6 ms·

This is totally inevitable everywhere and in fact cash itself will probably be gone by 2050. Make whatever principled claims you wish but I would almost bet mon

by sho 8y ago

This is totally inevitable everywhere and in fact cash itself will probably be gone by 2050. Make whatever principled claims you wish but I would almost bet money that 80%+ of cash purchases over $10k even today have something dodgy about where that money came from. You think governments don't know that? Their whole job is to prevent crime. This will make money laundering much harder and you know that. If the collateral damage is that lone couple of paranoid weirdos in each city who don't trust banks and actually store their savings under the mattress, well so be it. The appropriate response to this is not to try to ban it in the name of "privacy" because the stats will overwhelmingly not be in your favour. The correct response is to demand and implement appropriate and ironclad data privacy laws which make it literally impossible for agencies to do whole-database searches, go on fishing trips, or other abuses of data collection tech. A police agency should not be able to query every name who made a large-amount purchase. However, they should be able to, given a name, see what purchases that person has made. This is a critical distinction. Give up with the "the government should not be able to track my money flows!" argument. Might makes right, basically. Instead, focus your energy on legally constraining the use of that data to conform to principles of reasonable freedom and dignity. That is the only approach that will work, IMO.

walterbell 8y ago
How about $370 BILLION dollars laundered through one bank? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico...
crwalker 8y ago
I started reading this with strong disagreement but ended with complete agreement. Which organizations (esp. in bay area) are most effectively advocating for data ethics (including freedom, dignity, privacy)? EFF.org? I am looking for organizations focused on a charter of rights and responsibilities for software providers, data processors, etc. We've been terrible at self-regulating as an industry, which is absolutely begging for onerous regulations.
conanbatt 8y ago
Argentina is amidst a potential crisis right now, and one interesting concept I heard was that the only reason it hasnt exploded yet, is that millenials are not prepared to handle with bank runs. They haven't seen one yet and take attitudes that make it easy for the government to keep its overreach. I cant speak for australia, but if in argentina they made purchases over 10k illegal, it would be impossible to buy property, as they are only made in cash. Yes, lots if not most of money held in cash or similars has some stink, but its a stink made up by the government. I assure you tax evasion explains the vast majority of cash reserves and that is the reason why the government will always try to cruch on cash: to increase its revenues. Privacy is not a legitimate defense, but government overreach is not a legitimate attack. Who would you rather win? They guy that avoided taxes or the government that already taxes 28% of GDP?
misja111 8y ago
Nobody is denying that total government control over money flows will make it more difficult to launder black money. Surely this is a benefit of abandoning cash. But there are also drawbacks: - you are forced to pay fees for a bank account - in most countries, banks require you to be registered at a home address to open an account - not every government can be trusted with the control over your money. Think of Venezuela or Zimbabwe, for instance
- cesarb 8y ago
  > not every government can be trusted with the control over your money. Think of Venezuela or Zimbabwe, for instance Or Brazil, where the government suddenly froze everybody's bank accounts in the early 90s (Confisco da Poupança). An article about it (in Portuguese): http://radioagencianacional.ebc.com.br/geral/audio/2016-03/historia-hoje-confisco-da-poupanca-no-plano-collor-completa-aniversario http://radioagencianacional.ebc.com.br/geral/audio/2016-03/h... and on Wikipedia: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Collor_de_Mello#Confisco_das_poupan%C3%A7as https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Collor_de_Mello#Confi...
- toss1 8y ago
  The fees for a bank account are a good point. Yet, holding cash will similarly erode your value due to inflation, which is a designed-in feature of fiat currency and central banking. Also, fees generally go away with sizeable accounts and interest can be earned. Anonymity, however, is gone for sure with Know Your Customer laws
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    Except there has been discussion relatively recently of negative interest. Charging you a percentage of your money to hold it. Having cash as an option acts as a hedge against this stupidity. You can't be so ridiculous that people would rather stuff it in a safe.
- ams6110 8y ago
  > not every government can be trusted with the control over your money. Think of Venezuela or Zimbabwe, for instance I don't know why you would have selected those countries. I would not trust any government with complete control over my money.
cabaalis 8y ago
> Their whole job is to prevent crime. Not their whole job; I am of the mindset that a major purpose of government is to ensure liberty by ensuring order. To put any other mandate over that one would introduce nothing but social engineering/tyranny.
- sho 8y ago
  Poor wording perhaps on my behalf but can you explain the difference between "preventing crime" and "ensuring order"? It sounds like the double negative and the double positive of the same thing.
  - cabaalis 8y ago
    Controlling access to scarce resources, enforcing rights of individuals against infringement by others, protecting life and property are the main points that pop into my mind. It is true that they enforce these actions by creating and punishing "crimes," but I think its important to not reduce it to just that. It's important to note that there are limits to what they can call a crime.
    - sho 8y ago
      Even with your explanation I don't understand what you think the difference is. There's a list of rules, aka laws. Breaking them is termed a crime. Yes, they do try to reinforce social norms as well, like the orderly lining up for a bus - is that what you mean? If so that's a good point and you're right, I did over-simplify somewhat.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
Nice idea--except it doesn't work. You cannot create a tool that gives de-facto total power, and then make rules that forbid those who want to abuse the tool from doing so, where those who want to abuse it are also those who are in charge of enforcing the rules. Rules do not enforce themselves. Relying on institutions to enforce rules uncorrupted is very unreliable. The only thing that does work reliably is to avoid creating concentrations of power in the first place. Essentially, you are proposing a benevolent dictator. If only we had a benevolent dictator, all our problems would be solved! Yeah, maybe. But we won't ever have one, and a malicious dictator is not a functional equivalent for a benevolent dictator, so we better stop building one.
- sho 8y ago
  > You cannot create a tool that gives de-facto total power, and then make rules that forbid those who want to abuse the tool from doing so, where those who want to abuse it are also those who are in charge of enforcing the rules. Have you heard of a few little inventions called laws, police, and separation of powers? Because the things you have just declared impossible is quite common - we call it a "legal system". I cannot believe I have to explain this. The entirety of our civilisation is based precisely on what you confidently proclaim "doesn't work". Is it perfect? No. Is it better than anarchy? Yes. > The only thing that does work reliably is to avoid creating concentrations of power in the first place. This is what is impossible. Power concentrates like it's a law of nature. Government is utterly inevitable. And if you have a counterexample, please tell me and the rest of the world.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    >> You cannot create a tool that gives de-facto total power, and then make rules that forbid those who want to abuse the tool from doing so, where those who want to abuse it are also those who are in charge of enforcing the rules. > The entirety of our civilisation is based precisely on what you confidently proclaim "doesn't work". You seem to have overlooked the word "total". That also has been tried, and no, it doesn't work. Sure, we have to have a government. But stop giving it more power. It's got enough already.
  - 8y ago
njarboe 8y ago
Laws don't make things "literally impossible". They are just words on paper. Enforcement of those laws by people with guns might. Unfortunately, when the law breaker and the law enforcer are part of the same hierarchical structure (in the case of say the NSA tapping all internet traffic and the federal laws being enforced by the Department of Justice), the law breaking part of the organization can find a way to have the law enforcing part not enforce the law. Add the law making part to the hierarchy and one ends up with the law breaking part sometimes getting the laws it broke removed and pardons for past crimes. Like the FISA Amendments Act of 2008[1]. Australia did not every have a violent revolt against the ruling monarchy, but "We the people of the United States" strive for a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". A free people obey laws for the good of their neighbors and fellow citizens, not from fear of punishment from the state. Being able to ignore laws en-mass, when the people decide they are wrong, (like marijuana being illegal and a schedule I drug) is why cash needs to be available and not something that just criminals use. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...
- sho 8y ago
  I happen to agree with you but your argument is founded on a fallacy known as the is-ought problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
  - njarboe 8y ago
    I like to be informed when my arguments are based on false logic, but I'm not sure that fallacy would apply here. I take the ought of "We should have a Republic of free people" as given. The description of what is is why the parent's idea of creating laws to prevent the law enforcers from doing things is not always effective. Isn't the "Is–ought problem" that people describe what is to support what they think ought to be?

by sho 8y ago

walterbell 8y ago

How about $370 BILLION dollars laundered through one bank? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico...

crwalker 8y ago

I started reading this with strong disagreement but ended with complete agreement. Which organizations (esp. in bay area) are most effectively advocating for data ethics (including freedom, dignity, privacy)? EFF.org? I am looking for organizations focused on a charter of rights and responsibilities for software providers, data processors, etc. We've been terrible at self-regulating as an industry, which is absolutely begging for onerous regulations.

conanbatt 8y ago

Argentina is amidst a potential crisis right now, and one interesting concept I heard was that the only reason it hasnt exploded yet, is that millenials are not prepared to handle with bank runs. They haven't seen one yet and take attitudes that make it easy for the government to keep its overreach. I cant speak for australia, but if in argentina they made purchases over 10k illegal, it would be impossible to buy property, as they are only made in cash. Yes, lots if not most of money held in cash or similars has some stink, but its a stink made up by the government. I assure you tax evasion explains the vast majority of cash reserves and that is the reason why the government will always try to cruch on cash: to increase its revenues. Privacy is not a legitimate defense, but government overreach is not a legitimate attack. Who would you rather win? They guy that avoided taxes or the government that already taxes 28% of GDP?

misja111 8y ago

Nobody is denying that total government control over money flows will make it more difficult to launder black money. Surely this is a benefit of abandoning cash. But there are also drawbacks: - you are forced to pay fees for a bank account - in most countries, banks require you to be registered at a home address to open an account - not every government can be trusted with the control over your money. Think of Venezuela or Zimbabwe, for instance

cesarb 8y ago
> not every government can be trusted with the control over your money. Think of Venezuela or Zimbabwe, for instance Or Brazil, where the government suddenly froze everybody's bank accounts in the early 90s (Confisco da Poupança). An article about it (in Portuguese): http://radioagencianacional.ebc.com.br/geral/audio/2016-03/historia-hoje-confisco-da-poupanca-no-plano-collor-completa-aniversario http://radioagencianacional.ebc.com.br/geral/audio/2016-03/h... and on Wikipedia: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Collor_de_Mello#Confisco_das_poupan%C3%A7as https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Collor_de_Mello#Confi...
toss1 8y ago
The fees for a bank account are a good point. Yet, holding cash will similarly erode your value due to inflation, which is a designed-in feature of fiat currency and central banking. Also, fees generally go away with sizeable accounts and interest can be earned. Anonymity, however, is gone for sure with Know Your Customer laws
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Except there has been discussion relatively recently of negative interest. Charging you a percentage of your money to hold it. Having cash as an option acts as a hedge against this stupidity. You can't be so ridiculous that people would rather stuff it in a safe.
ams6110 8y ago
> not every government can be trusted with the control over your money. Think of Venezuela or Zimbabwe, for instance I don't know why you would have selected those countries. I would not trust any government with complete control over my money.

cabaalis 8y ago

> Their whole job is to prevent crime. Not their whole job; I am of the mindset that a major purpose of government is to ensure liberty by ensuring order. To put any other mandate over that one would introduce nothing but social engineering/tyranny.

sho 8y ago
Poor wording perhaps on my behalf but can you explain the difference between "preventing crime" and "ensuring order"? It sounds like the double negative and the double positive of the same thing.
- cabaalis 8y ago
  Controlling access to scarce resources, enforcing rights of individuals against infringement by others, protecting life and property are the main points that pop into my mind. It is true that they enforce these actions by creating and punishing "crimes," but I think its important to not reduce it to just that. It's important to note that there are limits to what they can call a crime.
  - sho 8y ago
    Even with your explanation I don't understand what you think the difference is. There's a list of rules, aka laws. Breaking them is termed a crime. Yes, they do try to reinforce social norms as well, like the orderly lining up for a bus - is that what you mean? If so that's a good point and you're right, I did over-simplify somewhat.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

Nice idea--except it doesn't work. You cannot create a tool that gives de-facto total power, and then make rules that forbid those who want to abuse the tool from doing so, where those who want to abuse it are also those who are in charge of enforcing the rules. Rules do not enforce themselves. Relying on institutions to enforce rules uncorrupted is very unreliable. The only thing that does work reliably is to avoid creating concentrations of power in the first place. Essentially, you are proposing a benevolent dictator. If only we had a benevolent dictator, all our problems would be solved! Yeah, maybe. But we won't ever have one, and a malicious dictator is not a functional equivalent for a benevolent dictator, so we better stop building one.

sho 8y ago
> You cannot create a tool that gives de-facto total power, and then make rules that forbid those who want to abuse the tool from doing so, where those who want to abuse it are also those who are in charge of enforcing the rules. Have you heard of a few little inventions called laws, police, and separation of powers? Because the things you have just declared impossible is quite common - we call it a "legal system". I cannot believe I have to explain this. The entirety of our civilisation is based precisely on what you confidently proclaim "doesn't work". Is it perfect? No. Is it better than anarchy? Yes. > The only thing that does work reliably is to avoid creating concentrations of power in the first place. This is what is impossible. Power concentrates like it's a law of nature. Government is utterly inevitable. And if you have a counterexample, please tell me and the rest of the world.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  >> You cannot create a tool that gives de-facto total power, and then make rules that forbid those who want to abuse the tool from doing so, where those who want to abuse it are also those who are in charge of enforcing the rules. > The entirety of our civilisation is based precisely on what you confidently proclaim "doesn't work". You seem to have overlooked the word "total". That also has been tried, and no, it doesn't work. Sure, we have to have a government. But stop giving it more power. It's got enough already.
- 8y ago

njarboe 8y ago

Laws don't make things "literally impossible". They are just words on paper. Enforcement of those laws by people with guns might. Unfortunately, when the law breaker and the law enforcer are part of the same hierarchical structure (in the case of say the NSA tapping all internet traffic and the federal laws being enforced by the Department of Justice), the law breaking part of the organization can find a way to have the law enforcing part not enforce the law. Add the law making part to the hierarchy and one ends up with the law breaking part sometimes getting the laws it broke removed and pardons for past crimes. Like the FISA Amendments Act of 2008[1]. Australia did not every have a violent revolt against the ruling monarchy, but "We the people of the United States" strive for a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". A free people obey laws for the good of their neighbors and fellow citizens, not from fear of punishment from the state. Being able to ignore laws en-mass, when the people decide they are wrong, (like marijuana being illegal and a schedule I drug) is why cash needs to be available and not something that just criminals use. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...

sho 8y ago
I happen to agree with you but your argument is founded on a fallacy known as the is-ought problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
- njarboe 8y ago
  I like to be informed when my arguments are based on false logic, but I'm not sure that fallacy would apply here. I take the ought of "We should have a Republic of free people" as given. The description of what is is why the parent's idea of creating laws to prevent the law enforcers from doing things is not always effective. Isn't the "Is–ought problem" that people describe what is to support what they think ought to be?