
laundering, not to prevent theft and fraud.
I do agree that KYC laws are a barrier to FSPs, but Open KYC
is obviously designed to lower this barrier.
And there are much worse barriers to becoming an FSP, like the
insanely high sums of money you have to show up with before
they grant you bank status.
> interfere with financial privacy, and provide pretexts for attacking
> innocent parties.
We're getting to blanket statements here. KYC is definitely a privacy
topic, but how can Independent KYC invade financial privacy?
Currently KYC is tied closely to FSPs, which is bad. We're trying
to change that by untangling the KYC part, thus removing all
financial data from the KYC provider.
Leslie
Planetary Jim
> laundering, not to prevent theft and fraud.
And what is money laundering? It is the state making possession of
money from certain kinds of ventures illegal. Or, it is a war on the
people.
> I do agree that KYC laws are a barrier to FSPs, but Open KYC
> is obviously designed to lower this barrier.
Then I don't understand how.
> And there are much worse barriers to becoming an FSP, like the
> insanely high sums of money you have to show up with before
> they grant you bank status.
You have to show up with less insanely high funds to become a credit
union. However, the presence of idiotic and insane laws does tend to
confirm that there is a cartel operating in restraint of trade with
government support.
This does not encourage me to want to work with people who are
foolishly pursuing a strategy of obedience to the law. Obeying the
laws is no defense.
> We're getting to blanket statements here. KYC is definitely a privacy
> topic, but how can Independent KYC invade financial privacy?
KYC is definitely a privacy topic, or, rather, an invasion of privacy
topic. How can independent KYC avoid invading privacy? What does
making it independent, or open source, do to change the fundamental
premise that KYC is itself an invasion of privacy?
> Currently KYC is tied closely to FSPs, which is bad.
And current financial services providers are bad.
> We're trying
> to change that by untangling the KYC part, thus removing all
> financial data from the KYC provider.
I don't understand how the proliferation of KYC providers enhances
anyone's privacy.
It seems to me that the banking institutions, including the credit
unions and all other financial services providers, have a big sign
over the door that says, as it were, "abandon all privacy ye that
enter here."
Re-arranging the furniture at Auschwitz doesn't impress me.
Leslie P. Polzer
Planetary Jim wrote:
> And what is money laundering? It is the state making possession of
> money from certain kinds of ventures illegal. Or, it is a war on the
> people.
How do you decide when a law is 'war on the people' and when it
is not?
>> I do agree that KYC laws are a barrier to FSPs, but Open KYC
>> is obviously designed to lower this barrier.
>
> Then I don't understand how.
Because small FSPs can outsource the KYC part to another company
instead of doing expensive research and setup of local facilities.
> You have to show up with less insanely high funds to become a credit
> union. However, the presence of idiotic and insane laws does tend to
> confirm that there is a cartel operating in restraint of trade with
> government support.
I also believe that there's a bunch of oligopolies in the trade
and finances sectors.
> This does not encourage me to want to work with people who are
> foolishly pursuing a strategy of obedience to the law. Obeying the
> laws is no defense.
No, but adopting a gradual and sensible approach is.
>> We're getting to blanket statements here. KYC is definitely a privacy
>> topic, but how can Independent KYC invade financial privacy?
>
> KYC is definitely a privacy topic, or, rather, an invasion of privacy
> topic. How can independent KYC avoid invading privacy?
Please read my statement again. Note that I'm making a difference
between general privacy (e.g. personal data) and financial privacy
(e.g. limits or accounts).
> What does making it independent, or open source, do to change the
> fundamental premise that KYC is itself an invasion of privacy?
* Ideally independent KYC would give you the opportunity to choose
among several KYC providers in competition -- if you wish based
on the amount of data they collect and relay, assuming that some
of them are more frugal with your data than others, of course.
* Independent KYC means that the full data necessary to complete
the KYC process is only available to the KYC provider. The FSP
doesn't need to get all that data, or ideally none of it except
for the confirmation that you've completed the KYC process.
* Open KYC means that your data is more secure. By opening
processes and software we can no longer rely on intransparency
to hide our security flaws.
> Re-arranging the furniture at Auschwitz doesn't impress me.
I think that metaphor is inappropriate.
Leslie
Pelle Braendgaard
I personally hate the idea of KYC legislation as much as you do.
That said there are about 2 countries in the world where they won't
send you to jail if you don't perform some level of KYC.
This fact is one of the main things that discourage innovation in
financial services. What we are trying to do is create a set of
interconnected standards and services that work well together. If you
want to create an non jurisdictional electronic bank without KYC that
is absolutely fine by me. There is nothing about the OpenTransact
standard for example that would force you to do so.
However those of us who live in jurisdictions where this could cause a
problem need to think about these things and come up with realistic
ways of minimizing the damage. I don't want entrepreneurs to suffer
the same consequences that Douglas Jackson suffered, without 100% up
front knowing what they are getting themselves into.
If we can come up with such a set of standards they are great building
blocks for building a new widespread alternative to the current system
with lots of possibilities for experimentation (and rebellion). But if
we keep down this 100% idealistic way that it sounds like you want to
go, there will be no real change.
I would love to see OpenTransact as a way of interacting between Loom,
Trubank and more traditional book entry systems. Andreas Pizsa on the
list is also interested in creating a bearer based system, which I
would love to see. At some level I think most of these kind of systems
need to interface with a traditional book entry system and they could
do that with an OpenTransact based system.
P
Pelle Braendgaard
other people interested in creating KYC providers in their own
countries as well. Should join the list soon.
Pelle
andreas.pizsa
that happy with where some discussions and projects in this group are
heading.
I'm not saying that we don't have to deal with regulation; that would
be foolish. Still, I think the topic of regulation should be separated
into its own abstraction layer if we are to build a financial
architecture that rightfully carries the attribute "new".
My personal goal is not to just implement the same broken financial
architecture that we have today, just "2.0"-style. My approach is to
provide an alternative stable infrastructure that is available when
today's systems fail; and on top of that new infrastructure, I want to
build interfaces that work with today's world.
I believe there are actually three different issues surrounding "KYC":
a) Accountability (voluntarily agreeing and adhering to Terms of
Service between consenting people where each party agrees to be
accountable for their own actions ->Agree2)
b) Reputation ( an account's history of a), track record; does pay
bills on time, keeps agreements, etc )
c) Political Regulation / KYC ("contract" terms can change at any time
without your consent.)
A free world works better with a and b; Accountabilty and Reputation
are basically "Trust". We don't need a "real name" or Social Security
Number to implement a) and b); all we need for any kind of transacrion
is a unqiue identifier (and with DBCs, not even that); let it be an
OpenID. Once you do business with an OpenID, that OpenID can be held
accountable for its (online) activites and it can build up reputation.
Trust and Reputation are actually the real benefits of Identification.
c) is a special case. Governments euphemistically call it KYC, but in
fact it means that you may only do business with entites who have a)
and b) with THEM - whethery THEY trust YOU and YOUR customer.
I believe that if we focus on Accountability and Reputation, KYC/
Political Regulation can be dealt with separately.
That said, I will use the term "KYC" when I mean Political Reglation,
and Accountability and Reputation when I mean accountability and
reputation.
What we need is Reputation providers who accept OpenIDs. _One_
function of such a provider can be to offer info about an entity's
reputation with a Government. Lets say I only accept U.S. customers, I
would inquire whether a given OpenID has established reputation with
the US Government. The OpenID provider could confirm that if it knows
the OpenID's social security number.
Best,
A.
Leslie P. Polzer
> I must say that I share Jim's position on this, which is why I'm not
> that happy with where some discussions and projects in this group are
> heading.
>
> I'm not saying that we don't have to deal with regulation; that would
> be foolish. Still, I think the topic of regulation should be separated
> into its own abstraction layer if we are to build a financial
> architecture that rightfully carries the attribute "new".
anyone into following regulation. Using OAuth we can and will separate
this part from the others. In fact using OAuth we are flexible enough
to separate *any* part from the rest.
So you will be free to make use of KYC providers or just bypass
them as you see fit. The long term goal for us all is getting rid of
unnecessary bureaucracy. The current system is a tangled mess
that makes it very hard to see what is necessary and what can be
taken away, so let's start with untangling it.
> My personal goal is not to just implement the same broken financial
> architecture that we have today, just "2.0"-style. My approach is to
> provide an alternative stable infrastructure that is available when
> today's systems fail; and on top of that new infrastructure, I want to
> build interfaces that work with today's world.
be
hard right now for FSPs to work without KYC in most countries, so
we need a solution that works here and now but can be easily
dropped later when there's no need for it anymore.
> I believe there are actually three different issues surrounding "KYC":
>
> a) Accountability (voluntarily agreeing and adhering to Terms of
> Service between consenting people where each party agrees to be
> accountable for their own actions ->Agree2)
> b) Reputation ( an account's history of a), track record; does pay
> bills on time, keeps agreements, etc )
> c) Political Regulation / KYC ("contract" terms can change at any time
> without your consent.)
the
bare minimum requirements for Germany, which is just verifying the
identity of the customer.
> What we need is Reputation providers who accept OpenIDs. _One_
> function of such a provider can be to offer info about an entity's
> reputation with a Government. Lets say I only accept U.S. customers, I
> would inquire whether a given OpenID has established reputation with
> the US Government. The OpenID provider could confirm that if it knows
> the OpenID's social security number.
Leslie
Planetary Jim
> that happy with where some discussions and projects in this group are
> heading.
This group is by and about nationalist socialists being mainstream and
supporting the establishment's ability to steal money from everyone
and be a boot smashing a human face forever. If you want to be a part
of this group, shut up about children being slaughtered in foreign
countries by the war machine.
And go fuck yourselves.
Jake Howerton
I also have doubts about what exactly the KYC project is about. The regulations in most countries are KYC not "It's OK For Some Third Party To Know Your Customer". How could separating this as a service protect privacy if all the data still needs to be held by the party responsible for KYC (from a regulatory perspective)?
-Jake
Bill St. Clair
I agree with your take on the state, Jim, but gummint KYC is a reality
for anybody who wants to do money transfer without running immediately
afoul of various gangs of thugs with badges. As long as that part of
the KYC protocol is separate from what's actually going to be required
for some people to be willing to do business, as it appears it is, I
won't require everybody to either operate underground or not operate
at all.
That's obviously how you've decided to operate, but not everybody has
your courage or convictions.
-Bill
Paul Cuciureanu
Why can't we treat the ecurrency as cash, where for certain amounts smaller then say 10 000, your identity is not required. Think of when you need to declare large sums of cash when entering a new country.
And can't this identity request be outsourced to some third party? Say, you log in with your OpenID to a government site, and submit your copy of ID to them.
Then users can have more personal accounts and, for example, transfer money from the KYC account to an anonymous account for anonymous transactions.
Cheers,
--
Paul Cuciureanu
Thomas Hartman
private: hawala. Just use that, and take your chances with the law, I
say. Solved problem.
http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/hawala.htm
Agile banking would appear to be for everybody else, who wants to work
within the existing system and established norms.
Evolution versus revolution, basically.
Also, there are benefits to kyc beyond just centralizing power. People
generally behave better when they're not anonymous.
Of course, if you're at odds with the government, you want to have the
option of using systems that aren't being tracked, and so for that, I
do think it is in everybody's interests to make sure that underground
systems like hawala continue to exist in case we need them. Kind of
like the right to bear arms. But just because you believe in the
second ammendment doesn't mean you go packing every day.
Thomas Hartman
Darcs hosting: patch-tag.com
Build a webapp with haskell: happstack.com
Pelle Braendgaard
KYC is the ideas that governments want banks to verify the identity of
their customers.
Leslie started a WikiPage about it here that has links on to Wikipedia as well:
http://wiki.github.com/opentransact/opentransact/know-your-customer
I'm not sure that 10,000 as a limit would be accepted by most
countries. But I agree that you should be able to start anonymous with
a certain limit and increase it the more data you give. I believe
PayPal do this with their Verified members, which is basically their
KYC program.
The outsourcing is exactly what this thread is about (or at least
started out as). None of us believe KYC should be a core banking
protocol, but having a standard API with localized third party KYC
providers would solve this issue, just as you say for most small banks
and financial institutions starting up.
P
justin kruger
to get, and in limited supply.
OpenIDs are by contrast easy to get, which means they are disposable.
To a certain degree I think someone should be able to have multiple
IDs and credit ratings for small businesses and orgs, but we need a
way to control or restrict the Bankable OpenIDs enough to make them
non disposable.
Verisign does this for SSL certs, maybe there is a way to validate
OpenIDs via some secondary cert process granting that OpenID with
super privileges on the web by way of some cert approval process.
--
Justin Kruger -- Sr. Social Media Software Engineer -
http://jDavid.net
http://twitter.com/jdavid
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jdavid
jDavi...@gmail.com
Anton Freeman: Vincent! How are you doing this Vincent? How have you
done any of this? We have to go back.
Vincent: It's too late for that. We're closer to the other side.
Anton Freeman: What other side? You wanna drown us both?
Vincent: You wanna know how I did it? This is how I did it Anton. I
never saved anything for the swim back.
thomas hartman
Openid does make me nervous. But ssn / tax id doesn't seem like that
much of an improvement. Well, it's an improvement in terms of uniquely
identifying someone. But not in terms of preventing fraud. Millions of
them floating around on stolen laptops.
If part of a core functionality verifying that somebody is who they
say they are?
If so, why not do it like paypal does? Verify small deposit into a
bank account. In other words, leverage the existing system. Another
option would be to have a whitelisted list of phone numbers and names,
and require an sms be sent or something. However it doesn't seem that
hard to swipe somebody's cell phone to send an sms to get a fraudulent
"verified" id. Somewhat harder to get access to their online banking.
You could also have "more verified" users vouch for "less verified"
users, and assign identities a trust score along these lines. This
might make users unhappy. Uncertainty, confusion: okay for new
facebook users, maybe less so for people getting into this newfangled
"open source banking".
>
> >>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Planetary Jim<planetary...@gmail.com>
>
> >>> >> I must say that I share Jim's position on this, which is why I'm not
> >>> >> that happy with where some discussions and projects in this group are
> >>> >> heading.
>
> >>> > This group is by and about nationalist socialists being mainstream and
> >>> > supporting the establishment's ability to steal money from everyone
> >>> > and be a boot smashing a human face forever. If you want to be a part
> >>> > of this group, shut up about children being slaughtered in foreign
> >>> > countries by the war machine.
>
> >>> I agree with your take on the state, Jim, but gummint KYC is a reality
> >>> for anybody who wants to do money transfer without running immediately
> >>> afoul of various gangs of thugs with badges. As long as that part of
> >>> the KYC protocol is separate from what's actually going to be required
> >>> for some people to be willing to do business, as it appears it is, I
> >>> won't require everybody to either operate underground or not operate
> >>> at all.
>
> >>> That's obviously how you've decided to operate, but not everybody has
> >>> your courage or convictions.
>
> >>> -Bill
>
> >> --
> >> Paul Cuciureanu
>
> > --
> >http://agree2.com- Reach Agreement!
> >http://stakeventures.com- Bootstrapping blog
> --
> --
> Justin Kruger -- Sr. Social Media Software Engineer -
>
> http://jDavid.nethttp://twitter.com/jdavid
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jdavid
>
blacksun
Demanding KYC is perfectly subjugating again to the rules set by the
evil east cost high finance. I thought that servitude should be broken
up.
DKYC is what is needed. Think of it.
Te most successful payment system (and the stress lies on PAYMENT, not
storage) was e-gold, because they didn't care about KYC, it wasn't by
design I guess, but it laid the ground for their success. Cash doesn't
know the bearer, and so ought to be a new payment system
Hermann
Pelle Braendgaard
coming out of government it is extremely misguided. However the
reality is that if you want to create a mainstream financial service
provider in most parts of the world at the moment you need to worry
about it.
KYC does not stop 99% of drug/terrorist money laundering. It was
really an impressive bait and switch designed by OECD in the 90s to
reduce tax evasion. US regulators always liked it but the congress was
initially against it, but it was included in the Patriot Act after
9/11. They managed to pull it off by adding tax evasion under the
money laundering definition.
I think Ripple and various LETS based approaches maybe able to skirt
the KYC requirements for a while, but if they take off I am sure they
will come under the spotlight as well. However it could be that if
there is a large enough grass roots user base that a successful civil
disobedience campaign against a KYC requirement might be possible.
As I've said before we are not in any way demanding KYC as part of the
core standards we are building up. We are however trying to build an
infrastructure that Distributed KYC (is that what you mean by DKYC?)
can be used allowing small startups to actually be in the game. It
should never be a core technical requirement.
I agree the ease of opening an e-gold account was one of the key
factors of their growth. It was as easy as opening a gmail account.
P
Miles Thompson
mi;es