← Back to context

Comment by kube-system

1 year ago

At a quick reading, it doesn't sound like those are requirements. It also doesn't look like any documentation is technically required. One of the methods permitted is "Verification through non-documentary methods".

Do you mind expanding on what "non-documentary methods" means?

  • It is all defined in TFA:

    https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/29/2024-01...

    The TL;DR is that it can be whatever the provider wants, as long as it:

    * includes name, address, email, phone number, IP address, and payment information,

    * is written down,

    * gives them a "reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of each customer"

    * and "a sound basis to verify the true identity of their customer and beneficial owners and reflect reasonable due diligence efforts".

    • > * gives them a "reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of each customer"

      > * and "a sound basis to verify the true identity of their customer and beneficial owners and reflect reasonable due diligence efforts".

      I'm reading in to that in a conservative manner where it's "internally justified" that going the full privacy abusive route is justified. "Reasonable due diligence" is respective to the organization that could be punished, not a public sense.

      Given that it's on the company's discretion of diligent checks, I can completely see that their more aggressive requirements of: "your biometrics, copies of your official documents, 20 years of criminal background checks, a polygraph, approval by the Democratic National Party for appropriate speech, history of pornography consumption" being the standard.

      We're not getting a solution from the government that's a secure "is this person a US citizen?"/"Valid for IaaS service?" data point. The business is receiving all of the data to ask that question and are not trustable entities.

      3 replies →