Quote from: Porfirii on December 07, 2023, 02:43:51 PM

Quote from: delfastTions on December 07, 2023, 09:40:59 AM

Quote from: seoincorporation on December 06, 2023, 03:19:15 PM

Quote from: Porfirii on December 06, 2023, 11:32:18 AM

Quote from: delfastTions on December 06, 2023, 07:58:38 AM

This requirement also violates the human right to privacy, which is guaranteed by the fundamental documents of human rights.
That's what I think.

It is, as you said, humiliating.

There are some reasons why KYC would be justified, even though in most cases it vulnerates the human right to privacy, it's true. For example, it is good to verify that no children have access to gambling (is is now being discussed in my country whether it would be advisable KYC to see porn, with a strong interest followed mainly by the feminists). But not for money laundering, because under suspicion of being guilty, the police can find a criminal without having to impose mandatory identification to every citizen.

I still think that there must be a way to probe online that you are an adult without giving away all your personal data. Maybe the blockchain could hold this info cyphered, so anyone could sign a message for example to prove that he is 18+.

Users has human rights to privacy, i agree with that, but the casinos make the game rules, and if you want to play in their engines then you need to follow their rules. And casinos don't implement KYC just to fuck around with users, they have reasons for it:

* Avoid users underage.
* Avoid promotions abuse
* Avoid money laundering

But user can take the desition if gamble with those rules or not. That's why i use my betting bots in JD, they don't have KYC, they don't care about bots, and they allow multiple accounts. So, for me those are fair rules for the users.

If we say that the casino, when conducting the KYC verification procedure, makes sure that children under 18 years of age cannot gamble, then this is of course correct, but in my opinion a much greater responsibility lies with the parents or guardianship of such a child. They should be monitoring this, not the casino. And parents should prevent their children from trying to gamble.
As for money laundering, this is also not the concern of the casino. This should be done by law enforcement agencies, and they, in turn, have all the necessary tools to find out the identity without any KYC.
So it turns out that by requiring KYC, the casino is not doing its own business, but is doing some unnecessary extra work to collect personal information. And by the way, there is also a burden in the form of special storage of confidential databases. And the potential vulnerabilities of the business itself in the event of theft or hacking of these databases. Does the casino itself need to do all this? Most likely it is not necessary at all.
So we come to the conclusion that KYC should die out in casinos over time.

That's right, delfastTions, but there are other interests too besides those of casino managers and gamblers. As long as KYC is the most effective way for controllers to do their job, it seems that human rights like privacy and personal data protection principles like the one about minimization of data can be broken, until a Court decides otherwise.

So, taking into account that rule makers won't change their mind in the short term, the best solution, again, IMO, would be to create some kind of system which would allow the user verify different checkmarks (age, nationality,...) without the need to conduct all the KYC process as we know it today with ID card, Passport, selfie and/or whatever other documents required.

Perhaps you are right that some kind of identification of the player, such as ticking his age from the intervals of 10 years proposed in the table and confirming with a tick that the player is over 18 years old, would be sufficient to replace this mandatory KYC with photographs of the face and documents. Now, if, in the process of transforming player identification, at least part of the casino gradually began to refuse to request photos of documents and the player’s face, for example, calling such a procedure KYC (but in a super-lightened form), I would consider this a good and significant advance and progress in the development of the gambling industry games in general. Or, for example, identification solely by email address with the player’s response that he is 18+ years old and no other data. In this case, a communication channel is also maintained for some individual requests and responses from the casino. And also call it lightweight KYC, in order to fulfill the requirements of the law. In all these cases, confidentiality is maintained in a form acceptable to the player and at the same time legal requirements are (partially) fulfilled.

I think that these are the best options for players when they use cryptocurrency payments exclusively in games.
And this is the optimal compromise between the casino, the player and the regulatory authorities.