> Paypal demanded, out of the blue copies of drivers licenses, passports, bank statements etc that they have no right to, claiming they needed them to comply with law.
I stopped reading your rant here because it's clear you are not familiar with financial regulations.
> I stopped reading your rant here because it's clear you are not familiar with financial regulations.
I think the issue is with shifting expectations with no clear way to terminate a business relationship. Not sure how being "familiar with financial regulations" would change that.
For what it's worth, harry8's post inspired me to close my Paypal account while I still can. Done.
Sortaaa. There's several financial regulations invoked in the USA that requires financial institutions to ask for proper identification IF continuance of business is pursued. However, there is nothing - to my knowledge - that compels PayPal to hold these identification vectors as "ransom" for an account held hostage from closure.
The thing is that having an account open at all is presumably because you intend to use PayPal at some point in the future. They could keep an account in an 'inactive' state but then that just moves the identity requirement further along to whenever the user tries to check out with PayPal once or move money.
GP doesn't want the account to be open, they've requested to close it and paypal has refused to close it because they demand information needed for an open account in order to, presumably, reactivate the account with all relevant identifying documents submitted for the moments it must take in order to close it, because they've developed a technical process that requires accounts be open and in good standing in order to be closed. Which given this situation is a ridiculous design decision unless you are interested in maintaining these data after the account should close.
Good observation. I should not need to be familiar with regulations in /your/ country either. The quote you outlined:
>> Paypal demanded, out of the blue copies of drivers licenses, passports, bank statements etc that they have no right to, claiming they needed them to comply with law.
Is a statement of fact. Make your accusation plainly about it if you choose to do so or maybe apologise for insinuating it?
How so? I'm not the person you're replying to, but I have used PayPal in exactly the same way over the past 20 years: only linking credit cards, and using it to pay for things on websites rather than having to give my credit card information to yet another random site. And I've never had to provide any kind of documentation in order to keep my account open and functional.
So clearly these "financial regulations" you speak of don't actually exist, or at least PayPal has just -- lucky for me -- conveniently forgot to comply with them for my account.
Also consider that there are two things at issue here: account ownership, and account operation.
PayPal seems to not believe that the grandparent is even the owner of the account. If they did, then they'd allow him to close the account. That seems distinct from allowing someone to operate the account, that is, perform financial transactions. Which, sure, depending on the kind of transactions or kind of account, that might require further verification. (But assuming the GP is telling the full story of how he uses the account, PayPal certainly does not legally need further documentation.)
So it's a little weird PayPal has taken the stance they've taken. If all they cared about was complying with "financial regulations", then they should have no problem with the account owner asking them to close the account. But clearly they are doing something shady, because presumably knowing the account password, or at least demonstrating having control of the email address and/or phone number (or other contact method) associated with the account, should be enough to satisfy PayPal in order to close the account. The fact that it isn't is a red flag that should make us question PayPal's motives here.
At any rate, the fact remains that using a PayPal account solely to pay for stuff online should not invoke any "financial regulations" requiring the account owner to upload ID photos or other documentation. If that were the case, every intermediary in payment processing -- like Stripe, Venmo, Square Cash, or even Google Pay (all entities I use but have never given identity documentation to) -- would be required to collect this information.
Now remove the "cpu on a network" being involved and see if you can think it through. You've never been murdered so there's no need for laws and regs. Equivalent with no cpu on a network. Obviously murder is pretty extreme and selected on that basis to underline the principle.
This very much depends on the country. In some places there are debit card networks which are neither MasterCard nor Visa nor Maestro. In such situations your bank's debit card may actually be useless for online payments. Even if the cards are Maestro and an online retailer happens to accept Maestro (somewhat rare in my experience), that may not help you since banks will often blanket deny any card-not-present transactions.
What problem does this solve for users in major markets?
It's clear there's some form of benefit for users beyond major markets (though those users still need to go through Stripe's KYC process), but for those in major markets, what benefits are there to receive earnings in crypto?
Not really. Anyone who follows the BNPL space knows that it will end up regulated. The UK government has been very clear about this for the last year and are actively consulting on it.
There are also offerings that are already regulated and licensed by the FCA, so as long as you stay within their consumer credit guidelines it's not a "risky play".
There's a few startups in this space: see Spreedly, Optile etc. In my experience large enterprises are heading in this direction and managing that abstraction is not something which they want to do themselves (particularly with evolving local regulation/APMs/3DS2.x in Europe).
> Sheppard had used a personal driver’s license to verify himself with the Binance and Coinbase cryptocurrency exchanges, and his accounts were found to have sent and received some of the scammed bitcoin.
Didn't even layer the Bitcoin through an anonymiser like Monero and extra Bitcoin wallets. Just sent and received BTC directly to an account linked with photo ID on multiple exchanges. Incredible really!
It's like robbing a bank and then making sure everyone knows you put the money in your personal bank account. If you spend 5 minutes reading about anonymizing Bitcoins you'll find plenty of ways to do it (tumblers, etc).
How can you do a hack that will certainly get you in jail for several years and not even research the most basic techniques to protect yourself? It just doesn't make sense.
Google Cloud support is an actual joke. I have no idea how to navigate their chatbot and speak to an actual human. Awful.