News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:“Privacy”.com–Yeah Right by public_defender on Monday October 03, 2022 @11:36AM (#33069005)
I agree that most of the comments here amount to handwringing (or not understanding what amount of "privacy" is legal), but also, what KYC is really necessary for a company like this? If I understand correctly, all they do is pass through transactions. They don't hold customer deposits or provide credit. Isn't all this third party verification a little much?
Re:“Privacy”.com–Yeah Right by solumos on Monday October 03, 2022 @11:54AM (#33069260)
> what KYC is really necessary for a company like this? If I understand correctly, all they do is pass through transactions.

Products like this are particularly susceptible to fraud, especially given that they're charging your bank account directly. Without any KYC, if I as a fraudster get access to your bank login, I can basically drain your account. That opens up a ton of liability to Privacy. Also, the card networks tends to be pretty risk-averse with allowing issuing products access to their networks if there's a lot of fraud going through their services.

So, it's much easier to put KYC in place in order to avoid the headache of dealing with fraud/AML/etc

Re:“Privacy”.com–Yeah Right by public_defender on Monday October 03, 2022 @11:57AM (#33069297)
Ok yes, I can see that they would want to have some insulation from having banks charge them back on whole user accounts. That makes sense.
Re:“Privacy”.com–Yeah Right by smachiz on Monday October 03, 2022 @11:42AM (#33069084)
The point of KYC is to make money laundering harder (and other transactions that the various governments want to track/police). To that extent, yes, they need to be able to show a regulator who was making those transactions.

The actual funding source/bank behind them won't see any detail beyond "privacy.com".

Any card issuer (or virtual card issuer) has to do this.

Re:“Privacy”.com–Yeah Right by public_defender on Monday October 03, 2022 @11:55AM (#33069271)
My point is that privacy doesn't need to do KYC because there is no possibility of the customer evading regulators. Assuming that privacy answers subpoenas, they would be able to give the government detailed transaction info and a bank account which would identify the customer. KYC at this level of abstraction doesn't seem to solve any kind of legal problem. I'm glad to be educated by an expert, though.

Edit: A sibling explains a good liability reason for this, which makes sense but would not imply any legal reason.

Re:“Privacy”.com–Yeah Right by smachiz on Monday October 03, 2022 @12:00PM (#33069339)
How do you validate that they own the bank accounts if you don't know who the user is?
Re:“Privacy”.com–Yeah Right by public_defender on Monday October 03, 2022 @12:27PM (#33069744)
They only verify control. They do the method of making two small deposits and asking what they were.
Re:“Privacy”.com–Yeah Right by fragmede on Monday October 03, 2022 @01:27PM (#33070766)
Which is why KYC is required. Two small deposits just means you have access to someone's bank account, not that you're actually them. Money launderers will pay mules to use their bank account to move money around.
Re:“Privacy”.com–Yeah Right by Kye on Monday October 03, 2022 @02:57PM (#33072070)
Privacy is backed by an actual credit card ever since they restructured things to get around most sites rejecting their cards due to mistaking them for prepaid.
Re:“Privacy”.com–Yeah Right by badrabbit on Monday October 03, 2022 @01:58PM (#33071238)
It is a legal requirement for their bank and for mastercard.