The US already deputizes third parties to enforce its laws. Banks are responsible for KYC / AML. Grocery stores must check ID when selling alcohol. This is nothing special.

▲

tastyfreeze 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I wouldn't call legal force to be deputizing anybody. If those entities don't do as the law says they will be in trouble themselves. Deputies have authority. Banks and stores are just following the rules and report to authority when required.

	▲	loeg 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		You're picking a pretty fine semantic distinction, and IMO if you're going to be a pedant, you should try to be correct. Deputization isn't my invented description for this model; it's more broadly used. E.g., https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/money-laundering-and-...

▲

AnthonyMouse 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's accurate that the US already does it, but that doesn't tell you if we should be doing it.

It does, however, provide evidence that doing that is dumb.

KYC/AML have an effectiveness that rounds to zero while causing trouble for innocent people as the government pressures the banks to do something about problems the banks aren't in a position to actually solve, so instead the banks suspend the accounts of more innocent people because the government is pressuring them to suspend more accounts.

▲

loeg 3 days ago | parent [-]

> KYC/AML have an effectiveness that rounds to zero

That's factually inaccurate.

	▲	AnthonyMouse 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> That's factually inaccurate. It isn't: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2020.1... "It finds that the anti-money laundering policy intervention has less than 0.1 percent impact on criminal finances, compliance costs exceed recovered criminal funds more than a hundred times over, and banks, taxpayers and ordinary citizens are penalized more than criminal enterprises."