---
title: "Dana Edwards If KYC/AML were beneficial to the user, there would be..."
date: 2023-03-25
source: facebook
type: comment
context: "Archer T. Ships replied to Dana Edwards's comment."
fb_link: "https://www.facebook.com/dyi/l/?l=AYMkoiI9QUNLr9pmK4fX1nony9wlhfKppnIWuz82aRnbB451hJfGX_DkfENhOpPdRU9VnCzvSmaovcZ9x6CcWQXuAfeyA1P-NfLPOkqvsKr7EjxTIK9W1aVacQyWJCipYpSOVNY2rDhW9Gfhe5m6QbLyG1Nch0Zmmq7xfEPHo2YA7t1dNe7ew1-Xg9Sz5w9ZDt2RW_csLcs&s=519"
---

# Dana Edwards If KYC/AML were beneficial to the user, there would be...

*March 25, 2023 — Comment Archer T. Ships replied to Dana Edwards's comment.*

Dana Edwards If KYC/AML were beneficial to the user, there would be no need for compulsion, since people would voluntarily provide the information. Estate planning does not require KYC/AML.  Swiss banks operated for decades with anonymous, numbered accounts. Yes, the government is already (illegally) wiretapping our phones and other devices.  And deploys video surveillance if you become a sufficiently high priority person of interest.  How does the fact that the government is doing other kinds of  illegal, invasive surveillance justify KYC/AML?  It's like saying "Police officers already steal people's stuff via asset forfeiture, might as well just hand over the keys to our bank accounts."