paypal is definitely sketchy...just 2 days ago I was about to use it for a website that
didn't have an obvious CC option. they said i was approaching my limit (?) and asked
me to give my checking account number, HAH! thanks for this info Andrew, extremely shady
operation there. i don't even pay my landlord with personal checks, damned if paypal
is getting my info!
Mar 22, 2013 09:42:32 AM, andrew(a)roshambomedia.com wrote:
I'm not talking about pay pal's reaction to money laundering, but there reaction
to pretty much anything they think is maybe not right
"They like to make poor decisions in the name of
security, such as holding your money under review for no reason, draining your checking
account when you report fraud,putting 20% of your money in a rolling reserve account
without asking, and much more. Personally, despite being a long-time user, I've had
funds held for virtually no reason at all on several occasions and a number of other minor
but nonetheless inconvenient problems."
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Anon195714 anon195714(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew-
Do you know for a fact that the legal issue
with PayPal was "money
laundering", and that they solved it by some kind of agreement to
hold and optionally keep the proceeds of "risky" transactions?
I'd be interested in the legal
definition of money laundering. I'm
inclined to believe that the definition includes a provision about
"...for criminal purposes, or in facilitation of a criminal or
civilly-tortious act..." That is, the mere fact of anonymity does
not make for money laundering, any more than it does when paying
cash.
But how does Anonymerse differ from any
other transaction with a
pre-paid (anonymous) card? That is, if you get a gift card for
Target and you go into the store and buy a few pairs of underwear,
does the store require to see photo ID?, and if so, what do they do
with the name data they collect? And then, why don't they card you
when you pay cash, which after all could be stolen money?
IF the only thing standing between us and
Anonymerse is to agree to
hold up "risky" transactions, then we can agree to do that: no
purchases of firearms, ammo, chemicals, biological materials, or
"any goods that are restricted from being freely shipped via the
Post Office."
The "Post Office" explanation is
good enough to serve the purpose
without appearing to give even an inch on the core civil rights
issues. There are some who would object to such limitations, but to
my mind they are a small price to pay for the freedom to buy
_anything else_ without having one's name attached to it and subject
to stalking by Big Data.
But "risky transactions" are not
isomorphic with "money laundering"
or "criminal purposes," as someone could just as easily convert
stolen money into any conventional goods and sell the goods on Ebay.
When the crypto debate was a hot topic, I
had a few lengthy
conversations with a woman who was a federal prosecutor in a
high-profile hacker case (at the time, there was a lot of friendly
debate between hackers and feds, so a lot of people were having
these kinds of conversations; nowadays similar conversations are
occurring about biohacking).
My position was that for every criminal act
there are physical
concomitants that can be used as evidence to convict. She raised
the issues of financial fraud and child pornography. I conceded
that she had a valid point there: the evidence for those crimes
could be pure information, and if encrypted, inaccessible to
prosecution. But in any case, the crypto debate was won by
e-commerce and EFF legal actions.
But here we're only talking about the
ability to perform online
transactions with the same anonymity as cash transactions: taking
something that occurs face-to-face all the time and bringing it
online. This should be an easier debate to win.
There's another potential fallback
position that could be an
absolute win: that Anonymerse would collect legal names, but would
not provide them to third parties except under subpoena or search
warrant. That kills any objection that's based on the issue of
potential money laundering.
There's a really major point that needs
to be made here, that most
people don't get.
And that includes most people at Sudo Room.
I'll put it in subsequent email to
follow this...
-G.
=====
On 13-03-16-Sat 7:55 PM, Andrew wrote:
While i entirely support this, money
laundering is illegal as
far as i know. But, it would still be interesting to find a
loophole and make something like this in a simplified form work.
Keep in mind though that pay pal is still around due to thier
draconian practice of holding and sometimes keeping the proceeds
of any mildly "risky" transaction.
On Mar 16, 2013 7:34 PM, "Anon195714"
anon195714(a)sbcglobal.net
wrote:
Yo's-
It occurred to me, there's fertile
ground for a viable startup
(and more
right-livelihood jobs), as follows
(people from SudoRoom &
other local
hackerspaces could do this):
Anonymous e-commerce (Anonymerse?;-)
How it works from the average
user's perspective:
You purchase a prepaid card such as a
gift card, using cash.
It has a
card number but not a name on it.
With this card, you sign up for an
Anonymerse account, using
any name
you choose, and providing the card
number for purchases on
your account.
The account comes with webmail in your
chosen name, so it's
not linked
to your broadband provider.
Now you can go online and buy stuff
you don't want linked to
your "legal
name." A pair of socks here, a
(consenting adult) porn DVD
there, a
dissident political book, whatever.
If the online purchases are downloads,
you can download them
via your
Anonymerse webmail account.
If the purchases are physical goods,
you can have them
delivered. But
where, that won't be tracked to
your "legal name"?
The answer is: "Track the
package, not the person."
Ever hear of "private
mailbox" services? FedEx and UPS run
these as a
chain, but there are scores of
"mom & pop" services like
this; I've used
one since the early 80s. They have a
trade association. So
we get the
trade association onboard as follows:
If someone wants a package shipped to
a private mailbox
service and they
are not a regular boxholder, they can
receive the package by
providing
a) the package tracking number from
the Post Office, FedEx, or
UPS, and
b) paying a nominal fee for receiving
& handling, that is
equivalent to
the mailbox service's fee for
handling when they ship
something.
So you receive the invoice and package
tracking number at your
Anonymerse webmail address, and you
print out the tracking
information,
and bring it into the private mailbox
service where you've had
the
package shipped.
If the private mailbox services
don't want to do it, the same
service
could be provided by any "mom
& pop" corner store.
Amazon is presently setting up a deal
with 7-11 stores to
handle
packages for people who can't be
at home during delivery
hours. You
order something from Amazon and it
comes in to your local
7-11, which
holds it for you until you come in to
pick it up after work.
This gives
7-11 stores a service they can offer
that local mom & pop
stores can't.
So we go to those mom & pop stores
with something that
will compete with
7-11, and they'll be eager to do
it.
OK, now how do we prevent this being
used by Fred Fraudster,
Pete
Pedophile, and Terry Terrorist?
One way would be for the stores to
take your picture for every
package
pickup. The contents of stores'
video systems are typically
not
available to third parties except with
a subpoena or a search
warrant.
To my mind those protections are
sufficient: they are
traditional
powers, not "expanded" or
"enhanced" powers.
Another option would be to require
photo ID, same as when
buying alcohol
beverages, which has the same
protections for these types of
decentralized transactions. For
example if someone buys
alcohol for a
minor, who then drinks, drives, and
runs over a pedestrian,
the legal
system can seek to discover where the
alcohol was bought and
who bought
it. This isn't considered a civil
liberties threat, and The
Powers That
Be have not used this information for
fishing expeditions.
So, Anonymerse Inc. can provide the
participating stores with
a camera
or recording device for photo IDs,
that is encrypted with an
Anonymerse
key. It would have a MODEM
connection, not an Ethernet or
broadband
connection, so getting data from it
would not be "easy." If
an attorney
or law enforcement, bearing a subpoena
or search warrant,
wants to get
at the data, the shop owner would
convey the warrant or
subpoena to
Anonymerse, which would provide the
decryption key for that
store's data
recording unit. At that point the
data could be downloaded
via MODEM:
it would take a while, but the wheels
of justice are designed
to turn
slowly. A "keep-alive" key
might be needed to be refreshed on
a weekly
basis to prevent the unit from
self-wiping on the basis that
it might
have been stolen.
If this works as planned, there should
be sufficient volume of
commercial transactions to make it
impossible to stop. Keep
in mind
that when PayPal was first started,
there was a lot of talk
about it
being an illegal violation of banking
regulations and so on.
PayPal won that round. We could win
the next round.
-G.
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>--
>---------
>Andrew Lowe
>http://www.lostways.com
>_______________________________________________
>sudo-discuss mailing list
>sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss