3 ms·

privacy BS? I find it weird that anyone would default to thinking nobody should have privacy. Why is it anyones business what anyone else does with money? Unles

privacy BS? I find it weird that anyone would default to thinking nobody should have privacy. Why is it anyones business what anyone else does with money? Unless you are breaking the law ( which is already illegal ) why does it matter what people anywhere are doing with their money?

ttoinou 9y ago
What's even better is that crypto currencies are redefining in their own way "money" so I would rephrase what you said in "Why is it anyones business what anyone else does with their computer and internet connection? "
- solotronics 9y ago
  encryption has brought data back into our own control to an extent. cryptocurrency is doing the same with money. I think people are so steeped in the current system that they don't realize that people expected a certain degree of financial privacy up until recently. Besides paying your taxes ( which is also a recent invention in the US ) it was never any business of the government what anyone did with their money. Reading about the history of the US people seem to have forgotten why the country was founded and what people thought before about 80 years ago. Life, liberty, property. In no way does that include thugs with guns forcing you to give up your hard earned money. There was NO income tax on individuals up until WW1 ever in the US. Through a slow process that takes years to change the Federal government has crept into our lives taking more money and control. It is extremely worrysome to me that other young people my age want more government control and not less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_State...
danans 9y ago
> Unless you are breaking the law ( which is already illegal ) I think the critique is that the privacy is being used as a mechanism for breaking the law, by hiding illegally gotten gains.
- chrisper 9y ago
  But by that logic it should be ok to monitor everything anyone does because if you do not, a person might be able do to something illegally under the cover of privacy.
  - Chriky 9y ago
    I don't understand your use of "monitor" here. Banks by their very nature "monitor" your financial details, what else are they going to be doing? Swiss banks will routinely refuse to honour legal requests for information from international law enforcement, e.g from 3rd world countries investigating their own corrupt politicians.
    - chrisper 9y ago
      So if I break US copyright law in Germany (assuming the act isn't illegal in Germany), then a German ISP should give out my data?
      - Chriky 9y ago
        Are you saying embezzlement and fraud are legal in Switzerland? This analogy makes no sense.
- mseebach 9y ago
  The argument for violating privacy in communications is literally that it is being used as a mechanism for breaking the law. I'd be interested in hearing a logically consistent argument for why bad guys hiding illegally gotten gains is a legitimate reason for opposing banking privacy, but bad guys using encrypted communication platforms for planning crimes isn't a legitimate reason to oppose communications privacy. In both cares, the information would of course only be available to the government who will only ever use it for Legitimate Good(tm).

ttoinou 9y ago

What's even better is that crypto currencies are redefining in their own way "money" so I would rephrase what you said in "Why is it anyones business what anyone else does with their computer and internet connection? "

solotronics 9y ago
encryption has brought data back into our own control to an extent. cryptocurrency is doing the same with money. I think people are so steeped in the current system that they don't realize that people expected a certain degree of financial privacy up until recently. Besides paying your taxes ( which is also a recent invention in the US ) it was never any business of the government what anyone did with their money. Reading about the history of the US people seem to have forgotten why the country was founded and what people thought before about 80 years ago. Life, liberty, property. In no way does that include thugs with guns forcing you to give up your hard earned money. There was NO income tax on individuals up until WW1 ever in the US. Through a slow process that takes years to change the Federal government has crept into our lives taking more money and control. It is extremely worrysome to me that other young people my age want more government control and not less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_State...

danans 9y ago

> Unless you are breaking the law ( which is already illegal ) I think the critique is that the privacy is being used as a mechanism for breaking the law, by hiding illegally gotten gains.

chrisper 9y ago
But by that logic it should be ok to monitor everything anyone does because if you do not, a person might be able do to something illegally under the cover of privacy.
- Chriky 9y ago
  I don't understand your use of "monitor" here. Banks by their very nature "monitor" your financial details, what else are they going to be doing? Swiss banks will routinely refuse to honour legal requests for information from international law enforcement, e.g from 3rd world countries investigating their own corrupt politicians.
  - chrisper 9y ago
    So if I break US copyright law in Germany (assuming the act isn't illegal in Germany), then a German ISP should give out my data?
    - Chriky 9y ago
      Are you saying embezzlement and fraud are legal in Switzerland? This analogy makes no sense.
mseebach 9y ago
The argument for violating privacy in communications is literally that it is being used as a mechanism for breaking the law. I'd be interested in hearing a logically consistent argument for why bad guys hiding illegally gotten gains is a legitimate reason for opposing banking privacy, but bad guys using encrypted communication platforms for planning crimes isn't a legitimate reason to oppose communications privacy. In both cares, the information would of course only be available to the government who will only ever use it for Legitimate Good(tm).