> Are you similarly against KYC rules when it comes to people trying to exchange scrap bundles of copper wire they "found lying around" into cash?
I'm against them if they're opaquely administered by private entities, yes. That's guaranteed to be abused. The problem isn't having rules, the problem is having no due process and no oversight or recourse.
It seems to me you don't want less-legislation as much as different-legislation.
In a "hands off" scenario where the only only factor for companies becomes "avoid losing a civil lawsuit for Failing To Do Enough to stop a criminal you assisted", they will still create an opaque system with no due-process/oversight/recourse. They will do that by default, because it's cheaper.
> In a "hands off" scenario where the only only factor for companies becomes "avoid losing a civil lawsuit for Failing To Do Enough to stop a criminal you assisted", they will still create an opaque system with no due-process/oversight/recourse. They will do that by default, because it's cheaper.
I can understand the theoretical argument that they would. But in reality they didn't prior to the (relatively) recent AML laws, and other entities not subject to those laws largely don't.
I'm not sure what you mean. The DMCA is big piece of crap, but it does have penalties if someone files a DMCA claim regarding content they know isn't theirs to manage.
Alas, it does not extent to penalizing the (duly-authorized) filers who make claims they know are frivolous bullshit, but that's a 'nother can of worms.
One of the biggest problems with the DMCA is that it is unaccountable for those submitting legal claims anonymously. They should have to identify themselves to submit a legal claim of ownership.
> https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/02/17/the-invisible-campaign-t... To remove something from google's search they copy the text, they create a fake website / company with a URL with copied text then submit a DMCA claim saying theirs is the original. Google automatically rubberstamp approves it and the URL/text they want removed from the search index is removed.
There's a simple and easy solution: there should be "know your customer" for claimaints for laws requiring companies to follow up on legal claims like DMCA reports. KYC is obviously socially accepted and easily implemented since it's being required for so many other things. The whole basis of an adversarial legal system is that you need two legal persons on either side. This is a context in which you have to wonder why it isn't already like that.
Have those penalties ever been widely implemented? My understanding is most wrong claims just result in the person making the claim say "whoops sorry my bad" and nothing happens.
There's always room for reform, but it's not as if the concept of due-diligence was invented just recently for banking alone.