Hacker Read

duskwuff · 2023-12-30 18:27:12

Which is itself a weird phrasing. OFAC compliance is an obligation, not an "opportunity".

eganist | karma 1 | avg karma 0.0 · | 2022-08-24 18:14:50

Is this essentially admission of non-adherence to OFAC requirements?

extra88 | karma 2596 | avg karma 1.66 · | 2018-06-03 18:21:37+00:00

I think it is a facetious statement to reflect how difficult meeting the regulatory requirement would be.

Groxx | karma 17784 | avg karma 2.5 · | 2011-02-10 18:42:19+00:00

I don't see "compliant" in that sentence.

mark-r | karma 5759 | avg karma 1.62 · | 2018-06-28 16:06:56+00:00

I think you're misreading the statement - he's implying that what they actually already do is in compliance.

4ad | karma 5967 | avg karma 2.38 · | 2013-08-15 11:29:49+00:00

Of course, but OP's point was that compliance is meaningless...

chipperyman573 | karma 2913 | avg karma 3.17 · | 2018-05-03 21:13:42+00:00

>The "we didn't have to" is a little jarring given the scale of this.

How come? I interpreted it to mean that no regulations required this, but they chose to anyway. Which is true.

reply

refurb | karma 27208 | avg karma 1.53 · | 2018-01-02 22:59:47+00:00

Right, that would be non-compliance as the OP already pointed out.

natch | karma 6856 | avg karma 1.47 · | 2024-01-25 17:11:22

This makes it sound like complying is supposed to be a good thing. That’s an unfounded assumption imho.

smsm42 | karma 17167 | avg karma 2.28 · | 2022-09-14 18:37:40

> Does OFAC have the power to say "we are designating the Hawala system"?

Probably not because "Hawala system" is not an entity that can be defined - it's like banning "cryptocurrencies" in general. OFAC wouldn't be able to do that - because it's not a specific definable entity. Designating a specific hawaladar would be possible for them (though likely not very effective).

reply

whimsicalism | karma 14467 | avg karma 2.11 · | 2024-05-15 02:54:36

I don’t think that’s a fair take nor does it really disprove mine.

The compliance regime at big corps is definitely more sophisticated than at a player like OAI

reply

ska | karma 12592 | avg karma 2.33 · | 2021-05-20 20:52:43+00:00

> Easy peasy.

All these sort of regulations tend to have language disallowing actions made just to avoid the requirement (see, for example, "structuring")

reply

tpush | karma 4444 | avg karma 4.89 · | 2023-07-01 12:07:40

That's not the consensus and "minimal" compliance is not a thing.

bumby | karma 6991 | avg karma 1.44 · | 2024-02-02 11:37:43

It seems to be a mandated requirement, as opposed to some subjective UI decision. The bigger deal is that it may indicate they don't have a good enough process to check/track these federal requirements.

robertlagrant | karma 11405 | avg karma 1.41 · | 2023-12-05 05:02:33

That's a different type of ambiguity. That's ambiguity in the wording. The bureaucrat in question is saying they'll make the next thing illegal straight away, not that they need to go fix their poor wording.

kesselvon | karma 770 | avg karma 2.95 · | 2016-10-31 21:30:56+00:00

This is a bit of weak spin on the obvious news that they probably couldn't comply with the government requirements.

kingkilr | karma 4491 | avg karma 5.61 · | 2013-07-22 07:33:46

It's almost definitely a violation of the CFAA.

Zobat | karma 336 | avg karma 4.48 · | 2020-06-15 05:41:33

Because there's a huge difference between being "blatantly non-compliant" vs "properly compliant".

pyrolistical | karma 813 | avg karma 2.92 · | 2022-11-30 11:03:21

Please explain why this isn’t compliant?

azdle | karma 1535 | avg karma 3.8 · | 2019-10-07 20:46:12+00:00

> (c) The prohibitions in subsections (a)–(b) of this section apply [...] notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.

Page 1 of https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/...

Kinda seems like there's no excuse for going about it this way.

reply