9 ms·

I believe that people deserve the right / ability to spend their money as they see fit regardless of transaction size, anonymously. Why does the bank / governm

I believe that people deserve the right / ability to spend their money as they see fit regardless of transaction size, anonymously. Why does the bank / government need to know were/how I'm spending my money? I'm already taxed when I'm paid every month, I pay my property taxes. This is not about tax evasion or money laundering for me.

themacguffinman 4y ago
> Why does the bank / government need to know were/how I'm spending my money? Because they need that information to identify and trace tax evasion and money laundering. > This is not about tax evasion or money laundering for me. Oh, since you said so, I guess it must be true. No need for the government to actually check using information.
- akomtu 4y ago
  Ah, the familiar argument: because a few bad guys out there do bad things, we gotta put cuffs on every citizen.
  - themacguffinman 4y ago
    Help, my movements are restricted because I'm cuffed! Oh, wait, government access to transactions doesn't restrict anything and is nothing like being cuffed.
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      It's not just government access; it's also the handing over of nearly every transaction to a private entity, whom can sell your transaction data to whomever they'd like at will. This isn't all about government overstep. It's also about the giving up of your privacy to for-profit entities. Regarding the gov: In the US, citizens have protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Forcing nearly all transactions into the view of the gov is an unreasonable search.
      - themacguffinman 4y ago
        Then regulate it. Government regulation is the solution to private sector overreach, private entities already cannot just sell any data to anyone, the government does not let private entities run amok like this. The US government regulates itself on the circumstances to which it can search data it already has the power to obtain all the time. Searches become unreasonable when law enforcement does not provide a valid reason to search & acquire information in front of the judiciary. But if the judiciary rules it to be reasonable, the government should have a way to obtain such data. Promoting the use of untraceable transactions like cash is essentially preventing the government from ever procuring any relevant data even if it would be reasonable and relevant.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        Ah, but the government still needs a reason to snoop. That's the point, and using an anonymous mechanism of transaction, such as cash, cannot be the government's argument for why they need the data, because that would necessarily mean that the gov has the right to all data, which the 4th ammendment specifically prohibits.
        themacguffinman 4y ago
        If you want to ban the government from requesting searches with "this person used cash" as a reason, then go ahead. But if they have another good reason to look at someone's transaction data then the data should exist to be searched. Law enforcement can still need to produce a reason for why they need to search the data, but with anonymous transactions the data simply does not exist. The government can (and does) require transactions to be recorded without asking to search that data at the same time.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        Cash transactions are still required to be recorded, so why then ban cash and not go after those that aren't recording their transactions?
- ilammy 4y ago
  > No need for the government to actually check using information. But do they need to check that for every citizen without a warrant in close to real-time? Is panopticon the only way for it to be effective? Is this what citizens want?
  - themacguffinman 4y ago
    No one needs to do anything. You are free to vote for a regression to the era when financial crimes were rampant and almost impossible to discover, let alone investigate.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- bavell 4y ago
  > Because they need that information to identify and trace tax evasion and money laundering. Isn't that what IRS audits are for? This discussion reminds me of the automatic CSAM scanning on phones (Apple iirc?). Seems like a noble cause but you sure are handing over a lot of power.
  - themacguffinman 4y ago
    How do you think audits would work if the IRS has no other information that they can use to verify and cross-check your claims?
    - bavell 4y ago
      How do you think they did it before computers?
      - themacguffinman 4y ago
        They did it poorly. The past was rampant with organized crime that was fairly difficult to discover let alone trace. Modern accounting laws make it difficult to hide dirty money and help ensure that we have the tools to trace and collect evidence to take down criminal enterprises when we pursue them. You also had a lot of tax fraud. It was easy to lie about things like how many children you had for tax discounts, so people often did. This particular loophole was closed by Social Security Numbers, but the principle is the same: records deter lies. The IRS often knows how much tax you should pay before you file.

themacguffinman 4y ago

> Why does the bank / government need to know were/how I'm spending my money? Because they need that information to identify and trace tax evasion and money laundering. > This is not about tax evasion or money laundering for me. Oh, since you said so, I guess it must be true. No need for the government to actually check using information.

akomtu 4y ago
Ah, the familiar argument: because a few bad guys out there do bad things, we gotta put cuffs on every citizen.
- themacguffinman 4y ago
  Help, my movements are restricted because I'm cuffed! Oh, wait, government access to transactions doesn't restrict anything and is nothing like being cuffed.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    It's not just government access; it's also the handing over of nearly every transaction to a private entity, whom can sell your transaction data to whomever they'd like at will. This isn't all about government overstep. It's also about the giving up of your privacy to for-profit entities. Regarding the gov: In the US, citizens have protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Forcing nearly all transactions into the view of the gov is an unreasonable search.
    - themacguffinman 4y ago
      Then regulate it. Government regulation is the solution to private sector overreach, private entities already cannot just sell any data to anyone, the government does not let private entities run amok like this. The US government regulates itself on the circumstances to which it can search data it already has the power to obtain all the time. Searches become unreasonable when law enforcement does not provide a valid reason to search & acquire information in front of the judiciary. But if the judiciary rules it to be reasonable, the government should have a way to obtain such data. Promoting the use of untraceable transactions like cash is essentially preventing the government from ever procuring any relevant data even if it would be reasonable and relevant.
      - hellojesus 4y ago
        Ah, but the government still needs a reason to snoop. That's the point, and using an anonymous mechanism of transaction, such as cash, cannot be the government's argument for why they need the data, because that would necessarily mean that the gov has the right to all data, which the 4th ammendment specifically prohibits.
        themacguffinman 4y ago
        If you want to ban the government from requesting searches with "this person used cash" as a reason, then go ahead. But if they have another good reason to look at someone's transaction data then the data should exist to be searched. Law enforcement can still need to produce a reason for why they need to search the data, but with anonymous transactions the data simply does not exist. The government can (and does) require transactions to be recorded without asking to search that data at the same time.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        Cash transactions are still required to be recorded, so why then ban cash and not go after those that aren't recording their transactions?
ilammy 4y ago
> No need for the government to actually check using information. But do they need to check that for every citizen without a warrant in close to real-time? Is panopticon the only way for it to be effective? Is this what citizens want?
- themacguffinman 4y ago
  No one needs to do anything. You are free to vote for a regression to the era when financial crimes were rampant and almost impossible to discover, let alone investigate.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
bavell 4y ago
> Because they need that information to identify and trace tax evasion and money laundering. Isn't that what IRS audits are for? This discussion reminds me of the automatic CSAM scanning on phones (Apple iirc?). Seems like a noble cause but you sure are handing over a lot of power.
- themacguffinman 4y ago
  How do you think audits would work if the IRS has no other information that they can use to verify and cross-check your claims?
  - bavell 4y ago
    How do you think they did it before computers?
    - themacguffinman 4y ago
      They did it poorly. The past was rampant with organized crime that was fairly difficult to discover let alone trace. Modern accounting laws make it difficult to hide dirty money and help ensure that we have the tools to trace and collect evidence to take down criminal enterprises when we pursue them. You also had a lot of tax fraud. It was easy to lie about things like how many children you had for tax discounts, so people often did. This particular loophole was closed by Social Security Numbers, but the principle is the same: records deter lies. The IRS often knows how much tax you should pay before you file.