It seems like few people have noticed how privacy proponents rightfully show discontent at every new policy or action that emerges that claws away more of our privacy -- unless it is in any way tagged as “anti-money laundering”. Then automatically people shrug it off, look the other way, etc, without questioning it.
Lawmakers have figured out that the magic words to avoid scrutiny are “Know Your Customer” (KYC). So they are even experimenting outside of the banking sector with the KYC tag, such as in telecom (GSM registration and even VOIP). They are getting a blank cheque on privacy abuse.
From where I sit, the non-stop onslaught of KYC/AML law that strips our privacy down to nothing while denying us the autonomy and dignity of using cash looks like lazy policing to me. Skillful police can catch traffickers of people and contraband without this assult on literally everyone’s privacy to the point of forcing people to patronize banks which then impose the risks of an absurdly large digital footprint of poorly protected data as they discriminate against some people on the basis of birthplace, finance fossil fuels and private prisons, etc.
Considering the broad blanket assult on privacy that worsens as forced banking takes a stranglehold on countless people worldwide, there probably needs to be some scientific research that exposes the extent that these privacy-abusing policies actually impact crime, compared to the loss of freedom of everyone the law claims to serve. We need to see what is being traded for what.
This thought_forge idea is somewhat inspired by Edward Snowden, who said at one point that mass surveillance has /never/ actually led to a terror plot being foiled; that every single terrorist caught has been caught using traditional (targetted) detective work.