New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Yeah, actually. Why does it matter what his name is?
Even in the event of abuse or misuse of the service, you think service providers are filing police reports with the confirmed locale of their KYC'ed clients? "Hello, small town USA police station, my name is CEO of random company you've never heard of . A resident of your town sent spam from resources he rented from my company. I'd like to submit a report."
No one does that. No random police station is going to follow up on anything like that.
If Discord's KYC shit gets breached more than once (it has) then I don't trust random hosts to keep my information private.
I will as long as I can possibly get away with having no KYC for any client, It's just a hassle. I understand some payment gateways may have a random KYC check for an incoming transfer like BitPay use to do (which is why we no longer use them, I mean they are garbage gateway today, use to be great) but I would never myself do a KYC for a a VPS rental. I understand KYC around financial institutions banking, binance type but my god I wont go through it, its annoying as it is for the majors that you need to do it for, a hosting contract is not one of them.
Because we have a free market and so you sign up with services whose terms you can follow. It’s really not that hard.
who reads terms, i only read $7
That would be a valid rebuttal if the opposing argument was "it is illegal for a company to demand KYC" or "I am legally entitled to the service even if I do not agree to the company's terms", but no one made those claims. A ToS document can be written in a legally-enforceable way that respects contract law while also being scummy or worthy of criticism.
The two options are not mutually exclusive.
You’re framing the argument in a non-honest way.
I said:
The reply was ”yes”.
And we have to take into consideration that OP was asked for his real name during signup as well as providers ToS.
I didn’t say ”a provider”, I said this provider, in this instance.
As far as I can tell, the argument is about KYC and privacy violations in general, not about this particular situation, which is far from unique. This is why people are saying things like "never upload your ID or other details" and "why are you showing your face for $5 stop it" instead of directly attacking this particular provider.
Specifically:
That shows the focus is on random hosts in general, not Rabisu specifically. Your counter-argument that this is a "free market" and that you can take it or leave it when told the ToS does not weaken (or address) @MannDude's argument.
keep my wife's name out of your mouth @emgh
Please see the thread and see if I was discussing this provider or the general situation.
I even specifically said this provider and specifically refered to the clients name. And I was told that this in-fact was an issue. I never touched upon KYC in general for completely different providers in completely different situations. Never once did I do that.
Again, I said:
THIS provider
HIS name
Qwe qwe
Response: yes […]
And I agree with him, because the answer is not unique to OP. His name could be John Rambo or Nanashi or George Washington, and the answer would be the same: The provider has no business knowing that (even if, legally, they can require that you disclose it in order to get their service), and that providing it would be foolish and unsafe.
In my opinion, people should not be giving out their real info, but should behave as guests in someone else's house. I don't give out my name and despite being a customer for dozens of providers, I have never once had any issues with them. This is because I'm flexible and don't cause them trouble. I'm sure I'd start getting hit with KYC requests if I started bitching at them or acting entitled and aggressive, of course.
Your whole argument was that it was understandable in a general sense not OP specifically and now you’re shifting the argument.
OP signed up to a service requiring his real name. He made this choice, probably to save money, and then didn’t supply his real name. It’s really not any more complex than that.
How does that save money?
Because limiting yourself to providers who don’t require your name limits you to much fewer choices.
I don't see how that follows. OP chose to preserve their privacy, and that's the end of it. I do the same thing, but "saving money" by using a different name has never even crossed my mind. Obviously I can't know the exact reason OP did what they did, but in general people do that for no other reason than not wanting to dox themselves to a random company.
With such low prices that AML does not realistically apply, why should a provider know OP's (or my or your) name? "Because they have the legal right to ask and you can take it or leave it" is not an answer.
Is the issue simply that OP was dishonest and that therefore any negative consequences that result are deserved regardless of the reason for the dishonesty (protecting privacy, avoiding being doxed, avoiding identity theft, etc.)? I don't value blind or excessive honesty when it comes at the expense of safety. I value how people treat each other and whether or not actions are free of malice or harmful ulterior motives.
I'm guessing Rabisu is Turkish. Turkish hosting companies are pretty strict on KYC because they are required to keep an record of name, address, any contact info and some even require a Turkish ID number to register.
If privacy is what OP wanted, I guess they learned this isn't a provider to use.
Both Turkish providers I've used have never required KYC, so it might not be strictly enforced.
I don't blame Rabisu, of course. I blame the external forces imposing policies that make him feel he has to do what he does.
At least try to use something that won't get flagged instantly.
It is and choosing to not do business with entities that requires your full name isn’t that hard, it’s just more expensive. Not seeing this is just being entitled.
I disagree that it's entitled to take actions to avoid identity theft and similar issues, even if by doing so you have to withhold your personal data. You're framing this as a way to save money, but that:
Such laconisms do not contain enough substance for anyone to address them.
I think we can both agree:
But it seems we disagree on:
Would your view change if you were to somehow be convinced that OP used a false name in order to protect themselves from privacy breaches and not out of a sense of cost-saving entitlement?
then why not pay the premium of a privacy-focused provider?
as a business owner if I ask a client for their full name I'm not interested in their made-up name
The only aspect of human body that AI can not replicate is feet pics.
Provider should ask the user to take feet pics and then run that Pic through our feet pics database.
AI hasn't been able to Crack the algorithm of the feet Pic verification and can say it may never will.
That wasn't the question. If it was not related to money (either because OP's motivation was unrelated to money or because the cost of a provider was not affected by whether or not they do KYC), would your opinion of the situation change?
Because we could go back and forth for hours debating OP's motivation, creating lists of providers with and without KYC and trying to determine if there is a correlation between cost and how strict their KYC requirements are, and arguing about whether or not it's ethical to be dishonest to save money if the dishonesty doesn't result in any other party losing money, but those are all tangents. The most important thing is to determine where the disagreement starts.
As a business owner, you just need to know what your clients prefer to be called. That's it. Literally just take the money and do the service. DONE. Why should rando $7 service providers feel compelled to be part of the global panopticon? That's not your job, that's not what you're being paid to do.
I decide what I get paid to do. I want names and that’s it. Don’t like it don’t be my client.
Not really. My opinion is quite simple: signing up is agreeing to the rules of the provider. If you can’t stand the rules, then sign up with a provider whose rule you can stand. If you don’t think that there is any, start one.
Yeah, I heavily disagree. That's dangerous as we've seen again and again, and is quite an unpopular opinion.
A bad policy is a bad policy, and no number of Hobson's choices will change that.