3 ms·

Then regulate it. Government regulation is the solution to private sector overreach, private entities already cannot just sell any data to anyone, the governmen

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.
        themacguffinman 4y ago
        Then change it in the legislature if that's what you want. That's what the Stored Communications Act did for ISPs, otherwise all ISP records would be subject to Third Party Doctrine. Thankfully the US chose to update its regulation to match modern usage of technology instead of going "oh no, the government now has access to our ISP records, we shouldn't transition anything important to the internet because that will be the death of private communications". It doesn't make much difference to me personally, bank records have never been subject to 4th amendment protections and Americans don't freak out about that, don't see why financial transactions are much different. Cash transactions are already not supposed to be private because records are supposed to be kept, it's just easy not to keep records which is a fact exploited by criminals.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        Of course cash transactions were supposed to be private. There is no need to record the parties involved in a transaction; only that the transaction pays applicable taxes. Did you forget that income tax didn't exist in the US until the 16th ammendment? And that ammendment made no specification that every transaction must be recorded for gov inspection. Regarding ISPs, you can still hide that info from the gov by routing through a no-log vpn. Your proposal seemingly prohibits that type of mask, purposely. We cannot give up individual freedoms because it makes police work harder.

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.
      - themacguffinman 4y ago
        Then change it in the legislature if that's what you want. That's what the Stored Communications Act did for ISPs, otherwise all ISP records would be subject to Third Party Doctrine. Thankfully the US chose to update its regulation to match modern usage of technology instead of going "oh no, the government now has access to our ISP records, we shouldn't transition anything important to the internet because that will be the death of private communications". It doesn't make much difference to me personally, bank records have never been subject to 4th amendment protections and Americans don't freak out about that, don't see why financial transactions are much different. Cash transactions are already not supposed to be private because records are supposed to be kept, it's just easy not to keep records which is a fact exploited by criminals.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        Of course cash transactions were supposed to be private. There is no need to record the parties involved in a transaction; only that the transaction pays applicable taxes. Did you forget that income tax didn't exist in the US until the 16th ammendment? And that ammendment made no specification that every transaction must be recorded for gov inspection. Regarding ISPs, you can still hide that info from the gov by routing through a no-log vpn. Your proposal seemingly prohibits that type of mask, purposely. We cannot give up individual freedoms because it makes police work harder.