3 ms·

Cash has its own problems though - it's much easier to use it to avoid taxes, launder money, etc. when using cash. Privacy zealots act like perfect anonymity a

by umvi 6y ago

Cash has its own problems though - it's much easier to use it to avoid taxes, launder money, etc. when using cash. Privacy zealots act like perfect anonymity at all times is a human right and we should always work towards it at any cost, when really I think most people agree it's more of a privilege that should only be available under certain circumstances (in your own home, for example).

lykr0n 6y ago
I'd rather we be in a situation where we have to make sure businesses pay their taxes, then a situation where we can't pay in cash. Right now, the payment industry is very consolidated and Visa/Mastercard have a monopoly on transaction processing. It's expensive, and a privacy nightmare. Maybe when there is a government sponsored option that doesn't sell your information to anyone who wants it it'll be fine, but until then- No. There's also the big reason that there is large parts of our population that don't have access to the regular banking system for one reason or another. Once you get black marks on your banking record and get kicked out, it will be very hard to get back in.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  The Fed’s Instant Payment network is due to be live in 2023 or 2024 (with supposedly minimal costs compared to credit transactions). It would behoove the EFF to lean on the Fed to roll that out alongside this legislation ("here's the problem, here's the solution"). Getting the unbanked and underbanked is a similar policy issue: support the post office operating as a bank with reasonable fees, as is done in other countries. What’s it cost to maintain deposit accounts at scale for Americans unbanked? Roughly $5MM-$10MM a year in administration expenses. This is a rounding error in the federal budget.
chance_state 6y ago
> Privacy zealots act like perfect anonymity is a human right and we should always work towards at any cost Why have an original take when you can argue against a ridiculous straw man?
- umvi 6y ago
  I have yet to meet a privacy advocate on HN that doesn't want police detectives to have an impossible job. If you disagree, please share how you believe detective work is compatible with strong privacy. And if you are about to say "as long as they have a warrant..." keep in mind that the warrant is likely to access privacy-violating information that should not have been collected in the first place (according to privacy advocates).
  - awinder 6y ago
    They asked you to comment more substantially, not build more strawmen.
    - umvi 6y ago
      The first part of my top level comment comment was the substantial bit. Feel free to respond about problems I raised about cash. The second half is a complaint against the pro-privacy fear-mongering that pops up so often on this site ("Pass this act or the evil police are going to snoop on us!")
  - jonnytran 6y ago
    For one, I think they should investigate actual suspects, not do blanket surveillance on everyone, only to leak that personal data later. Using cash is an example of sort of "opting out" of mass surveillance. Other comments in this thread have pointed out that there's a cost to businesses to accept cash. There's also a cost to consumers to pay with cash. But some choose to do it for privacy benefits. I think it's nice to be able to have that choice. A person may sometimes want to sell their information to the credit card companies and get "points". Other times they may not. > If you disagree, please share how you believe detective work is compatible with strong privacy. Detective work seemed to happen just fine before digital money when there was only cash. Blanket surveillance didn't happen because it was impossible or too costly to do. I'm not saying anything about this theoretical "strong privacy". > Cash has its own problems though - it's much easier to use it to avoid taxes, launder money, etc. when using cash. Why should law abiding citizens have their rights taken away because some people abuse it? We have the second amendment protecting rights that are arguably much more dangerous, despite how they're abused by criminals. In my opinion, privacy advocates are asking for something much less, and with much less potential for violence -- the ability to make a purchase when they're perfectly law abiding, without some rando recording that, and having it leaked on the Internet for god knows what to happen with it.
DerpyBaby123 6y ago
Those arent problems for the consumer nor for Brock and morter business, they are problems for the government. The government has already made those activities illegal.
brightball 6y ago
Free exchange between 2 people that doesn’t require a 3rd party is a far greater benefit than any form of privacy attached to cash.
- umvi 6y ago
  You always need a third party though, even with cash. It's just, with cash the third party (ATM, retail service, bank, etc.) is for obtaining the cash, not for performing the transaction.
  - everfree 6y ago
    Strictly speaking, can you even have any exchange of value without a third party, though? The money has to come from somewhere at first - the government, or in the case of gold, a third party who dug it up. I think your argument is ad reductio. Without third parties who exchange money for something, money itself cannot exist. So the concept of money "strictly without any third party at all" doesn't make much sense.
    - brightball 6y ago
      It’s just streamline bartering. Establishment of value is an entirely different topic. Use gold if you like. Water is worth more when you’re thirsty.
  - brightball 6y ago
    You don’t. That’s what bartering is. The only thing that cash does is gives you a baseline for bartering so that if the two of you don’t directly have something to exchange otherwise, he can use your cash to get a service he needs elsewhere. As long as the cash is available, the two of you are able to have an exchange. If another payment processor is involved, that freedom changes dramatically. 1. You must have another means of transacting, bank card, etc 2. Seller must have a way to process your transaction and hopefully his way accepts what you have to offer (Visa, etc). 3. The way to process the transaction must have some type of connection available to report success. 4. If for any reason the payment methods involved don’t think one of you should be allowed to proceed...it denies the transaction. Ultimately, this adds a lot more friction to the process and requires someone else give permission before the transaction is allowed to proceed. Cash itself is just streamlined bartering. No 3rd parties means no 3rd parties involved in allowing the transaction to move forward aside from the 2 involved. And you can turn around and use that cash in another cash transaction, and so on and so on, forever...without another a bank or anything else ever being involved.

by umvi 6y ago

lykr0n 6y ago

I'd rather we be in a situation where we have to make sure businesses pay their taxes, then a situation where we can't pay in cash. Right now, the payment industry is very consolidated and Visa/Mastercard have a monopoly on transaction processing. It's expensive, and a privacy nightmare. Maybe when there is a government sponsored option that doesn't sell your information to anyone who wants it it'll be fine, but until then- No. There's also the big reason that there is large parts of our population that don't have access to the regular banking system for one reason or another. Once you get black marks on your banking record and get kicked out, it will be very hard to get back in.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
The Fed’s Instant Payment network is due to be live in 2023 or 2024 (with supposedly minimal costs compared to credit transactions). It would behoove the EFF to lean on the Fed to roll that out alongside this legislation ("here's the problem, here's the solution"). Getting the unbanked and underbanked is a similar policy issue: support the post office operating as a bank with reasonable fees, as is done in other countries. What’s it cost to maintain deposit accounts at scale for Americans unbanked? Roughly $5MM-$10MM a year in administration expenses. This is a rounding error in the federal budget.

chance_state 6y ago

> Privacy zealots act like perfect anonymity is a human right and we should always work towards at any cost Why have an original take when you can argue against a ridiculous straw man?

umvi 6y ago
I have yet to meet a privacy advocate on HN that doesn't want police detectives to have an impossible job. If you disagree, please share how you believe detective work is compatible with strong privacy. And if you are about to say "as long as they have a warrant..." keep in mind that the warrant is likely to access privacy-violating information that should not have been collected in the first place (according to privacy advocates).
- awinder 6y ago
  They asked you to comment more substantially, not build more strawmen.
  - umvi 6y ago
    The first part of my top level comment comment was the substantial bit. Feel free to respond about problems I raised about cash. The second half is a complaint against the pro-privacy fear-mongering that pops up so often on this site ("Pass this act or the evil police are going to snoop on us!")
- jonnytran 6y ago
  For one, I think they should investigate actual suspects, not do blanket surveillance on everyone, only to leak that personal data later. Using cash is an example of sort of "opting out" of mass surveillance. Other comments in this thread have pointed out that there's a cost to businesses to accept cash. There's also a cost to consumers to pay with cash. But some choose to do it for privacy benefits. I think it's nice to be able to have that choice. A person may sometimes want to sell their information to the credit card companies and get "points". Other times they may not. > If you disagree, please share how you believe detective work is compatible with strong privacy. Detective work seemed to happen just fine before digital money when there was only cash. Blanket surveillance didn't happen because it was impossible or too costly to do. I'm not saying anything about this theoretical "strong privacy". > Cash has its own problems though - it's much easier to use it to avoid taxes, launder money, etc. when using cash. Why should law abiding citizens have their rights taken away because some people abuse it? We have the second amendment protecting rights that are arguably much more dangerous, despite how they're abused by criminals. In my opinion, privacy advocates are asking for something much less, and with much less potential for violence -- the ability to make a purchase when they're perfectly law abiding, without some rando recording that, and having it leaked on the Internet for god knows what to happen with it.

DerpyBaby123 6y ago

Those arent problems for the consumer nor for Brock and morter business, they are problems for the government. The government has already made those activities illegal.

brightball 6y ago

Free exchange between 2 people that doesn’t require a 3rd party is a far greater benefit than any form of privacy attached to cash.

umvi 6y ago
You always need a third party though, even with cash. It's just, with cash the third party (ATM, retail service, bank, etc.) is for obtaining the cash, not for performing the transaction.
- everfree 6y ago
  Strictly speaking, can you even have any exchange of value without a third party, though? The money has to come from somewhere at first - the government, or in the case of gold, a third party who dug it up. I think your argument is ad reductio. Without third parties who exchange money for something, money itself cannot exist. So the concept of money "strictly without any third party at all" doesn't make much sense.
  - brightball 6y ago
    It’s just streamline bartering. Establishment of value is an entirely different topic. Use gold if you like. Water is worth more when you’re thirsty.
- brightball 6y ago
  You don’t. That’s what bartering is. The only thing that cash does is gives you a baseline for bartering so that if the two of you don’t directly have something to exchange otherwise, he can use your cash to get a service he needs elsewhere. As long as the cash is available, the two of you are able to have an exchange. If another payment processor is involved, that freedom changes dramatically. 1. You must have another means of transacting, bank card, etc 2. Seller must have a way to process your transaction and hopefully his way accepts what you have to offer (Visa, etc). 3. The way to process the transaction must have some type of connection available to report success. 4. If for any reason the payment methods involved don’t think one of you should be allowed to proceed...it denies the transaction. Ultimately, this adds a lot more friction to the process and requires someone else give permission before the transaction is allowed to proceed. Cash itself is just streamlined bartering. No 3rd parties means no 3rd parties involved in allowing the transaction to move forward aside from the 2 involved. And you can turn around and use that cash in another cash transaction, and so on and so on, forever...without another a bank or anything else ever being involved.