Comment by monksy
1 year ago
> * 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.
If the business is not a "trustable entity", then why are you using them for hosting?
You have no choice.
Going down the argument of "don't use anyone you don't trust" brings up the argument of.. well why are you paying Experian?
Where I'm getting to this is: We often times don't have a choice, that choice that looks like we have it is untrustable in the future, and we're being aggressively pushed into a situation where you have people of questionable interests. This rule/law encourages them to collect it, but there's no aggressive lifestyle ending punishments for crossing the line.
??? There's nobody forcing you to have an account at a cloud provider. There are many other choices.
If you really do not trust someone else to operate a computer on your behalf, you can operate one yourself.