There's always room for reform, but it's not as if the concept of due-diligence was invented just recently for banking alone.
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.
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.
It seems like KYC is always applied in situations that hurt the individual person and protect the incorporated person. Never the other way.
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.
> 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.
