36 ms·

In our cashless society, we need to take digital jail seriously

• clement12 5y ago
  [flagged]
• nonrandomstring 5y ago
  There's an enormous hole in this conversation. Everyone is talking about malevolent government, data collection and cybernetic social control as the great threats. Yes, these things are frightening. Authoritarianism/fascism or surveillance capitalism, whatever you want to call it, is in the rise. But malevolence is the lesser of our worries with regard to the prospect of a "cashless society". Cash is important not only because (as others have said) it is a mature, near perfect technology that provides fluidity, anonymity etc. It's important because it's a distributable store of highly resilient wealth. Physical cash is one of the greatest defences a society has against total civil disintegration - the kind of "worst fears" we are all terrified of when the pandemic or Capitol riots were looming. People in the streets with guns killing each other over a loaf of bread. It's the sort of thing we worry EMP attacks, nuclear war, overnight hyper-inflation would bring. When chaos comes it can come very quick. One of the surest and fastest routes to a totally precarious civilisation is to create a "cashless society" than runs on these highly unstable and very new-fangled things we call computers (we've had them "properly" for about 20 or 30 years). Imagine that there is no physical cash at all. Cash acts as a buffer, like power-supply smoothing capacitors. One day the systems all switch off (a very likely scenario (some time - we don't know when) by all cyber-threat accounts). Modern people, within one or two generations, are losing the ability to value or barter things, or do simple mental arithmetic in many cases. That level of dependency is catastrophic. Fortunately we still teach how to add up money and caculate change at schools. When no-one can buy food, and no-one can fuel vehicles because the "system is down", watch it all descend into madness within 24 hours. And no, the police/national-guard won't help. They'll all be shitting themselves too and worrying about their families, getting paid. Ayn Rand (not someone I am very fond of) made at least a few rather intelligent philosophical observations, one of which is that (I paraphrase) "money is a peace-keeping instrument". Cash gives a society it's own form of distributed "power" which allows a momentum of local exchange and flexibility. There only needs to be a few tens of millions in circulation. Right now most folk have a few hundred bucks at home or on their person. Without it your fallback is, within days, only people who have stores of gold, medicines and weapons being fucntional. That might be great for "preppy" survivalist types, but it's not a world I'd like to live in. Any government that eliminates physical cash entirely would be clinically insane and playing a very, very dangerous game. Given all the cyber-threats movement toward a "cashless society" is utterly premature from a safety perspective, regardless any social politics.
• walterbell 5y ago
  (2018) https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/11/are-we-moving-toward-a-cashless-economy/ https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2018/11/are-we-moving-toward... > There’s a lot of talk that the U.S. is moving toward a cashless economy…at least in the sense that people are using more and more “plastic” (credit and debit cards) for transactions and that cryptocurrencies are becoming more popular. One test of this theory is to look at currency in circulation. If this measure stops growing while the economy is growing, it would be an indication that other forms of money have become more important and are serving as substitutes for currency. The graph above tells a different story: Currency in circulation is consistently growing more than the economy is.
• verisimi 5y ago
  Its being forced though - its partly choice, partly lack of choice (forced). In my area there are shops that do not accept cash. How is that even legal?! Also, supermarkets have automated tills that only take cards. They also have ones that take cash - they all used to take cash - but the ratio is definitely swinging to card. Not to mention all the ATMs that are disappearing. So, this is a form of coercion. If you put all that together with a govcoin, the scene is set for tracking of everything.
• usrbinbash 5y ago
  The thing about "non-custodial-money": Unless someone is willing to literally hide a small fortune under his mattress, there is really no such thing; What's most peoples primary source of money? Jobs. How are these jobs paid? Usually as a wire transfer to some bank account. Custodial Money. Sure, someone could go to the ATM every payday and then actually hide the money. But this comes with lots of serious drawbacks: physical cash can be damaged, stolen, even forgotten. The Blorkchain is only the digital form of the mattress; drives can get damaged, hacks can happen, keys can be forgotten. Plus, with its volatility, even if no catastrophe strikes, it may well be that the money lost a lot of its worth at the point when it's needed.
• hrdwdmrbl 5y ago
  Related is people being booted from their other online accounts without any recourse. Banned from Google when it’s their mistake? Tough luck. What about Apple and you’re an iPhone user? Who could live without Amazon’s convenience?
• paypalthrowaway 5y ago
  I made a throwaway account just for this, because shame and stigma for being poor is super real. My PayPal got permanently banned because I owed them money. The reason I owed them money was because I lost my job and became permanently disabled due to COVID, and I took advantage of the fact that they floated money for a little bit before the ACH posted to my checking account in order to still be able to eat. Anyway, I just started the first job I’ve been able to work in two years with enough salary to pay the debt off with my first paycheck, but because I couldn’t for so long they have permanently closed my account and banned me from their service.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• dav_Oz 5y ago
  Excuse me for my pessimism but a short while ago I was reading and digging deep about the infamous Gulag-system in the Soviet Union roughly from 1920-1960. And after endless unimaginable suffering, excess of violence which just roamed free in those "zones" spanning over decades after it fizzled out when Stalin finally died - some little insight about human nature dawned upon me after striding through untold personal accounts: Those things begin and also end. So, yeah it roughly began in 2001 with the attack on civil liberties (Patriot-Act) and it will continue as there is no real opposition to it, the vast majority simply don't care, and after 30-40 years, one or two generations it will end. [0]The prospect of arrest and trial weighed heavy even on the highest-ranking Party member. Following their arrest, aware of the fate that awaited them, many immediately asked to sign their ‘confession’. Others, unable to comprehend what was happening, remained loyal to the Party, believing that it would eventually realise its mistake and reinstate them. ‘They were all tired men. The higher you got in the hierarchy, the more tired they were. I have nowhere seen such exhausted men as among the higher strata of Soviet politicians, among the Old Bolshevik guard. It was not only the effect of overwork, nervous strain and apprehension. It was the past that was telling on them, the years of conspiracy, prison and exile; the years of the famine and the Civil War; and sticking to the rules of a game that demanded that at every moment a man’s whole life should be at stake. They were indeed ‘dead men on furlough’, as Lenin had called them. Nothing could frighten them any more, nothing surprise them. They had given all they had. History had squeezed them out to the last drop, had burnt them out to the last spiritual calorie; yet they were still glowing in cold devotion, like phosphorescent corpses.’ Arthur Koestler, Arrow in the Blue, 1945, (quoted by: Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment, 1990). [0]https://archive.org/details/danzig-baldaev-drawings-from-the-gulag-2005/ https://archive.org/details/danzig-baldaev-drawings-from-the...
• bshell 5y ago
• daedlanth 5y ago
  I'll lock myself out of your "society" thank you very much, BYE!!!
• samfather 5y ago
  We don't have and don't want a cashless society. Anyone who says we do is your enemy.
• sebastianconcpt 5y ago
  Tanks in the streets make people uneasy, and filling jails with people who have, at most, an attenuated connection to illegal activity is not a good look. A smidge authoritarian, a tad dictatorial. So, faced with a three-week street protest that clogged downtown Ottawa, Trudeau did not follow his father’s example and call in the army or round up ideological sympathizers. He opted, instead, for less visible tools. But less visible doesn’t necessarily mean less severe. There’s more than one way to ruin someone’s life. ... * The government’s action is troubling enough, but what should really disturb us is the ease and invisibility with which it is being done. When we can’t see the consequences of government conduct, the risks of government misconduct increases. A government that sends in riot troops to dispel a crowd will rightly pay a price if the police commit abuses. But the diffuse and anonymous nature of financial enforcement mean that sweeping repression can easily go undetected. It is the political equivalent of using drone strikes instead of boots on the ground.* ... The fact that weaponizing the financial system against nonviolent protestors and their distant supporters was the government’s tool of first resort should worry anyone who understands the role of civil disobedience in democracy Canada's democracy was seriously wounded by the people currently controlling its government. What's going to heal it?
• anamax 5y ago
  Climate activists often blockade things. (Some are currently blocking access Germany's three biggest airports and say that they want to disrupt cargo and passenger traffic at said airports.) When should their access to money be blocked? "what-aboutism" is what we used to call equal protection under the law.
• spicybright 5y ago
  It sounds like the author lives somewhere upper class. I've never been to a business that can't take cash.
  • casion 5y ago
    I live in a "not affluent" city, and cashless is common. Many restaurants will not take cash. No hotels take cash. Some gas stations do not take cash. Grocery stores actively encourage cashless payments. etc... Is it more likely that you frequent places which are cash-centric? Coffee shops, independent retailers and the like?
    • lupire 5y ago
      independent vendors use square instead of cash.
      • casion 5y ago
        It's the opposite in my experience. If I go to the welding shop, it's cash only. Similar for other local shops that I frequent.
        • ghaff 5y ago
          I'd be surprised if that were the norm in most places in the US. I have a $20 bill stuck in my wallet--which I carry mostly as a backup in case something goes wonky with my phone--but I mostly don't carry cash except on trips and I expect I'm more careful than many.
          • phil21 5y ago
            You'll find a strong blue/white collar divide here, which also tends to follow rural/urban lines. Once you get into the trades and workshops, cash is king for obvious tax avoidance reasons. It's rare someone in such regions doesn't at least imply you can pay a portion of an invoice/bill with cash for a moderate discount. Small shops in those areas might be more apt to only accept cash, and you'll notice at chain stores like Dollar Tree the cashiers actually have cash handling skills vs. the affluent areas of the cities. For most places within the airline network, you can easily avoid paying cash these days. I still recommend anyone who travels keep enough cash on them to get back home in a pinch, if at all practical. This is personal anecdote, but I make it a point to pay cash whenever at all possible (to the point of being "that guy" in my friend group) so I likely pay attention to it more than most.
• throwaway22032 5y ago
  The simple answer is to reject the cashless society. In the medium to long term it's simply incompatible with any reasonable definition of freedom. Surveillance is bad enough, but a system that allows governments to arbitrarily "turn off" thousands or millions of people at the push of a button is too powerful to not be abused. Even the mere existence of such a system has a chilling effect. Which I suspect is precisely what these people want and is exactly why we can't give it to them. I'll take inconvenience over slavery any day of the week. This isn't some sort of anarcho-libertarian paradise opinion, I have no issue with there being a well functioning justice system. But yeah, if you want to seize assets, get a court order and go and lock someone in a box and take their things, don't take the cowardly way out and pretend that you've just flipped a database key and it's not really a big deal. By the same token, if you tell me there's been a murder on my street I'll give you the CCTV footage of my door cam. If you ask me for a backdoor, I'll tell you where to shove it. That's what being a member of a free society is, that seemingly minor distinction is one of the most important things we have and better minds than mine have sought to elaborate on why. Even a child is able to understand that force is still force regardless of whether it involves the direct visible physical kind.
  • trevormcneal 5y ago
    somehow people with the cognitive capacity of a rotten potato would call you science denier for being pro freedom. I'm not talking about vaccines and such, but being pro freedom as in being against a survilance state which can fuck you up at any time and has total control using coercion over all aspects of your life. We got at such stage in history which is impossible even to have an honest debate about freedom without having legal problems and risking our careers to just end. Let's hope internet still a safe place for this for a while.
  • mehdix 5y ago
    imho, we as a society have been rushing/forced to embrace new technology without really understanding the downsides. I use nowadays cash as much as possible. The notion that every single mundane payment of mine is being monitor, tied to some profile and bid in realtime terrifies me. And no, no payment provider has ever promised me that they won't do this. We had also cash cards in the past in Germany, to my understanding they would provide digital payment without tracking and central control, but they are deprecated.
• dumbfounder 5y ago
  I like the idea, but can’t they get around it with prepaid cards or (eventually) crypto? And rich people aren’t punished at all, they can always get someone else to do it. I think they would need to use an equivalent of a no-fly list, which would be hard to make every business to use, and also privacy crushing.
• nimbius 5y ago
  I would argue the contrary. Governments need to take the concept of a digital jail very seriously. Every use of the financial stick to silence dissent and protest makes all the more cogent an argument for cryptocurrency, especially untraceable forms such as Monero. traditional Kissinger style flexes of soft power, while effective in the past as KYC turned the fiat world into a tool of state, only serve to galvanize actors in the crypto sphere. the astute would argue that KYC ingress and egress control take some steps to extend the stately stick of monetary policy to where it could act similarly. freeze a protestors exchange account and youve accomplished nearly the same thing. However this merely stokes an arms race at the expense of a well funded industry of exchanges that are neither keen on enforcing arbitrary rules of a countries law, nor are they comfortable with the inevitable outcome of such enforcement: exodus and loss of trust. overzealous enforcement, or even the perception of such in this case could result in the collapse of the inroads to crypto altogether at a certain point, with industries simply dealing in crypto entirely as new means to earn $coin emerge at the state and local level, for example, companies that pay in $coin.
• john_moscow 5y ago
  >We don’t yet know how wide the government and the banks will cast their electronic dragnet, but the potential reach is enormous, which means the potential for overreach is significant. This is exactly what they did in Russia. If you consistently punish 100% of dissidents, you will end up with a large number of people that have nothing to lose, that will unite against you. If you instead make it clear that anyone demonstrating dissent would face a low (but non-negligible) chance of disproportionally severe consequences, most people will shut up and comply. Ironically, this is what terrorists do. They don't try to physically kill every citizen in the affected area, instead they demoralize the public by making them accept the fact that the next random bombing could be near their house. Things like due process, burden of proof and separation of branches of power were not invented our of nowhere.
• api 5y ago
  I'm really happy to see that many people from many places on the political landscape see "debanking" as a line that should not be crossed. A great point I overheard recently was that this precedent is likely to be used in Canada against indigenous peoples protesting resource extraction and other incursions onto their land. Now a blockade can be a "terrorist act," etc., and their finances can be frozen among other things. This power is not just going to be used against some wacky antivax truckers this one time and then forgotten about. I dislike the term "financial deplatforming" quite a bit as it minimizes the severity of freezing someone's assets. This isn't like being kicked off a media platform. Having your assets frozen doesn't just deprive you of your livelihood but also prevents you from defending yourself since lawyers cost money. It's one step short of imprisonment. It's also being done by the government. Get kicked off a private platform by the owners and you can just go elsewhere. That's not the case if the government is seizing your assets and also says its illegal for anyone else to do business with you.
  • sinyug 5y ago
    > I'm really happy to see that many people from many places on the political landscape see "debanking" as a line that should not be crossed. It depends on the politics of the people involved. The Obama DOJ executed Operation Choke Point nearly a decade back.[1] > Critics of the operation accuse it of bypassing due process; the government is pressuring the financial industry to cut off the companies' access to banking services including access to capital, without first having shown that the targeted companies are violating the law. Critics also say that "it's a thinly veiled ideological attack on industries the Obama administration doesn't like, such as gun sellers and coal producers." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
  • commandlinefan 5y ago
    > likely to be used in Canada against indigenous peoples Actually the emergency powers declaration specifically excludes indigenous people - that is, they can protest, but others can’t.
    • radford-neal 5y ago
• noetic_techy 5y ago
  Exactly correct. Anyone who is applauding this, just imagine the opposite political party in power using this against you or organizations you support. This is why no one should have been happy when executive orders became the norm in the US and congress did nothing. This is how you lose a senate and gain a Caesar, and look what happen to Rome eventually… Debanking someone who can now no longer pay for thier own defense is crazy overreach. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
  • Aurelius3 5y ago
    >This is how you lose a senate and gain a Caesar, and look what happen to Rome eventually… Canada will become the largest, longest lived empire of all time, spanning the entire Mediterranean world? That does sound like a dystopia.
  • throw0101a 5y ago
    > Anyone who is applauding this, just imagine the opposite political party in power using this against you or organizations you support. It was the opposite political party, the Conservative under PM Brian Mulroney, who wrote the Emergencies Act in the first place. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act#Legislative_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act#Legislative_hi...
    • nathanaldensr 5y ago
      I think this proves GP's point. Some people are finally starting to reject the "red vs. blue" false dichotomy.
      • BeefWellington 5y ago
        Canada hasn't had a "red vs blue" system for ages. Even during Mulroney's heyday there were at least five parties holding seats federally.
      • nickff 5y ago
        While I agree with you that we shouldn't think in 'red vs. blue' terms, the Emergencies Act was actually written because Justin Trudeau's father had undertaken even more extreme measures in the 1970s, while leader of the same party that Trudeau currently leads. This is a situation where the Liberal party has consistently taken extreme anti-civil liberties positions.
• mindvirus 5y ago
  I'm in agreement with the article and the linked Twitter thread about the dangers of a cashless society. Cashless is a place where I've definitely done a 180 - even 5 years ago I would have been 100% for a cashless and crypto based society. In addition to the power it would give governments and mobs as the article points out, there's already a growing group that's increasingly locked out of society as we transition to a more digital world: people in poverty and the undocumented (often one and the same). You can imagine how a cashless society can create increasing feedback loops of poverty as more and more goods and services are unobtainable to people on the bottom rungs of society.
• mrtesthah 5y ago
  If he’s concerned with rights derived from fungible instruments, I have to wonder why he chose the example of a group already able to raise millions and paints them as victims, while ignoring the millions of existing victims across society who, through homelessness or the injustice of the legal system, find themselves without bank accounts or credit cards, and suffer the material consequences of not being able to use many basic business services. The author could have chosen to stand in solidarity with those actually suffering, but instead clutches pearls over a theoretical wrong done to a group who never needed nor deserved that concern in the first place.
• adriand 5y ago
  I agree that this needs to be taken very seriously. However, the author overstates his case significantly when he writes: > Doing this to someone—a small business owner in BC, a public servant in Winnipeg, a student in Halifax—who made a small donation to support the convoy is a clear abuse of power. However: > The RCMP, banking sector and federal government said Monday that account-freezing powers bestowed under the Emergencies Act to help authorities deal with convoy protests do not affect donors to the protests, despite unsubstantiated claims by a Conservative MP that a constituent had her bank account frozen over a $50 contribution. > “At no time, did we provide a list of donors to Financial Institutions,” the RCMP said in a statement Monday. [1] Facts are important! 1: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-rcmp-banks-and-ottawa-say-convoy-protest-donors-wont-have-accounts/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-rcmp-banks-an...
  • raxxorrax 5y ago
    That is a statement, not necessarily a fact. Especially if the source is not trustworthy simply because they are part of the executive in this case. It probably is true, but it still is not a fact until it was verified, which is not trivial.
  • caylus 5y ago
    If anything this reinforces the author's point about the dangers of lack of transparency of "digital jail". How do we know that statement is true? It's hard to hide who has been jailed (though "disappearances" come close), whereas we have no choice but to take the word of the entity which we have granted unchecked power that it has not abused that power. There's also plenty of wiggle room in their statement - they said they froze the accounts of "influencers" and people they "suspect" committed illegal acts. If it turns out they did in fact freeze someone who just donated, they didn't technically lie if they can fit them into one of those vague groups.
    • makeitdouble 5y ago
      I have a hard time following this discussion because people are throwing around pretty dramatic statements without pause. > It's hard to hide who has been jailed None of the “influencers” we talk about are jailed. Nor does having your money frozen mean “jail”. It sure can be really bad and not without consequences, but even fully IRL we wouldn’t describe someone having all his possessions taken as jailed. Then govs have been freezing account under many pretenses for decades, except we now have a chance to get the affected people to come forward and explain they’re getting shafted. That wouldn’t happen a few decades ago, there was no way the local news would touch a story about some random peeps getting frozen under a terrorist charge for instance. Do you really think it’s worse now for activists than decades ago ?
• ddingus 5y ago
  We do, and frankly need to reject the cashless society. Cash is pretty great. I am a fan, and have all the usual, ordinary reasons most people do. Cashless seems like a goal others want, but most people probably don't.
  • MomoXenosaga 5y ago
    No COVID was the last push. Germs and all that.
    • robincpt 5y ago
      That's the point of making coins out of pure silver
    • moralestapia 5y ago
      I would be greatly surprised if cash were a vector for COVID.
      • nathanaldensr 5y ago
        > The CDC said people generally don’t get COVID-19 from touching surfaces. People generally get COVID-19 from direct contact with someone who is infected or through airborne transmission. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/science-and-research/surface-transmission.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/science-and-r...
      • selfhoster11 5y ago
        It doesn't matter. It still feels weird to pay in cash even if some countries are starting to relax COVID measures.
        • xanaxagoras 5y ago
          I've been paying in cash all throughout COVID, doesn't feel weird to me.
    • 5y ago
• ummonk 5y ago
  What happens when it's not the government doing it? What happens when Facebook's algorithms decide to cut you off from your friends? Or when Google decides to cut you off from your emails and cloud storage? When payment processors decide to kick your business off their network?
  • brandonmenc 5y ago
    What happens is we make laws to outlaw this behavior.
    • sneak 5y ago
      The laws always have carve-outs for national security. What if the orders to deny you banking or travel or communications that come prior to a trial come from the state itself? Laws can't fix this.
      • nathanaldensr 5y ago
        Agreed. Laws work when there is a shared ethical base between the People and the governments that represent them. Unfortunately, there isn't, if there ever was. The very idea that just because there's a law means 1) it's ethical, and 2) it'll be ethically enforced is foolish. I wish it weren't as I consider myself a highly ethical person. That doesn't mean I'll deny reality.
  • ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
    > Google decides to cut you off from your emails and cloud storage? I seem to remember some articles, on this very venue, recounting horror stories of being deplatformed by Google.
  • throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
    "They're a private company they can do what they want"
• flerchin 5y ago
  Freezing assets without due process is definitely the problem. Even before the digital age, most money was kept in the bank.
  • mateo1 5y ago
    Exactly. Its horrifying that this move wasn't publicly debated to the extend that it should.
• MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  [flagged]
• kragen 5y ago
  Another day, another answer to "What is Bitcoin good for?" Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30435383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30435383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30408611 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30408611
  • kragen 5y ago
    Update: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-event-feb23-1.6361847 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-event-feb23-1.63618...
  • tzs 5y ago
    Bitcoin increases the chances of a dystopian authoritarian future happening, precisely because for the most part the use cases where it actually works better than the regular banking system are when someone is trying to evade the law. Proponents like to imagine that people using it to evade the law will mostly be using it to evade unpopular laws such as laws that restrict civil rights, but I thinking they are being way too optimistic. There are far more people who are simply criminals and fraudsters who need to evade popular laws in order to blackmail or steal from or scam ordinary people than people who need to evade unpopular unjust laws. This will lead to public support for laws that extend things like KYC down to even small ordinary transactions and the government knowing how much you have and how much you spend and where it all came from and where it all goes. To make that work the government will need a lot more surveillance but the public will be fine with that.
    • kragen 5y ago
      > There are far more people who are simply criminals and fraudsters who need to evade popular laws in order to blackmail or steal from or scam ordinary people than people who need to evade unpopular unjust laws. Bless your heart. I hope you can preserve that innocence for many years to come — nobody in Venezuela or Argentina has the luxury of such ignorance†. So, even though I hope you can, I hope you choose not to. One correction, though: the people who were donating to the truckers' protest weren't evading any laws. Rather, the government is evading laws in its illegal crackdown, and Bitcoin is providing a means to limit its unlawful powers. ______ † Of course, not all of them think Bitcoin is a good idea! And they might be right.
• raspyberr 5y ago
  How are there so many comments that don't seem to understand you can have both. YOU can keep using cards for literally everything. Cash just need to exist and businesses should be forced to take it. That doesn't mean YOU have to use cash. YOU can live happily without it and use cards but the less well off should still have the right to use cash. But just because they may sometimes use cash that doesn't mean that YOU will be forced to carry cash. If cash exists that doesn't mean you have to use it. Why does it need to go into a permanent record that I gave my friend $10? Just to reiterate one last time... you can keep ignoring cash and live happily even if cash is around.
  • Nursie 5y ago
    As a small business owner, why do I need to deal with the extra expense of taking cash? I need to hold a float, take security measures to protect it, take time to count up, take time to go to a physical bank to deposit, all sorts of extra costs in staffing or just plain time. And all for a fraction of a percentage of my customer base. It just doesn't make sense and I don't see why I should carry that burden.
    • drsnow 5y ago
      It is a matter of principle.
      • undersuit 5y ago
        As a small business owner, why do I need to deal with the extra expense of accepting handicapped customers? I need to build a ramp, take preemptive measures to make it accessible in the weather, take time to wait for them to wheel across the office, take time to teach my employees how to be accommodating of them, all sorts of extra costs in staffing or just plain time. And all for a fraction of a percentage of my customer base. It just doesn't make sense and I don't see why I should carry that burden.
        • Nursie 5y ago
          And if we put 'black people' in there you could make me look like a racist too! Wow. There are many reasons your allegory doesn't apply - 'people who want to pay cash' are not a protected class. Serving people with disabilities doesn't put me at risk of theft either, nor does it increase my banking costs. You're going to have to show some pretty good evidence of a positive social outcome to make this persuasive, because it is adding a big burden to business. (And unbanked figures in the US are not that - US society is very backward in its attitudes to banking and payments, and in giving access to banking to everyone)
• a_shovel 5y ago
  If the problem is that accounts were being frozen without due process, then couldn't it be solved by adding some due process to it, instead of just banning freezing accounts outright? Treat it more like an arrest. People who are arrested still have rights; it should be the same here. It should be strong enough to limit criminals while still allowing the innocent proper recourse. Have a version of the writ of habeas corpus (habeas numus?) to quickly undo unlawful freezing. Maybe allow small amounts of money to be released to the accused, large enough to live on but too small to be of much use to criminals. Have an exception for paying for a lawyer. And if they're cleared, require banks not to keep records of the freezing to prevent discrimination. (Discussions of this topic should also all include a mention of civil forfeiture, which is effectively when police officers are legally allowed to rob you. This is a thing that already exists and happens regularly.)
  • LegitShady 5y ago
    It was lawful freezing, in the sense that the Emergency Act allowed them to avoid due process, and was passed by the major left leaning parties in Canada. You don't need to add due process, it was already there. They decided this was worth declaring a war level emergency to clear out some protestors in ottawa. The border blockades had already been cleared by then.
  • avs733 5y ago
    It's telling that so little of this conversation is conscious of who does and does not have access to 'a cashless society' and the myriad of ways the poor and working class are abused by it. Digital Jail? Seriously? Show me the concern when the feds seize the assets of someone they accuse of being a terrorist or a drug kingpin. HN suddenly cares about this because of some generalized hatred of Trudeau, but I can't remember a thread generating thousands of comments about companies trying to force employees to accept pay on fee heavy debit cards. The way that discussing a Canadian protest about vaccine mandates has come to take over HN feels bizarre, agenda pushy, and like a bunch of crocodile tears.
• y04nn 5y ago
  So there may be people that usually don't use cash, that made a small donation for something they believe in (a non violent protest), and are now unable to pay for their food, rent, car gas, medication… All of this without any trial, without being able to defend/explain themself. How is this a democracy?
• mark_l_watson 5y ago
  Excellent article and one that I wish my friends would read. Recently on a hike I mentioned how upsetting Trudeau’s actions are, and none of my friends had any idea what was happening up in Canada, except someone talked about a few things that I don’t believe are true: truckers were violent, few Canadians supported them, etc. - I think those things are not true. As other people here have pointed out, cashless society is just asking for brutal government overreach.
  • btbuildem 5y ago
    There's something I've learned about the HN crowd through this, that's for sure. Many here were supportive of the attempt at a christo-fascist uprising in Canada. Very thiely of y'all. In Canada, popular support for the convoy was around 30%, but it's a little more nuanced than that. Most are sick and tired of the health measures (duh) but very few actually approve of the way in which the protesting was carried out. EDIT: The downvotes kind of drive my point home. Thanks!
  • rpeden 5y ago
    Mark, I respect you and I enjoy reading your thoughtful messages on HN. I think you're missing a bit of context. I doubt many truckers were violent, but the truckers weren't the only one there. Their presence created a center of gravity that attracted many hangers-on, and from what I have seen, they've been the source of most of the problems. Also, it's not really about violence. It's about needlessly harming innocent citizens. Although this is happening right near Parliament, it's one of the poorest wards in the city. This isn't a neighbourhood full of the liberal elite sipping lattes while they work from home. It's students, and shift works, and retail workers just trying to live their lives. Consider things like this: https://twitter.com/glen_mcgregor/status/1488905393199890432 https://twitter.com/glen_mcgregor/status/1488905393199890432 Turn your sound on/up to get a sense of what that was like. Do you want to live in a society where that is ever okay in the name or protest? I sure don't. And that was filmed from a building a couple of hundred meters away from the trucks that were parked up Kent St. How do you think it felt for people living in these apartments right on Kent: https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4168826,-75.7005369,3a,75y,105.64h,95.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sanJDk6oHE-MaH9Amsi_YhQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.4168826,-75.7005369,3a,75y,10... For what it's worth (and I realize it's a small sample of a small portion of the population, so maybe it's not worth much), my friends in neighbours in my small Ontario town were initially generally supportive of what they saw as the truckers' core message, because "it's time to end vaccine mandates for truckers re-entering Canada" is a completely reasonable topic of protests. It's a good time to have that conversation. But the protest quickly evolved into something larger and messier than that core message, and sentiment in my small town quickly soured against the protest. What I've heard is recent conversations is that people feel the protest had lost the plot, the actions of some of the attendees in harming local citizens were beyond the pale, and it was time for the protest to end. There have been some objections to the way police ended the protest, but it looked relatively tame in comparison to other protest breakups here in recent memory like the Toronto homeless camps last summer, or the Montreal student protests, or the G20 protests. That's not to say it was done perfectly. I used to live a few blocks from Parliament Hill, and everybody living there is used to protests. We think protests are good and healthy and even necessary, even if we disagree with the protestors. This one quickly evolved into something beyond mere protest and turned residents against the protest who might otherwise have been sympathetic to its message. For some of the grievances local residents have, see lists like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/sh7qok/a_summary_of_events_at_the_protest_so_far/ https://www.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/sh7qok/a_su... Lists like that are, of course, one-sided. It's up to you how much of that information you choose to see as credible. Just realize that as someone from outside Canada, you're probably seeing a filtered version of events. That list above is also a filtered version of events, but it's a very different filter. Look at it through enough filters and you'll probably end up with a more complete understanding. Personally, I watched some of the live streams to learn more about the protests and hear from some of the actual truckers. Danny and Czaba and the couple from Saskatchewan with the puppies seemed like good people with legitimate grievances to protest about. At the same time, no amount of goodness makes the harm caused to local residents okay. I know it's easy to come down strongly on one side or the other of this, but I see the whole thing as a crappy tragedy for everyone involved. As for the government's response to all of this - we'll have plenty of opportunities to voice our opinion at the ballot box. Municipal and Provincial governments should have been able to manage this protest from the start without needing the feds to step in, and we have municipal and provincial elections this year. And with a minority government federally, we could have an election there at any time as well. Realistically it's unlikely we'll see one before next year - but we'll still get to express ourselves soon enough.
• fleddr 5y ago
  Young people may have never experienced actual freedom and privacy. Here goes. I grew up in the 80s, in Europe. The only thing the government knew of me was that I existed and which school I attended, and absolutely nothing else. There were no recording devices anywhere. My actions, my communication, my spending, all private. I was still a kid though. My dad worked and got cash in hand. It was also common to obscure parts of your income that way, but only "party money", as you don't want to overdo this. Society worked just fine, just to make the point that this supposed chaos of having pretty much no surveillance or data at all, did not lead to an abundance of crime, terrorism, or other issues conveniently folded under "national security". Which just shows that justifications for surveillance really are razor thin. Same for their effectiveness in actual stopping all that bad stuff. We all know what happened next, the rise of computing in business and government, and 9/11 as a perfect excuse to do the largest data grab ever, and to never ever dial that back. Then social networks and smartphones happened and anything ever is recorded, in the hands of private businesses, with back doors to the government. From knowing zero to knowing everything, it didn't take long. Same for finance. Where everybody freely transacted in a cash-based society, now it raises suspicion. You can't just withdraw a lot of cash, send an amount to a friend, cross a border or even pay with big bills. There's KYC and capital controls, you don't transact with privacy, are you nuts? The world would fall apart. We've all silently went along with it, because we're all good people and only criminals are affected by this. Furthermore, we live in stable democracies under the rule of law. Canada broke this expectation severely. Under the disguise of an "emergency law" they seized assets, redistributed them, forced private businesses to give up personal data, freeze bank accounts and block credit cards. Supposedly, even for second-hand interactions with protesters, such as donating to them. And shockingly, they do all of this with a straight face. I don't care how you feel about the protest itself. If it is indeed an illegal protest, you arrest the protestor, tell them which law they broke, and put them through the legal process. Which includes rights like the right to a defense, clear claims, a process by jury (or judge), and then a fine or prison time, based on earlier precedents and the book of law. You don't go and digitally "cancel" citizens without any form of process. If you believe this is warranted, flip the script and apply this arbitrary power to a protest that you do agree with. Say a right-wing government is in power, and there's new BLM protests. Would you be OK with the government tracking every protesters, arbitrarily requesting private data from private businesses you interacted with, and then financially wipe you out without any process at all? After this historical fly-by, we've learned that surveillance is additive. It never gets dialed back. We also learned that your private data is in no way private, also not when interacting with private businesses or your peers. We've learned that if technology allows for more surveillance it will be used and it will be abused. Digital level abuse is a sight to behold. A cop doesn't need to find you and carry you to jail and go through this annoying delicate process. No, a politician pushes a button and thousands of you will be dysfunctional. This thought is supposed to scare you, a lot. All this while, your personal freedom and privacy is shrinking. Rapidly. And we're not done yet. We're now entering the territory of what formerly would be considered conspiracy theories. I used to laugh at the following, but not anymore. There's crypto, which can be considered private, unregulated money. Digital money is inevitable so the government is waking up to the idea of digital (crypto) money issued by central banks. This version would not be anonymous, hence this marks the death of cash and transaction privacy. Everything you will ever transact from here on out is known. And can be blocked from a single point, or subject to approval. It also marks the death of private commercial banks. The central bank issues the currency as well as holds your "wallet". With this, some serious monetary policy can begin. Because crypto is programmable and monetary policy is running out of instruments, such is the health of our financial system. Are you hoarding too much money? Let me turn that dial of interest rate to negative 20%. Low consumer demand? Here's 100 new money for every citizen. Major environmental problems? Let me block the buying of oversized televisions directly from your wallet. Far-fetched? I don't think so. Think back of the 80s, the starting point. Think it won't happen? Think Canada. Let me remind you of the Panama papers. Did this huge group of people have their assets seized? Do any jail time? No. The big fish are cleared. All of this is for idiots like you and me.
• romaniv 5y ago
  > The government’s action is troubling enough, but what should really disturb us is the ease and invisibility with which it is being done. This is such a great point. I'm not sure why it needs to be made over and over again, but it seems that's the only way it doesn't get buried. Let's play a game. I will be the institution, you will be the person. You will get ability to record me with your cellphone and post stuff online to complain about various issues. I will get the ability to see all your financial transactions, listen to all your communications, track your location, arrest you when I don't like you recording me, smear you online and pressure companies to ban you from literally any service imaginable, including banking. Both of us will be bound by the legal framework, but when I don't like it, I will have the ability declare the state of emergency and scrap all the rules. Also, I will have sovereign immunity when I break the rules. Also, many of my actions will be secret because of national security. Oh, and I will be doing all the things described above using your money. Sounds fair?
  • btbuildem 5y ago
    You forgot the part that as an individual I am practically invisible to the institution, and it would take a mob of mes to attract Sauron's eye.
    • throw10920 5y ago
      In a digital world, the Eye of Sauron is multi-threaded. (your statement isn't true when it comes to virtual + automated surveillance)
      • daedlanth 5y ago
        My dagger is multi threaded too.
        • techdragon 5y ago
          It’s also smaller than a gnat’s tooth in terms of practical power against them.
      • 5y ago
• guyzero 5y ago
  Come on, this is a partisan hit piece. Which is too bad because it's a legitimate and serious issue, but any pretense of objectivity went out the door when we get to "Howard Anglin... was previously Deputy Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Principal Secretary to the Premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney" Call me when he starts going after long-standing issues like civil forfeiture: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-administrative-civil-forfeiture-data-part-one-1.5180022 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-administr...
  • avs733 5y ago
    completely agree. as if cash can't be seized. "For most of history, we have thought about deprivation of liberty in quite literal terms. Short of execution, which Canada hasn’t done in 60 years, locking someone up has been the ultimate state sanction." To open with such a statement is, frankly, ridiculous coming from anyone in Canada in this day and age. No mention of the genocidal tendencies towards the indigenous populations? No? Jail is clearly the worst thing that can happen to anyone.
• mike00632 5y ago
  This author is saying that we all need to 'accept the new reality' of digital money... but they won't accept the new reality of COVID and vaccinations. Seems like the author is just picking and choosing what aspects of reality to accept based on politics.
• NickNameNick 5y ago
  The Reserve Bank Of New Zealand recently said that it's going to cost about NZ$100/per person, per year to continue maintaining NZ's cash 'system'. It's beginning to research how that cost should be minimised, and how it should be recouped, because if vendors start charging cash-handling fees, it's likely to be unfairly distributed.
• justinzollars 5y ago
  Governments have a nearly perfect record of moving towards tyranny. Who could have anticipated Canada's move? I would have guessed Donald Trump would have attempted such a move against BLM protestors, but the move came from the Left. The media, is almost completely silent, and not one western government condemned Canada's actions.
• yellowapple 5y ago
  This is why I roll my eyes every time someone goes off on some tirade about how cryptocurrency is a scam. Yeah, grifters exist. No, that doesn't make the most viable alternative we have to these centralized digital monetary systems any less vital. My BTC can't be frozen, and my ADA can't be seized during a traffic stop. I strongly disagree with the antivax protestors currently the subject of these measures; I think they're all plague-enthusiast morons and should go home already. I also recognize that using such measures against these protestors makes it that much easier to use the same measures against protestors with whom I do agree (like, say, First Nations folks trying to reassert their right to the lands stolen from them), and that it's absolutely prudent to prepare for that eventuality should my government on this side of the US/Canada border opt for a similar strategy (as police here in the US already do rather routinely via civil asset forfeiture).
  • erichocean 5y ago
    > My BTC can't be frozen Governments can make it a felony (jail time, fines) to interact with your wallet, effectively freezing it. And because bitcoins are infinitely traceable, governments can make any bitcoins that at any time originated from your wallet property of the state (i.e. any wallet held in an exchange that comes in possession of one of your coins can have those coins confiscated). Your bitcoins become frozen and/or worthless to 3rd parties. Yes, you can try and operate outside that system by only transacting with wallets that are also frozen (or that are happy being frozen, transitively). Good luck with that. Bitcoin's key functionality (all transactions are infinitely traceable) is the main reason it is so easy to regulate in the real world. (The simplest approach for regulators implementing this system is to declare ALL wallets frozen, and to require public registration of wallets to unfreeze them, e.g. by being on an exchange with existing KYC laws. This makes all new private wallets useless prior to registration, and makes it a felony to transact with unregistered wallets. Exchanges would then literally prevent people from transacting with unregistered bitcoin wallets. Existing KYC laws are sufficient for governments to regulate bitcoins in this way.)
    • yellowapple 5y ago
      > Governments can make it a felony (jail time, fines) to interact with your wallet, effectively freezing it. Governments already make it a felony to possess various illicit substances above a certain quantity. That hasn't done much to curtail the drug trade. More to the point: if a government attempted this, it would open up every other Bitcoin user to a DoS attack; I would just need to send some money around to well-known addresses to "freeze" those wallets, too. > And because bitcoins are infinitely traceable, governments can make any bitcoins that at any time originated from your wallet property of the state (i.e. any wallet held in an exchange that comes in possession of one of your coins can have those coins confiscated). They would need to control the private keys in order to actually perform that confiscation. Tokens are the property of whomever actually controls the wallet; the feds can "freeze" however much they like, but there ain't really much they can do outside of a very targeted attack (i.e. one such that the costs of performing that attack vastly outweigh the benefit unless I'm some Bitcoin millionaire and I'm careless enough to keep everything in a single wallet). > (The simplest approach for regulators implementing this system is to declare ALL wallets frozen, and to require public registration of wallets to unfreeze them, e.g. by being on an exchange with existing KYC laws. This makes all new private wallets useless prior to registration, and makes it a felony to transact with unregistered wallets. Exchanges would then literally prevent people from transacting with unregistered bitcoin wallets. Existing KYC laws are sufficient for governments to regulate bitcoins in this way.) All that would accomplish would be to shift traffic to exchanges that operate outside KYC (which was always possible, given that there's nothing stopping two people from exchanging cryptocurrency for other things in meatspace, including fiat currency or actual goods/services). It would also, again, open up the KYC wallets to a DoS; if even so much as a single transaction from an unregistered wallet is enough to feloniously taint a registered wallet, then a malicious actor with even a tiny amount of money to burn could do so pretty easily and turn all sorts of innocent people into felons overnight - rendering such a regulation useless.
• manesioz 5y ago
  All the more reason to buy and transact with privacy-preserving currency like Monero and wholeheartedly reject CBDCs.
• Blackstrat 5y ago
  In a cashless society, we are all poor. The government controls everything.
• Pxtl 5y ago
  > In a Twitter thread that has been liked almost 32,000 times Eyeroll.
• aftbit 5y ago
  Some seriously questionable decisions have been made by executive branches in the last few years. Just to name one other that sticks out to me, though less severe, IMO the mayor of LA should not be able to unilaterally order utilities to turn off water and power to peoples' houses.[1] 1: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/08/19/904053260/los-angeles-mayor-shuts-off-power-at-hollywood-hills-house-that-hosted-large-par https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...
  • raxxorrax 5y ago
    At least he should have a little ounce of decency and step down after such measures. We should also attach that to any emergency power in my opinion.
• valachio 5y ago
  This post just seriously changed my outlook on cryptocurrencies.
• beloch 5y ago
  The most concerning thing about Trudeau's use of the Emergencies Act is that it was both unnecessary and, despite the protests being quelled, ongoing. First, the police in Ottawa chose not to enforce even basic laws in the area of the protest for several weeks. The result was lawlessness and a total lack of respect for the police. They were being jeered at for putting threatening flyers under windshield wipers one day, and the next they brought in armoured vehicles and riot squads. If the police had consistently written tickets and made arrests from the start of the protest it likely would not have grown as large as it did. Presently, Trudeau is keeping the Emergencies Act in effect, not because there is an ongoing emergency, but because there might be. He's argued that some of the protesters have not left Ottawa and might return to the protest site if given the chance to do so, but there is nothing in the Emergency act that is required for the police to maintain peace and order. Trudeau wants the act to remain in effect for other reasons apparently. The opposition is introducing a motion in parliament to end the Act, but that will likely fail unless Trudeau loses the NDP's support. However, the senate could also end the Act at any time. Given that the emergency is over they should do just that. It is entirely unclear what Trudeau hopes to accomplish by holding onto these powers.
  • zionic 5y ago
    > It is entirely unclear what Trudeau hopes to accomplish by holding onto these powers. It’s really quite clear
  • allisdust 5y ago
    Is it really unclear? There are examples from other countries. Erdogan got emergency powers during a coup and continued to hold on to them for a long time and before finally giving up, he made enough changes in the constitution and law that effectively he retains all of them. I see the same pattern here. I would be surprised if there is going to be another PM ever in Canada. If it sounds ridiculous, think about the fact that current government is a Minority one. The way they gather support is by showing carrot and stick to the rest of the parties. And these emergency powers are a big stick just waiting to be used at the right time.
    • 5y ago
• pcdoodle 5y ago
  Money is speech. The corporations have benefited and so shall we.
• elzbardico 5y ago
  At least I had the right of a judgement and the right to have a defense attorney on the old system. Err... I think I pass this one.
• Gadiguibou 5y ago
  Since I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere in the comments so far, it's worth noting that the author has clear political allegiances. From the author's bio near the bottom of the article: > Howard Anglin is a post-graduate researcher at Oxford University. He was previously Deputy Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Principal Secretary to the Premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney, and a lawyer in New York, London, and Washington, DC. I don't think this invalidates the argument in any way. I do think that it should raise a red flag however. Comparing the October crisis to the freezing of trucker funds partially raised by Nazis still seems a bit far-fetched to me after reading the article.
  • MonsieurMoony 5y ago
    > partially raised by Nazis Any evidence for this claim?
    • Gadiguibou 5y ago
      I remembered reading this in the Globe and Mail article about the leaked GiveSendGo list of donors, but it seems I was wrong. I'm sorry for not checking my sources when posting this. I'm not sure why I can't edit the original message. I could confirm however that the movement including its leaders had ties with neo-Nazi groups and that Nazi flags were flown in the convoy. Here's the Wikipedia article with more than enough sources to support those claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_convoy_protest?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_convoy_protest?wprov=sf...
• photochemsyn 5y ago
  What good is money if it can't buy you the services you require?
• j_d_b 5y ago
  Freezing the assets of anarchists rioting in the streets is wonderfully Canadian, and I salute you. But locking people out of the banking system is not just limited to digital realities, I know because I had my bank account taken away from me 30 years ago. The practice of locking people out of the banking system, usually because they deserve it, is in fact exactly what is fueling the check cashing industry. It is what creates a subclass of homeless people. So I guess I'm just trying to say that this is nothing new, and it is certainly not unique to the experience of a few anarchists who don't want to wear their masks.
• harry8 5y ago
  If you consider this a reasonable thing to have some concerns about, doesn't Moxie looking at anonymous digital cash in signal start to make a lot more sense. Not endorsing any details of the what or how of it on the basis that I don't understand it. But if criticisms of it start with "Having some fallback for digital monetary transfer seems like a good idea." Then what can you actually do if you're signal. Criticise what could really in a practical, pragmatic way work better to that end seems more worthwhile than most of what I've read about it.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• visiblink 5y ago
  I don't generally agree with these protestors, but the government's approach to shutting them down is a major threat to freedom in Canadian society. Freezing their bank accounts when they have not been proven guilty of any crime is an abuse of power. Interfering with the social funding drives of a political resistance movement sets a precedent that might affect all political protest in the future. I don't know what to think of the staged media campaign smearing people for bringing their kids to a protest. Should the state be able prevent you from exposing your kids to your deepest convictions? Maybe they should have smeared my parents for taking me to church, women's centers, and union picnics. If the police and government had taken the appropriate steps at the outset of this protest (parking tickets, towing vehicles, laying charges for blocking streets), none of this would be even close to necessary now. But as the article points out, that would be very visible, and would require a bit of political courage.
  • JamisonM 5y ago
    Freezing bank accounts when you have not been convicted of a crime happens all the time and is the way things have to work. If you let money flow freely in the banking system contingent on criminal convictions any old drug cartel could pay you a million bucks after you serve your time to let 100 million flow through your accounts or whatever. If you can't freeze accounts without an arrest that is already too slow. It is the way the banking system already works. There is no "staged media campaign" to smear people, the media was reporting on the fact that having kids in the red zone had become illegal with the emergency orders. Kids come to protests all the time, it is not a big deal, but when the cops hand out flyers telling you that you have to leave and you don't, keeping your kids there with you, you are going to get some extra attention - it is not remotely comparable to church, women's centres, or union picnics. If you brought your kids to walk the line with you on a wildcat strike that might be comparable.. if the cops had handed you a flyer saying they were going to forcibly remove your picket line soon. I agree that early enforcement may have made a difference - but it is clear from the reporting that towing vehicles at the outset was never an option - the towing firm that moved a shack /at the request of the protestors/ received a huge amount of harassment. In other cities pre-emptive measures were successful - sometimes by the police and sometimes by citizens. In my most generous moments I sometimes can forgive the OPS for thinking that this wasn't that big a deal at the start.
• Bud 5y ago
  Ok, fine, perhaps we need to take Trudeau's measures more seriously, and the ramifications of his measures, but guess what else we need to take seriously? The current threat of Trump-inspired fascism worldwide. Of which the "protests" in Canada are but one facet.
  • 0xy 5y ago
    Fascists and dictators alike have used banks as weapons against classes of people they disagree with. [1] [2] [3] It seems you are okay with these methods as long as they're used on your political opponents. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsbank#Nazi_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsbank#Nazi_period [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Finance_(Soviet_Union)#Duties_and_responsibilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Finance_(Soviet_Un... [3] http://www.commartrecovery.org/docs/EnglishAnselmiReport.pdf http://www.commartrecovery.org/docs/EnglishAnselmiReport.pdf
    • Bud 5y ago
      You're right. I'm totally more fine with using these measures against Nazis, as opposed to, say, non-Nazis. Thanks for helping me to clarify that!
• freakynit 5y ago
• agentultra 5y ago
  As for whether the Emergencies Act is over-reaching, I disagree. We're not talking about a lawful protest here. We're talking about a well-funded occupation of public lands with an indefinite duration to the demonstration. Where those funds came from is going to be really interesting to the courts, as we've seen in the bail hearings today, because if they came from foreign powers with the intent to disrupt economic or democratic processes in Canada -- that definitely pushes the needle away from peaceful protest and towards occupation. I think people implying that this now gives the government the ability to put down protests by freezing everyone's accounts is misinformed. The Emergencies Act still requires any government action to be bound by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada -- everyone arrested is getting their day in court, those who are not directly involved in the occupation will eventually get access to their funds again, I'm sure. It also require co-operation from different levels of government. It gives the government extra powers to deal with unprecedented circumstances which is exactly what has been happening in Canada. It was a very targeted response and the most infuriatingly peaceful ones I've seen. Everyone involved in this occupation was given more opportunities to leave than I've seen given to actual, legal protestors in similar demonstrations. The key story seems to be that there was no intention to ever disperse and leave. And the folks organizing this occupation were encouraging more people to stay and were accepting funding to help ensure they could stay. Is getting your account frozen devastating? Absolutely. No question. Was it the right response for the government to freeze the accounts of people supporting this occupation? Absolutely. Violence wasn't going to solve this and would incite more violence. Most people who donated a few bucks to their fundraising drives will get a shock and life will go back to normal. It's the people who funded this occupation that the authorities are after and it will come to light soon I'm sure. Cash hasn't gone anywhere yet either. Merchants in Canada are still legally required to accept it and ought to -- I can agree with that.
  • raxxorrax 5y ago
    This is the reality of globalism, which you have to accept. Of course it was an executive overreach. I have seen no evidence of violence and non-disruptive protests do not get results.
  • avs733 5y ago
• devmunchies 5y ago
  Are there anonymous prepaid card networks I could use? It’s the best of both worlds, convenience of using a card but refill it with cash at a CVS or whatever. A google search shows the Netspend cards (cards for people without bank accounts).
• quadcore 5y ago
  Ive seen KYC/KYB in action lately - it has long left the financial sector, police is now virtually behing every door. Policing at every corner benefits a few and seriously treaten equal opportunities. So I've came to some beginning of a conclusion. The idea would be to have a constitutional right to a grey area. The phylosophical rational would be that it's useful to human life, democracy and equal opportunities. Some extreme policing practice (like KYC, banking and digital policing, even adn in some cases) couldn't be used against you unless you're commiting a very (very) serious crime (5-10+ years of imprisonment for example). That would work with what ive seen lately, that would work against terrorism and money laudering and it would work for those canadian protesters as well. If police would want to catch a 2 year crime, they got to roll up their sleeves or wait for it to be become more severe. Im starting to like the idea a bit more (though its certainly quite a rough diamond if it works at all).
• zaptheimpaler 5y ago
  I don’t know how Trudeau/Freeland could possibly be this idiotic. The protestors played it smart - they were peaceful yet strategic in blocking major import/export roads so the government actually felt the pain. Instead of even talking to them, the government permanently damaged a large number of peoples trust in any financial institutions. As a practical matter, how do I begin to move towards unseizable assets? Crypto is popular but several crypto wallets were frozen as well, including a Monero wallet. All crypto exchanges in Canada require KYC. Literal cash or precious metal is maybe an option but getting through an airport with a bag of $50K in cash wouldn’t be easy or safe, especially when you land in another country which might have open corruption and you’re not a citizen.
  • btbuildem 5y ago
    The emergency wasn't a bunch of churchy rednecks blocking roads, silly. The emergency was Ottawa police doing nothing, Windsor police doing nothing, OPP doing nothing, RCMP doing nothing, Ontario provincial govt doing nothing, Alberta provincial govt doing nothing -- for almost a month. We came really close to a crisis of faith in our system of governance. The federal govt (in my opinion) didn't have much of a choice but to bring out the big guns. It just demonstrates to me how broken politics are in this country, that individual politicians are so focused on their own advancement that they could not see they were endangering the very system they're parasites of.
  • LegitShady 5y ago
    >The protestors played it smart - they were peaceful yet strategic in blocking major import/export roads so the government actually felt the pain. You have to understand that this is not one group of protestors. The border blockades were cleared without the emergency act. The emergency act was used specifically against the protestors by parliament in ottawa. The government used using a CBC article talking about threat of border blockades to justify using this emergency act against the protestors in ottawa who had nothing to do with the border blockades. It's like using actions of a third party in new york to justify quashing protestors in washington DC. and the NDP helped the Liberals pass it. The Liberals should be required to change their party name to something else, because they aren't. I am not a believer in crypto but the current government here is convincing me quickly.
• Robotbeat 5y ago
  Honestly, cash is pretty great. It's scalable, anonymous, and it works if the power or the internet stop working.
  • visiblink 5y ago
    > and it works if the power or the internet stop working. You need to explain that to my hardware store.
• throwaway_fbfh 5y ago
  Fact that whole of liberal caucuses and NDP voted for this aberration is bad news. It is an open season on anyone who is member or supported People’s party. Totalitarians having tasted the pandemic power do not seem to want to relinquish it(surprise! lol)
• IronIvan 5y ago
  Inflation all by itself is already effectively creating a cashless society over time, at least if no new notes with larger denomination are being printed (and historically speaking, the trend has even been the opposite, namely there used to be 500, 1.000, 5.000 and 10.000 dollar bills up until 1969 [1]). So this has been a long time in the making, really. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_one-hundred-dollar_bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_one-hundred-doll...
• thompson1 5y ago
  [dead]
• trinovantes 5y ago
  Don't think we're in a cashless society yet. There's a lot of places that are cash only (presumably to evade taxes)
• rdevsrex 5y ago
  This is exactly what Maajid Nawaz was talking about on the JRE recently. There is a big push for a centralized digital currency that your employer or the state can prevent you from spending money on certain things. But even without that, they can still freeze your accounts. Just look at GoFundMe handled the donations intended for the Canadian truckers. This is the infrastructure for turn key totalitarianism.
• ladallada 5y ago
  I think the article brings good points, but I also think it ignores something important, the alternatives... You can agree or disagree as much as you want with the current situation, but at some point, there has to be ways for a society to enforce its laws. Ideally you want to be in a society that define laws collaboratively, where you have a say in them, with a vote for example, and where the laws are applied fairly to everyone, without preferential treatment or specific targeting. And you'd want a process for people to asses and review if the law needs to be enforce in a particular case or not and what that looks like. But you still need a way to enforce them somehow. Ok, so let's say a group of people is indeed doing something that isn't right by the laws, and let's accept for arguments sake that you agree with that. Now how do you enforce the laws on that case? You could tear gas them, hit them with batons, point guns at them, handcuff them, and physically force them to comply, and lock them up if needed. Or you can use softer methods, like temporarily freeze their accounts and funds, starving them of resource until they comply. Yes, both methods are serious, they're meant to force you to follow the laws. So I agree that both are a big deal, but between the two, I think the latter is much better overall, and a lot more civil in my opinion.
  • teddyh 5y ago
    > a lot more civil in my opinion. Reminds me of this exchange in Office Space: Bob 1: We can’t actually find a record of [Milton] being a current employee here. Bob 2: I looked into it more deeply, and I found that apparently what happened is that he was laid off five years ago, and no one ever told him about it. But, through some kind of glitch in the payroll department he still gets a paycheck. Bob 1: So we just went ahead and fixed the glitch. Boss: So, Milton has been let go? Bob 1: Well, just a second there professor, we fixed the glitch. So he won’t be receiving a pay check anymore, so it’ll just work itself out naturally. Bob 2: We always like to avoid confrontation whenever possible. The problem is solved from your end.
• sgjohnson 5y ago
  Trudeau's bank account freeze is the reason why the next time I'll be in the United States, I'll open a US bank account and transfer some savings there. (I'm a European, and not a US person). I've heard that US banks are extremely friendly to non-residents (at least the ones who know to deal with them and hand out a W8-BEN form to fill) Then my money will be safe. Unless I piss off the United States Federal Government that is. But I don't plan on doing anything that would put me on OFAC list, so I should be fine. The US is actually a tax haven for non-residents. They have made every country in the world (that matters, anyway) to comply with FATCA and OECD CRS, yet they themselves don't do OECD CRS.
  • 4ad 5y ago
    As a non US-resident with a US bank account, I think you are vastly underestimating how difficult it is to actually achieve this. You are also required to disclose any such US accounts to your european financial institutions that you work with.
    • sgjohnson 5y ago
      I've got a friend who just walked into a Wells Fargo branch, and basically all he had to do was to fill out a W8-BEN form. No SSN, no ITIN. His passport number was apparently a perfectly fine substitute. This was some years ago though, but assuming not much has changed, I don't think it'd be too difficult.
  • ekns 5y ago
    Inflation is likely to remain high for a while, and perhaps for good so the value of your USD will go down. Rents and stuff rose 20% or so in the US which ought to be indicative of the real rate of inflation. Euro seems to fare better so far but the ECB printed even more euros than the US printed dollars so I'm minimizing my own euro exposure.
    • sgjohnson 5y ago
      Virtually 100% of my assets are USD denominated anyway, I keep very little savings, everything that I don't spend goes straightly to the stock portfolio. So inflation and FX isn't really a concern for me, it's just a fact of life. If you're keeping a decent investment portfolio in Europe, it's almost certainly mostly in USD.
• 8bitsrule 5y ago
  A truly cashless society is impossible to create. Nature abhors a vacuum. Capital is for capitalists. Others will use other, old, familiar means of exchange; the media will be visible or not. Attempts to keep good neighbors from good-will sharing of their time and energy will fail. Noone can pile up enormous stores of caring to stand on and crow.