rageAgainstCages @ rageAgainstCages @crazypeople.online

Posts

7

Comments

2

Joined

3 mo. ago

Moderating

---

I appreciate the tip. It was alienating at first but after some fiddling it seems like a good option. My findings--

Pros

• It’s able to save a page as a single file which can be opened in both Firefox and Chromium browsers (rare!)
• It’s able to faithfully save a Github issue page that correctly renders when re-opened. (All other tools fail on a GH issue)
• The URL is embedded on the 3rd line of the file (rare.. no other tool does this)

Cons

• No control over where it saves the file
• Forced GUI, no commandline (though I’m not sure if it can be hacked to run automatically in a headless Firefox or something)
• No icon appears in the plugin tray. And cannot be added using the Firefox custom toolbar tool.
• Default keystroke is control-shift-y (which clashes with the stock keystroke for reaching about:downloads)
• There is no menu item for it

I was only able to get it to work by re-assigning a custom keystroke which I will forget and have to visit the addon manager to recall.

In the case of FATCA it is certainly not KYC. The rules require banks to look for “US indicia”, which specifies that they must collect proof of birthplace. If the birthplace is US soil, they are then treated as US citizens (as the US has birthright citizenship, although Trump is starting to tamper with that). People are singled out for different treatment because of their nationality (but only Americans, or so I thought). This happens /even if/ the customer has the local nationality, including “accidental Americans”, whose only reason for the US nationality is birthplace.

From there, if the bank is FATCA-participating, it is required to demand the customer’s US social security number, which is then furnished for export with that customer’s banking records to the US treasury. This has nothing to do with the sort of information you mention, which is local information that is presumably kept local.

The hints I heard of people of other nationalities facing discrimination seemed to be based on specific nationalities. One source even named a nationality but I forgot which one.

I think the reason for this is that it technically isn’t based on your ethnicity, rather on your citizenship, which makes it legal discrimination in most places.

When you say “legal discrimination”, that implies a context. Strictly speaking, banks can discriminate because human rights laws do not guarantee banking access. Article 2 of the UDHR lists categories that cannot be used for discrimination. One of those categories is national origin. BUT, article 2 only applies in connection with other articles in the UDHR. So e.g. you cannot discriminate against categories in Art.2 in the course of a housing transaction because housing is a human right. So if a housing transaction requires the use of a bank, and the bank discriminates on the basis of national origin, then you have a legal problem.

In any case, my question stands reguardless of whether the discrimination is legal or not. I’m just wondering what other nationalities face discrimination in banking. From there, legality can be complex. Laws themselves are sometimes illegal. e.g. FACTCA coupled with other national laws that force the use of banks in a transaction can violate international law (which is rarely enforced).