6 ms·

Sure, why not? It has worked for many years before. The terms like "money laundering" are only recent and swept through without properly understanding the priv

Sure, why not? It has worked for many years before. The terms like "money laundering" are only recent and swept through without properly understanding the privacy implications (and probably didn't envisage the pervasiveness of modern electronic surveillance & data breaches in today's digital world). Anyhow, advancements in cryptographic Zero-knowledge proofs could hold the key in solving some of these problems (proof that funds are clean without reveling the source). Currently there are some scalability problems, but progress is being made so I'm hopeful. Wikipedia has a good write-up about the basics of ZKP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof

shakna 7y ago
> Sure, why not? It has worked for many years before. Citation very much needed. It depends on what you mean by "working". There's references to tax evasion going back before the Roman Empire. For an example from the era of the Roman Empire, the topic of tax evasion is where the story of "give to Caesar what is his" (Mark 12:17) comes from. (I've found earlier Greek references going back to at least 300BC, but that's the easiest example to verify). The state works better when it has funds to deliver on those plans - though there are many other factors that can disrupt it such as incompetence and corruption. "Money laundering" may be a recent term, but it is not a recent concept. In fact some notable conquests on the ancient world wouldn't have been possible without concealing ill-gotten funds. It was a common tactic for avoiding paying tribute to a neighbour who defeated you.
- bouncycastle 7y ago
  I don't think you need any citation or reference to know that even as early as 20 years ago there wasn't as much pervasive computerized record keeping and surveillance as there is now. By "worked well" I mean people paid their taxes and the overwhelming majority were law abiding. Here's one example to ponder about: if we had this kind of surveillance earlier, would things like the Civil Rights Movement and generally the 60's counterculture come about? I.e. the era of "sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"? If only the authorities had the tools that they have today, oh boy! Don't like the liberation of sex? Is rock'n'roll the Devi's music? Fine. We'll close your PayPal account. Privacy is very important for having a free society and freedom of expression. Financial privacy should be no exception.
  - ComodoHacker 7y ago
    Majority of people paid their taxes, but many didn't, many more than today. Think of mafias of all kinds. So law abiding majority had to pay more to cover state expenses. Without computerized record keeping taxes were collected in person, often with support of armed force. And tax evasion could be as simple as hiding in the woods when tax collector comes. It worked, but not so well.
    - feanaro 7y ago
      Yet the world itself worked rather well. That must either mean that taxing working well is not necessary for the world to work well or that it worked better than you are implying.
      - SiempreViernes 7y ago
        You're aware that depending on where you are in the world you can sample a vast range of development levels, so where exactly do you wish to move to have this well functioning society where people are taxed on trust alone?
        feanaro 7y ago
        I never implied taxing on trust alone, I'm simply arguing against total financial surveillance. Taxing in the mid-20th century did not rely on trust alone and it was a nice mix of trust and manual investigation in suspicious cases. I think such a mix is optimal for a predominant number of human activities and total surveillance should (almost?) never be reached for. You can apply the same style of reasoning to end-to-end encryption. Various actors are aiming for total surveillance in that area too, it is most likely a terrible idea and we have precedent that the world works reasonably well without it.
        shakna 7y ago
        > How else do you propose taxation is assured? Blind trust? > Sure, why not? It has worked for many years before. Taxing on trust alone is exactly where this little thread started.

shakna 7y ago

> Sure, why not? It has worked for many years before. Citation very much needed. It depends on what you mean by "working". There's references to tax evasion going back before the Roman Empire. For an example from the era of the Roman Empire, the topic of tax evasion is where the story of "give to Caesar what is his" (Mark 12:17) comes from. (I've found earlier Greek references going back to at least 300BC, but that's the easiest example to verify). The state works better when it has funds to deliver on those plans - though there are many other factors that can disrupt it such as incompetence and corruption. "Money laundering" may be a recent term, but it is not a recent concept. In fact some notable conquests on the ancient world wouldn't have been possible without concealing ill-gotten funds. It was a common tactic for avoiding paying tribute to a neighbour who defeated you.

bouncycastle 7y ago
I don't think you need any citation or reference to know that even as early as 20 years ago there wasn't as much pervasive computerized record keeping and surveillance as there is now. By "worked well" I mean people paid their taxes and the overwhelming majority were law abiding. Here's one example to ponder about: if we had this kind of surveillance earlier, would things like the Civil Rights Movement and generally the 60's counterculture come about? I.e. the era of "sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"? If only the authorities had the tools that they have today, oh boy! Don't like the liberation of sex? Is rock'n'roll the Devi's music? Fine. We'll close your PayPal account. Privacy is very important for having a free society and freedom of expression. Financial privacy should be no exception.
- ComodoHacker 7y ago
  Majority of people paid their taxes, but many didn't, many more than today. Think of mafias of all kinds. So law abiding majority had to pay more to cover state expenses. Without computerized record keeping taxes were collected in person, often with support of armed force. And tax evasion could be as simple as hiding in the woods when tax collector comes. It worked, but not so well.
  - feanaro 7y ago
    Yet the world itself worked rather well. That must either mean that taxing working well is not necessary for the world to work well or that it worked better than you are implying.
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      You're aware that depending on where you are in the world you can sample a vast range of development levels, so where exactly do you wish to move to have this well functioning society where people are taxed on trust alone?
      - feanaro 7y ago
        I never implied taxing on trust alone, I'm simply arguing against total financial surveillance. Taxing in the mid-20th century did not rely on trust alone and it was a nice mix of trust and manual investigation in suspicious cases. I think such a mix is optimal for a predominant number of human activities and total surveillance should (almost?) never be reached for. You can apply the same style of reasoning to end-to-end encryption. Various actors are aiming for total surveillance in that area too, it is most likely a terrible idea and we have precedent that the world works reasonably well without it.
        shakna 7y ago
        > How else do you propose taxation is assured? Blind trust? > Sure, why not? It has worked for many years before. Taxing on trust alone is exactly where this little thread started.