Brave, the so called "privacy" browser now requires KYC!

[AB de Royse777]

This principle applies to so many things in modern life. A bunch of my friends use various smart home devices - Google, Amazon, whatever. They say it's super convenient: "Add x to my shopping list" or "What's the weather like tomorrow". I say I'd rather spend 10 seconds doing these things myself than having every single word that is every said inside my house being sent to and recorded on who knows how many servers around the world. You like the convenience of connecting with friends on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.? Then you are giving away all your data to these companies to use anyway they want and sell to anyone they want.

There is noting free in this world. They let us to use their free product but we pay them without our data.

I think we are living in an age now where more and more people are taking their privacy seriously. But it really comes down to the preference of either choosing privacy or going with easy custom made features designed by the companies to compromise your privacy.

I know that. But just like centralized exchanges NEED to implement KYC at some point (due to their government laws) or they will get shutdown, I think Brave actually needs to do that if they want to keep going with their idea of giving BAT tokens to publishers. What else should they do? Just give up on their idea or go against their law enforcement agencies? As long as they have good intentions and only ask for KYC when needed (for publishers in this case) I'm cool with that. But that's me (I also hate KYC btw).

I have not used their browser so I have no idea about the user friendliness of their service. It seems like KYC is needed only to use the token not for using the browser. So, in my opinion everything comes down to the service they are offering. If they can provide top notch service and if the users find their browser is more comfortable than those exists (like chrome), they will get a group of customers users who will turn to be loyal for them. Not everyone will be interested in their token. So KYC is not going to be needed for all.

[1714193073]

1714193073

[1714193073]

1714193073

[1714193073]

1714193073

[1714193073]

1714193073

[1714193073]

1714193073

[bitmover]

But these days it is really hard to protect your privacy.

Wait, one thing is to protect yourself against tracking cookies , Google ads etc. You may choose to give a fuck about that, and that's ok.

Another very different stuff is requiring passport or driver's licence to be able to use a browser. (Even as a publisher, it was required before)
It's very invasive. That's not a privacy matter anymore, but it also involves your reputation, safety, etc. What are they doing with your passport?

[tomahawk9]

~snip~
Not really, it all depends on your threat model and how high it's set.

How?
You will ask me to use duckduckgo.com for my search engine?

Well, yeah, that would be a good start, but if you don't like DDG, I'd recommend using SearX as a search engine (using a private instance/self-hosted) in the Tor Browser running on QubeOS.

About Brave, as long as they don't track me, sell my data or some shady stuff like this, I don't care about what KYC they implement *for publishers only*; If they need to do that in the eyes of the law/government, they will obviously do.

They won't sell the data to a third party or anything like that because, as it says in the link I posted above in this topic, they don't store the data that you provide, Uphold does since they're the ones who require and will receive the KYC info.

[bitmover]

the biggest issue I see is that companies like Brave are using"privacy" and other cypherpunk fundamentals only as an advertisement. Are they really comprised with that ideals of a Free web?
 I was reading that they allow publishers only to withdrawal funds after kyc, and even so to a custodial service that doesn't allow you to have the privatekeys (uphold "wallet").

That uphold wallet is just another custodial service like Freewallet and so many out there, which will freeze your funds  whenever they want, making your funds hostage until you give them more docs, or more information or whatever.

It's is just a bank, but without all the laws and regulations which also protect us, not only them.

There is no reason to use any of those services, just use a traditional bank or visa and Google ads.

This is why Bitcoin is different from all those companies and cryptocurrencies. Because it is free from all that.

[mk4]

What are they doing with your passport?

I don't think it's that they're going to do something with it per se, but my guess that it's most likely just a requirement from the government, simply because money is involved.

Btw why are governments so quiet? I understood companies want to know their customers and get rid of illegal things without knowing who did that. Maybe it's not related to this topic but just think, why are they in silent? This company operates from USA, almost all of USA exchanges, social networks and etc steal and get our data, so in overall huge data is under control of USA government. Isn't this dangerous for other governments? Especially when one government owns ID documents of your citizens?

They're aren't actually quiet lately. Have you seen the recent senate committee hearing concerning Libra? It was almost all attacks on Zuckerberg and Facebook that they didn't keep their word concerning their user's data.

Also, it's not like Uphold is requiring KYC for their financial gain. It's most likely because it's a regulatory requirement.

the biggest issue I see is that companies like Brave are using"privacy" and other cypherpunk fundamentals only as an advertisement. Are they really comprised with that ideals of a Free web?
 I was reading that they allow publishers only to withdrawal funds after kyc, and even so to a custodial service that doesn't allow you to have the privatekeys (uphold "wallet").

Yes. It's actually a good browser for privacy purposes due to it's tracker blocking features. Also, it's open source.

And again, the KYC requirements are more likely for regulatory requirements. Because yes, the company runs in San Francisco CA.

[o_e_l_e_o]

But just like centralized exchanges NEED to implement KYC at some point (due to their government laws) or they will get shutdown, I think Brave actually needs to do that if they want to keep going with their idea of giving BAT tokens to publishers.

It's simply just a regulatory requirement for them to let some of their users accept and send BAT tokens in a legal matter.

Do we know why, though? There are hundreds of exchanges which trade crypto without involving fiat, which don't need KYC. There are crypto gambling sites which don't need KYC. Why is Brave, which also doesn't touch fiat, different?

There is noting free in this world. They let us to use their free product but we pay them without our data.

There are actually quite a lot of free services which will respect your privacy. Tails, Firefox, Tor, DDG. Have a look here for privacy respecting alternatives to most pieces of software: https://prism-break.org/

[tomahawk9]

Isn't this dangerous for other governments? Especially when one government owns ID documents of your citizens?

It's not just USA, other governments do the same. Here, you might find this interesting: https://restoreprivacy.com/5-eyes-9-eyes-14-eyes/

TL;DR: US and other countries share and collect data of their citizens (even citizens from countries that are not part of the international alliance) between them.

[ABCbits]

I thought Brave could be privacy-respecting browser for non-geek or technical illiterate, but looks like i was wrong.
They should know they'll be forced to apply KYC on their browser, maybe they shouldn't push their BAT too hard.

Anyway, it's unfortunate to see they prioritize BAT rather than their original goal which shown on their homepage.

There is noting free in this world. They let us to use their free product but we pay them without our data.

There are actually quite a lot of free services which will respect your privacy. Tails, Firefox, Tor, DDG. Have a look here for privacy respecting alternatives to most pieces of software: https://prism-break.org/

Only because someone else "pay" for all of us in form of donation, source-code contributor, tester, host mirror server (such as mirror of linux software repository) and run node (such as Tor relay)

[LTU_btc]

I think topic title is a bit clickbait. Regular users of Brave browser aren't required to pass KYC. Only publishers will have to that. Still, browser which focus on privacy and KYC is strange. And I suppose that one day they may ask their regular users to pass KYC... I haven't used Brave browser, but I believed that's very promising project with great future. Now I have mixed feelings about it.

[malevolent]

There are already people on brave forums saying they can't pass verification because they're from 'bad' countries (Iran) or they don't even know why because Uphold won't tell them. If you actually want to make use of BAT you're at the whim of an unrelated company. All this could have been avoided if they just moved to a free country line Binance did.

[pugman]

Well all of the good things I was talking about brave. For fuck sake.

I love brave, not gonna lie, its really good, and it doesn't crash as often as Chrome certainly. But it certainly does suck that they are asking for KYC for BAT payments, that's very sucky of them.

I disagree with you here. Even if it doesn't affect me directly, I no longer want to support a browser which advertises itself as having a strong privacy focus, whilst simultaneously mandating KYC for part of their userbase. KYC is completely antithetical to everything they should be standing for.

Yeah well we don't live in a perfect world, and if a company wants to integrate crypto payments whilst operating or having its users living in a country that requires KYC, they have to abide by their terms regardless of what they focus point of the company is. Its literally impossible for any corporate to integrate crypto payment mechanisms without asking for user's KYC. With the amount of people getting scammed, people are willing to give their KYC to corporate companies for additional security. In fact, many people don't understand how valuable KYC actually is, so privacy for them doesn't matter..

[1Referee]

And I suppose that one day they may ask their regular users to pass KYC...

It will happen, I am 100% certain of that. The whole idea that you are being paid out in this manner just by installing an app without filling in personal information, is something that governments don't like. They want to know who is being paid out, and then what they will be doing with their funds. Currently that's not the case and it's only a matter of time before Brave will comply.

Brave is a business. It's subject to regulations set up within the countries they operate in. They either abide or be forced to halt operations. I know what option they will choose.

I haven't used Brave browser, but I believed that's very promising project with great future. Now I have mixed feelings about it.

It's a promising project until you get to deal with the legal side of operating a business. Governments are catching up on the developments here quicker than ever before. I expect way more similar moves that will force seemingly innocent crypto businesses to comply and lose their main use case now people have to do KYC.

[mk4]

It's simply just a regulatory requirement for them to let some of their users accept and send BAT tokens in a legal matter.

Do we know why, though? There are hundreds of exchanges which trade crypto without involving fiat, which don't need KYC. There are crypto gambling sites which don't need KYC. Why is Brave, which also doesn't touch fiat, different?

I think it's mostly due to the locations of these services. KuCoin, Huobi, Binance, outside of the United States, whereas Brave is. Also, they gotta make sure they're tightly following regulations. I mean, they have Brendan Eich himself as the founder and CEO. They definitely wouldn't want to ruin the reputation of such a big name not only in the crypto space, but also in the tech industry in general. Just my guesses though.

[malevolent]

I think it's mostly due to the locations of these services. KuCoin, Huobi, Binance, outside of the United States, whereas Brave is. Also, they gotta make sure they're tightly following regulations. I mean, they have Brendan Eich himself as the founder and CEO. They definitely wouldn't want to ruin the reputation of such a big name not only in the crypto space, but also in the tech industry in general. Just my guesses though.

Isn't his reputation in the tech industry already tarnished due to his political beliefs and activities? Asking for KYC won't ruin someone's reputation in the cryptocurrency space, at least not in 2019, but it definitely leaves a sour taste in the mouth, when they could have relocated to a friendlier jurisdiction.

[mk4]

Isn't his reputation in the tech industry already tarnished due to his political beliefs and activities?

No idea about that. I don't think his opinions should be used against him in the tech industry though(depends hugely on how bad his opinions are though).

Asking for KYC won't ruin someone's reputation in the cryptocurrency space, at least not in 2019, but it definitely leaves a sour taste in the mouth, when they could have relocated to a friendlier jurisdiction.

No I wasn't talking about the KYC. I was speaking more of that he wouldn't want his reputation tarnished if ever the government whoops their ass because they didn't follow regulations. And yea, I think they should've relocated instead too. The US is pretty tight. Maybe not in Malta, but probably a country like Japan perhaps.

[malevolent]

No idea about that. I don't think his opinions should be used against him in the tech industry though(depends hugely on how bad his opinions are though).

In 2014 he got kicked out of Mozilla for donating to political cause against same-sex marriage several years earlier.

Asking for KYC won't ruin someone's reputation in the cryptocurrency space, at least not in 2019, but it definitely leaves a sour taste in the mouth, when they could have relocated to a friendlier jurisdiction.

No I wasn't talking about the KYC. I was speaking more of that he wouldn't want his reputation tarnished if ever the government whoops their ass because they didn't follow regulations. And yea, I think they should've relocated instead too. The US is pretty tight. Maybe not in Malta, but probably a country like Japan perhaps.

I just brought that up as something that doesn't exactly reflect very well on him, as the whole Brave browser and BAT project gave out a very different impression when they were first announced.

[Freewallet]

That uphold wallet is just another custodial service like Freewallet and so many out there, which will freeze your funds  whenever they want, making your funds hostage until you give them more docs, or more information or whatever.

Hi bitmover,

As we can see from our previous dialogue, we could never agree on the point deeming our actions as arbitrary.
Since our brand name is mentioned in this message, we've decided to stress it again.

As always, we are always here to assist our customers in all issues that can arise in this regard or in any other matter.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Only because someone else "pay" for all of us in form of donation, source-code contributor, tester, host mirror server (such as mirror of linux software repository) and run node (such as Tor relay)

True, but it's not like you are being forced in to either paying or giving up your privacy. Thanks to the work of other generous individuals, you can keep your privacy intact without having to spend a penny.

if a company wants to integrate crypto payments whilst operating or having its users living in a country that requires KYC, they have to abide by their terms regardless of what they focus point of the company is.

That's fine, and if they want to go to the KYC route, that's fine too. But they can't then push themselves as a privacy browser and use the headline "You are not a product" on their landing page.

I think it's mostly due to the locations of these services. KuCoin, Huobi, Binance, outside of the United States, whereas Brave is.

Fair enough, but as malevolent says, it's quite disappointing they have just taken the easiest route for themselves at the expense of their user base. As I said, there are plenty of exchanges and services which don't require KYC as long as you don't touch fiat. Brave could have been another one with a bit of work on their part. Instead they chose to compromise the privacy of some of their users.

[BitHodler]

As I said, there are plenty of exchanges and services which don't require KYC as long as you don't touch fiat. Brave could have been another one with a bit of work on their part. Instead they chose to compromise the privacy of some of their users.

For now there are still exchanges that don't require KYC, but it's going downhill where each week or month one announces that they no longer provide that type of service due to regulatory concerns.

What will happen is that the last standing non KYC exchanges will be shit exchanges such as Yobit. The logical path for other exchanges is to become compliant and cover the risk of potentially being penalized.

As for Brave, I have used it for a while just for the sake of trying it out, but outside the earning feature it doesn't provide much utility over what some other browsers/extensions offer. Won't lose a second sleep over this.

[o_e_l_e_o]

What will happen is that the last standing non KYC exchanges will be shit exchanges such as Yobit.

Or decentralized exchanges like Bisq, which do not require KYC because they do not touch your coins at any time. Furthermore, because of their decentralized structure, it is near impossible for a government to shut them down - it would be akin to them trying to shutdown bitcoin itself. I admit they have a large problem right now with low liquidity and poor speed of trades, but hopefully as they become more popular in the future both of these things will improve.

There will always be a place for exchanges with full KYC procedures, because there will always be a demand from day traders for near instant trading with high liquidity.

As for Brave, I have used it for a while just for the sake of trying it out, but outside the earning feature it doesn't provide much utility over what some other browsers/extensions offer.

Agreed. I used it for some things, but Firefox with the right settings and extensions is superior in terms of speed, security, and privacy.

Brave is a trusted company with a good reputation

I'm by no means saying Brave is a scam, but giving someone access to your documents just because they are a "trusted company" is a pretty slippery slope. Quadriga was a "trusted company", until they exit scammed with millions. Many people considered Bitconnect a "trust company", until they did the same. Hell, Charles Ponzi was "trusted" by many individuals. Every scam that has successfully scammed people out of their money or information was initially "trusted" by someone.