Are you reading what you are writing? People can (and do) know things without having enough evidence to stand up in court. It’s how 99% of everything works, frankly.
Banks right now are denying transactions because they ‘know’ it’s fraud, based on ML models and probability and no other evidence.
If you require someone to not ‘know’ something until they have enough evidence they could prove it in court, they won’t be able to function. Even investigators don’t have to meet that bar.
> People can (and do) know things without having enough evidence to stand up in court.
But "people" cannot use that knowledge to deny access to money to other people if they don't have evidence that can stand up in court. Yet banks can. That is wrong. That is giving banks too much power without accountability. Yes, some of the entities they cut off will "deserve it", at least in your eyes; but many others won't. We already know how this plays out: it's the same every time a centralized entity wants more power. They claim it's to "protect" us against something, but it's really just to enrich them at our expense. Don't take the bait.
Since banks are the ones who control access to money, and banks are doing it, who are these other people that you are talking about that aren’t allowed to do it?
Banks are doing this at the behest of the gov’t.
Oh, and those sanctions and the like - what do you think they actually look like paperwork wise?
You seem to be arguing that what is, isn’t?
If you want to say that what is, is bad, then hey I’m not arguing against that! I’m just pointing out what is going on right now in front of us, and has been for a very long time.
Sanctions are a different animal. I have no problem with a government producing a court order or other legal instrument ordering that some entity be cut off from the financial system. (Certainly sometimes this is done for political reasons, rather than cases where actual harm is being done, which is unfortunate, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect to be fully able to prevent things like that.)
KYC and AML laws require private corporations to deny people access to essential services for arbitrary reasons, without due process. These laws are garbage.
I don't think anyone is arguing that what is, isn't. They're arguing that it shouldn't be.
In other words, they don't know. They just have a fuzzy feeling, nothing more than that.
Would you be okay with the police being allowed to randomly enter your home and seize whatever stuff they want, just because they have a hunch? Or would you rather they have to get a search warrant first, which requires at least some form of evidence?
The entire point of this subthread is that this way of doing things is garbage. Banks shouldn't be allowed to deny transactions because they "know" it's fraud, but we've allowed our governments to force them into the position of doing law enforcement, something we should not want them to do. But people who think the government should outsource its responsibilities seem to think this kind of thing is a good idea.
Similarly, a payment processor shouldn't be allowed to deny a transaction because they "know" it's human trafficking. Evidence of such a thing should be given to law enforcement, and due process should determine what, if anything, is done.
Denying a payment isn't the same as putting someone in jail and therfore shouldn't require the same standard of due process. Allowing a business to accept credit cards is not a basic human right.
