That makes some sense.
In my case I think I have credit that I’ve never actually used; and I think I’ve also put on their file that I am unemployed. So in principle consumers who either don’t care for the credit, or are happy to be in the highest risk category, they should not be harassed with this. I will just ignore it and see what happens.
I doubt it. It will probably show the clearnet address. I just now logged in via the onion, so this reply will be a test.
Replacement link to a privacy-respecting host:
This article seems to suggest the KYC rules only apply to foreign customers:
https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/commerce-proposes-rule-to-fight-foreign-cloud-cyber-threats-a-24219
but then you have to wonder how they will know you’re domestic without a bit of KYC on Americans as well.
BTW, a good way to find privacy-respecting links is to search using this service:
https://ombrelo.im5wixghmfmt7gf7wb4xrgdm6byx2gj26zn47da6nwo7xvybgxnqryid.onion/
That search tool will not return Cloudflare MitMd links.
what happened here? Looks like you tried summons an autotldr bot, but it did not do its job, correct? That’s kind of a shame. Indeed theregister.com is an exclusive website and direct links to it should not be shared. A privacy-respecting infrastructure would block such links or replace them with archive.org variants.
I’m not on a good enough connection to watch videos but when I read “How the Religion called Atheism…” I know it cannot be coming from any sort of credible source. Atheism is absence of religion, not a religion in itself. It includes both agnostics and gnostics (both those who are convinced there is no god and those who are unconvinced either way). So I don’t suppose it’s worth it to note the URL and try to fetch the video when I have a good connection.
Lawmakers have figured out they can circumvent 4A by forcing the private sector and external governments to do their surveillance. It worked for banking KYC and it worked for FATCA. The industry is apparently not worried at all about losing customers. And they won’t. To circumvent 4A, just outsource governance to a non-government entity.
Love the irony of being blocked from reading that article because I am anonymous and the #reclaimthenet hypocrits insist on using Cloudflare.
So I can only comment on the title and what the OP (apparently) copied. Judging by how the masses happily continue using banks who voluntarily abuse KYC by collecting more info than required, internet users will also be pushovers who give in to whatever KYC comes their way.
This policy will actually create victims. Just like GSM registration creates victims. In regions that require GSM registration phone theft goes up because criminals will steal a phone just for a live SIM chip. So KYC creates incentive for criminals to run their services from someone else’s PC.
This is a double-edged sword. In the US, banking is really optional. You can live an unbanked life in the US and get paid in cash, if you want. And you can force creditors to accept your cash payment on debts. That’s an important freedom.
In Europe, where banking is treated as a public service that all people are entitled to, they have created a system where you must use a bank. They have banned cash payment for wages. So you have a right to a bank acct but then you are forced to use it.
#warOnCash #forcedBanking
You’ve misunderstood the problem if you fail to see that ruling in favor of one party necessarily violates the rights of the other party. The decision was a compromise on which party’s rights carry more weight to prevail over the rights of the other party. Both parties had rights worthy of defending.
Of course I have biases, but the bias does not reflect in my thesis (which is the opposite of what you realize). In particular, just because I find the bakers to be bigots does not mean I expect them to lose in court. I still actually believe the bigoted bakers rightfully won the case (thus, this does not prove your point, which is that you think there should have been no court case). The court case was not about whether they are bigots. It’s about whether an artist should be forced to produce art that favorably expresses people/ideas they hate against their 1st amendment rights also amid their right to choose who to do business with.
So the court was right to rule in favor of the bakers. But your claim that there should not have been a court case at all remains unsupported. The case had merit. The rights of people in a protected group (sexual orientation) were discriminated against and so they were rightfully given a forum to have their legitimate complaint heard.
IMO, it’s a fucked up extreme bias that brings you to consider the case frivolous, as if one side of the debate did not have enough merit to even warrant a court case.
They were still fined a lot of money
No they weren’t. Read the first line of your own referenced article. The fine was dropped. And the original payment came from other people’s crowd-funded donations toward the case anyway, which was returned.
Also, precedence matters and court ranking matters. Lower courts in certain regions can have all kinds of bizarre judgments but higher courts take precedence. The Oregon Court of Appeals is not representative of the US. The US Supreme Court is. The Bank of America case would be in a federal court as many states are involved.
And spent a considerable amount of time and energy defending themselves for no damn reason
So you not only misunderstood the outcome, but you object to rights of one party being tried against rights of another party in court? Bizarre to have sympathy for bigots being dragged through the court system, despite getting off the hook.
The Oregon Court of Appeals is a lower court than the US Supreme Court. The Bank of America case is federal.
Love the irony and hypocrisy. What self-respecting conservative promotes regulation, particularly that would take control away from a business on who they do business with?
There’s also quite a bit of hypocrisy from a privacy standpoint. It’s the conservatives to don’t value privacy and take the “if you have nothing to hide…” line of reasoning. When a giant corporation voluntarily shares sensitive information about customers, it’s always the right-leaning corporations who do that; ALEC members.
Funnily enough, I boycott Bank of America for supporting conservative values (private prisons, xenophobia, fossil fuel investment, privacy-disrespect):
https://git.disroot.org/cyberMonk/liberethos_paradigm/src/branch/master/usa_banks.md
while the conservatives want to cancel Bank of America for essentially for being conservative. Apparently it’s not conservative enough for BofA to apply conservative values uniformly, as opposed to giving conservative individuals preferential treatment.
How bizarre. I boycott #JPMorgan/Chase in part because they heavily invest in fossil fuels (among countless other evils):
https://git.disroot.org/cyberMonk/liberethos_paradigm/src/branch/master/usa_banks.md
And according to your linked article, the state of Texas is boycotting JPMorgan/Chase for not investing in fossil fuel. How confusing. Maybe the state of Texas should read the Banking on Climate Chaos paper.
The supreme court makes no exceptions for gay wedding cakes:
FWIW, I started a thread about the B word in the slur filter here:
https://links.hackliberty.org/post/146478
Most importantly, I think authors should be notified when their message is edited by someone other than the author.
Are those heuristics low bandwidth or is audio involved?
I disable images because of bandwidth consumption. So I’m wondering if it makes sense to install a screen reader in my case.
Surely some of those captured faces are people in Europe, Brazil, and California, who would then be protected by GDPR, L…(something… forgot), and CCPA respectively.
Under the guise of reducing crime,
Woolworths has justified these measures as necessary for the purposes of security.
There is video surveillance, and then there is that extra intrusive step of facial recognition. They can have video without FR. They can submit video evidence to the police who can then use FR, if needed. They probably want to argue that they can block known shoplifters as they enter. But of course what they really want is to track who enters the shop, which products they look at, how long they gaze at promo ads, etc. Being able to preemptively strike without a crime, just a bad reputation, does not justify the intrusion to everyone else.
Food is essential. It’s not like some shitty smartphone shop or Amazon b&m store that people can boycott.
Sounds mostly reasonable… but I don’t see the alternate citizenship helping, unless you mean to go as far as renouncing because all FATCA regions (~130+ countries) look at the birthplace, not nationality, and you can never get a new birthplace. It’s probably hard to find a non-FATCA region where you can trust the banks. But indeed… getting your 4th amendment rights has come to extremes.