Telling the client "I'm sorry, your account is frozen pending an investigation" might land you in jail. You literally MUST lie to them and feed them a bunch of bullshit.
It's a shitty system, but interestingly, one that was developed by the EU, not specifically the UK.
Your options are; wait until some nameless government agency realises they've made a mistake, and releases your funds, or start a lawsuit and spend lots of time and money fighting to get your money back.
*This word is sadly misused to mean "any unjust system of government". E.g. it is perfectly possible to have a constitutional monarchy, the antithesis of democracy, that respects the right to a fair trial and to face your accuser. Conversely, things people vote for are routinely dismissed as "undemocratic" - in that case, it gets called "populism". As far as I can tell, the words, as (ab)used, have nothing to do with the method of government, and everything to do with the outcome.
As much as, for the dismay of the average hacker news Joe, don't pray to the holy EU altar, I suspect sure those guidelines were sketched by FATF, an American institution at heart, ironically where such measures are not applied.
The AML framework is xenophobic and goes against things we consider basic rights like being innocent until proven guilty. However, it is not only ignored but applauded by the most progressive crowds that think its defending their countries from barbaric $place_from_the_east_or_south.
>It's a shitty system, but interestingly, one that was developed by the EU...
The first country to propose anti-money laundering (AML) rules is difficult to pinpoint with certainty as different countries developed their AML laws at different times and for different reasons. However, one of the earliest examples of an AML law is the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) of 1970...
The "Know Your Customer" (KYC) rules originated in the United States in the 1970s, along with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) of 1970....
Other countries began developing their own AML laws in the 1980s and 1990s, with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) established in 1989 to coordinate international efforts to combat money laundering...
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is the global standard-setting body for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (CFT) policies. It was established in 1989 by the G7 countries, and its recommendations have been widely adopted by countries around the world....
>Well it's possible someone tried to make me look suspicious.
After about 5 years I was out of work and needed to cash it in. But, when I tried to withdraw the money, I got hit with an "Unexplained Wealth Order" [or somesuch term], telling me that under AML I needed to fill in some disgustingly intrusive form explaining where I'd got this sum of money from [it was only a few thousand £££, not a fortune]. And, as I said, this was from the savings company which already knew exactly where the money had come from. As they'd watched it build up in small amounts over the previous 5 years or so.
I refused to comply with their AML/KYC. It then took me at least a few months and several letters, threatening them with legal action before they finally agreed to just close my account and return my money.
I also closed my eBay account when they started asking for people to upload scans of their passports to verify their identity.
These companies can fuck right off, as far as I'm concerned. AML/KYC is disgusting and I just wish more people would make a stand and refuse to comply with it.
[0] https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/savings/investing/stocks-a...
I worked as a consultant (permanent position) and had expenses that frequently needed to be refunded by the company. Perhaps they thought this was money laundering??
If you take your democracy and rights seriously.
That should raise even greater alarm bells for you then.
Perhaps it's both absolute and relative.
Either way, as a nation, I'm quite sure we've jumped off at the deep end compared to where we were.
And that's not just a feeling. Take one look at the idiots in charge, peel one layer back, and you'll see for yourself.
I was telling a coworker recently that I always use a VPN while browsing the internet. He was genuinely confused, and was asking why I would care about privacy unless I have something to hide. And this isn't just one person. I've had similar reactions when I've told people I only use signal, or refuse to use cloud storage, or won't list employment history on LinkedIn for privacy reasons. I get that I have an extreme preference for privacy, but people in the UK don't even understand why someone like myself value privacy.
This attitude is also adopted by our leaders and businesses, who by various means, mass surveil the public, typically citing "safety".
The issue with the UK isn't just that our government don't value privacy, it's that as a people we don't even understand the value of privacy.
>He was genuinely confused, and was asking why I would care about privacy unless I have something to hide...
Of course, the ultimate irony was when David Cameron was PM and the Panama pepers came to light, exposing all his dad's shady dealings and secret offshore bank accounts [1]. Cameron's spokeswoman told the press "A family's finances are their own private affair" This kind of sums up what life in the UK is like. A priveleged ruling class, with utter contempt for the electorate; "Do as we say. Not as we do!".
[0] Daily Fail = The Daily Mail. A right-wing tabloid newspaper which is a by-word for the kind of zzz-elebrity gossip mixed with anti-immigrant "hanging's too good for them" ranting that [unfortunately] appeals to a large enough percentage of the British population, to keep the Tories in power, seemingly for the foreseeable future.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-d...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-a...
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/david-camero...
I remember Xi or an official even praising London about that though I cant find a citation.
>Doesn’t London have one of the most extensive surveillance systems in the world sans china?
</sarcasm>
Similarly a friend that runs a bike shop near a Tesco can't get Tesco to share high resolution video of burgalars breaking into his shop. They have it but it's their corporate policy not to share it.
On the one hand I guess right now all this surveilence is siloed to some degree and so less likely to be abused. On the other these seem like perfectly ligitimate uses of video to fight crime.
The government has no real ability to gain access to those cameras beyond asking nicely, or getting an actual search warrant. Even then the police still have to visit the site with the CCTV camera, and mostly capture the footage by filming the screen of the CCTV system with their phone (I've talked to Met police officers about this, and seen the footage). Most of those cameras barely work, point in the wrong direction, aren't recording, are so fuzzy you can't see anything. So comparing it to China is an apples to orange comparison.
The idea that these CCTV cameras could be used by the state for surveillance is laughable. The police struggle to get hold of the footage for actual in-progress investigations where they have real leads, and pretty much know what the footage is gonna show them already. So there's not a chance in hell the state could ever hope to get some sort of live feed of this data.
I don't think so, they had extensive CCTV capabilities 30 years ago and your comical suggestion that none of it really works is not plausible.
Besides which, the cameras themselves are a form of social signaling to remind people they're being watched - essentially the modern version of Jeremy Bentham's panopticon.
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30978995.amp
Article on how much useless CCTV exists in the UK.
> https://clarionuk.com/resources/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-in...
Estimates 4.4 million cameras in London, only 20k run by councils.
> they had extensive CCTV capabilities 30 years ago and your comical suggestion that none of it really works is not plausible.
Perhaps you can provide some sources for your assertions?
> Besides which, the cameras themselves are a form of social signaling to remind people they're being watched - essentially the modern version of Jeremy Bentham's panopticon.
That’s an entirely separate discussion.
That’s an entirely separate discussion.
It's well within the scope of the surveillance society the UK is flirting with, just as CCTV is relevant to a discussion about encrypted messaging software.
Your source seems to support my position more than yours. Perhaps you could explain how research showing that CCTV is frequently of low quality, and doesn’t seem to improve crime solve rates, demonstrates the UK governments extensive CCTV capabilities?
> It's well within the scope of the surveillance society the UK is flirting with, just as CCTV is relevant to a discussion about encrypted messaging software.
Your original point, which I refuted, is that London has a surveillance system which would make china proud. I think I’ve shown that no such surveillance system exists in reality. You’re free to move the goal posts, that’s your prerogative, but I’m not interested in chasing them.
But the police didn't have any footage of the event. Not even a business had a camera pointed in the right direction.
Put another way: the question of whether or not you have "something to hide" isn't yours to answer. Your user name is German; you should understand this better than anyone.
Which supermarket is that? I've never seen anything overt like that where I usually shop and doing it covertly would be risky in multiple ways.
When you do have such a conversation, what would you typically give as reason?
Self-checkout has more obvious cctv because you're giving more power to the shopper; self-checkout is just one step away from allowing someone to just walk out with the product a la Amazon Fresh (which has a literal FIELD of cameras).
Businesses have CCTV for the same reason that people have cameras fitted to their houses. 99.99999% of the time things will be fine, but the time something isn't, it's sure nice to have the evidence.
>I think that's a little harsh. Do you live in the UK?
Not helped by the fact there seems to be nothing we can do about it. We're so much a vassal state to the USA that we don't even get to decide our own policies. So maybe better to say "It feels like living in a country which is being ordered to commit national suicide".
Boris Johnson wasn't our doing. Brexit wasn't our doing. Neither was the cavalcade of morons to follow.
We do plenty of dumb and awful things, but this is self-imposed.
>Respectfully, I don't think you can blame the US for electing Tories who are swerving towards the cliff...
That more the result of stupidity and Napoleon syndrome than some magic hold the US has over the UK. The UK, in particular our government, still wants to believe we're a geopolitically important country capable of projecting power and influencing the world. While there's some small element of truth in that belief, our actual relevance on the world stage is far small than our government wishes it was, and is only getting smaller thanks to wonderful incompetence of past 10 years of government.
>Either way, it’s not the fault of the US if the UK acts as a vassal state...
It's only in the US and amongst a self-deluding swathe of British society that this "relationship" is seen as one of equals. The reality is that we're sucking up to the playground bully because we've seen what he does to the kids who won't hand over their dinner money. And we're trying to kid ourselves we're best buddies.
To be fair, most voters in the UK didn't vote for the current government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_el...
What is a good example?
>> UK just immediately follows whatever the US does, even if it is economically suicidal.
>>What is a good example?
But there are plenty of others, including needlessly antagonising China and sabotaging our previously beneficial economic relations, because the US is spoiling for a fight with China. Ergo UK must do likewise.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016#...