5 ms·

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?
            • themacguffinman 4y ago
              Because it's easier to enforce non-recording violations when transaction records are automated. The government does try to crack down on businesses that don't record, but it's difficult due to the nature of cash.
              • hellojesus 4y ago
                With third party doctrine in the US, the gov is allowed to get all data from 3td parties, so blocking cash is the equivalent of giving the gov all your data without need for a warrant. While I understand this article is about Israel, such cash blocking laws would be death to private transactions in the US.