Hacker News Reader

Comment by ckastner | Hacker News Reader

> This is why we believe in and are committed to a collaborative process with regulators, central banks, and lawmakers to ensure that Libra helps with the kinds of issues that the existing financial system has been fighting, notably around money laundering, terrorism financing, and more.

This was inevitable, but it's surprising to see them acknowledge it.

> combined with the ability for law enforcement and regulators to conduct their own analysis of on-chain activity [...] Libra should improve detection and enforcement, not set these back.

I expressed concern that this would happen a while ago [1]. This basically bypasses all privacy safeguards that clients would enjoy at a regular bank.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20263861

View on HN

This might depend on what you consider a “regular bank” but every bank and exchange I’ve ever come into contact with requires documentation and vetting to ensure that I am who I say I am and that I’m not not laundering money, and if the police come with a warrant they get everything they ask for.

I think you might be thinking of specific banks and shell company schemes in Panama and not what most people would describe as a regular bank.

Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and Know Your Customer (KYC). I'm going out on a limb to say that most tech companies have no idea what BSA or KYC means and the paperwork involved.

Facebook already knows more about you than KYC requires.

That said, according to Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2019/06/30/the-r...), they'll comply with KYC/AML. I can't find a statement direct from Facebook on that, though.

Facebook only knows what I put into my Facebook registration form. Did they verify anything? No. Email me for government identification? No.

Can Facebook comply with KYC/AML type regulations? Yes. But that I'm aware of, they currently don't do anything of the sort with all their users.

They know what you put in the registration form, every device and IP address you've ever used, who your friends are, who you parents are, who your coworkers are, what websites you visit, what stores you shop at, who you're likely to vote for, and a whole lot more.

I think they can verify my identity without a copy of my driver license.

If you are doing something illegal, I doubt you would connect with all your friends and family. If you do, you deserve jail time.

True. But I wouldn't be surprised to see additional verification required for new Facebook accounts (or those with little to no history/network) to use Libra. We shall see.

As someone who works for Google (opinions are my own) on the payments team, I disagree. :)

Due to P2P, and disbursements we do for Play developers and AdSense, we are heavily invested in KYC. And we have to comply with the regulations of all countries we do business in, not just the US.

Just curious, do you have to deal with OFAC controls?

U.S. persons must comply with OFAC regulations, including all U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens regardless of where they are located, all persons and entities within the United States, all U.S. incorporated entities and their foreign branches.

Source: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Sanctions/Page...

Facebook Payments Inc is a state licensed Money Transmitter in all states, and is registered with FinCEN as a Money Services Business so they would certainly understand the requirements as they're subject to audits by State regulators.

Source: https://www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org/EntityDetails.aspx/COMPAN...; https://www.fincen.gov/msb-registrant-search

> and if the police come with a warrant they get everything they ask for.

Banks requiring warrants is exactly my point.

The Libra text makes no mention of any safeguards with regards to law enforcement. On the contrary.

Actually, a bank is obligated to report suspicious activity, no warrant is needed. If you walk into a bank in the USA and deposit irregular amounts of money or a large sum of cash, they can and will report you to the Treasury and banking regulators.

> Actually, a bank is obligated to report suspicious activity, no warrant is needed.

Warrants are issued all the time.

You're erroneously assuming that banks can detect all possible suspicious activity on their own.

You're erroneously assuming that banks can detect all possible suspicious activity on their own

You're right, that's probably not possible to begin with.

However, if a bank spots patterns, which don't smell quite right they are obliged by law to report it to regulators.

Another reason why Deutsche is yet again in so much hot water[1]. Essentially they refused to report suspicious activities, which was flagged by a compliance officer.

[1] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/donald-trump-deutsch...

> This basically bypasses all privacy safeguards that clients would enjoy at a regular bank.

Once again a shift in technology is used to throw away old privacy safeguards and consumer rights and protections.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com