3 ms·

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 r

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.
    - themacguffinman 4y ago
      Who cares how cash was intended to be like 100 years ago, it rationally bears no relevance to how it should be done today. I said they are not supposed to be private, not that they weren't. The IRS sets a cash threshold above which you are required to manually report the personal information of the payer (ie Form 8300). The headline notes the Israeli threshold at 6000 shekels, the IRS sets it at 10000 dollars. We've established the threshold, we're just haggling over the number. I never expressed any intention to allow people to hide from the government based on technical hacks that won't realistically be known or used by most people anyway. If you don't want government to read your stuff, that's the law's/legislature's job to determine that, like the Stored Communications Act. While criminals and citizens alike have equal access to technical loopholes, the law alone distinguishes between them. Financial crime is the backbone of organized crime, it is the foundation of hostile spycraft and funds the most depraved regimes. I absolutely refuse to regress to the era where the mafia and cartel leaders ruled the streets and stood toe to toe with law enforcement. Anti-laundering laws are written in blood and they are designed to prevent those scenarios, not tie law enforcement hands then blame them for not working hard enough. You're going to have to do more than spout libertarian cliches to convince anyone.
      - from 4y ago
        > I absolutely refuse to regress to the era where the mafia and cartel leaders ruled the streets and stood toe to toe with law enforcement Assuming you're talking about the US, this really only happened because of the dramatic increase in organized crime prosecutions in the 70s (mostly due to the departure of Hoover), the RICO act which significantly increased sentences for typical mafia activities like drugs/loansharking/extortion/etc, and the witness protection program which changed informing from a likely death sentence to a potential to turn a new leaf. Money laundering only became a crime in 1986, the original BSA mainly just introduced cash reporting requirements (which had a threshold that at the time was two times GDP per capita). Also things like carjacking, cigarette trafficking across states were made federal crimes which again made prosecution easier. "Follow the money" is touted as this law enforcement panacea but historically is not really that effective. Which is why for instance most major narcotics trafficking cases today almost always rely heavily on wiretaps and informants/government witnesses. And the now standard practice of adding money laundering charges to non drug cases really only started happening after 9/11. So in my opinion there is a lot of evidence that these laws have had rather limited benefits in terms of stopping crime but because of the erosion of the threshold due to inflation are having an increasingly large negative effect on privacy of regular people.

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.
  - themacguffinman 4y ago
    Who cares how cash was intended to be like 100 years ago, it rationally bears no relevance to how it should be done today. I said they are not supposed to be private, not that they weren't. The IRS sets a cash threshold above which you are required to manually report the personal information of the payer (ie Form 8300). The headline notes the Israeli threshold at 6000 shekels, the IRS sets it at 10000 dollars. We've established the threshold, we're just haggling over the number. I never expressed any intention to allow people to hide from the government based on technical hacks that won't realistically be known or used by most people anyway. If you don't want government to read your stuff, that's the law's/legislature's job to determine that, like the Stored Communications Act. While criminals and citizens alike have equal access to technical loopholes, the law alone distinguishes between them. Financial crime is the backbone of organized crime, it is the foundation of hostile spycraft and funds the most depraved regimes. I absolutely refuse to regress to the era where the mafia and cartel leaders ruled the streets and stood toe to toe with law enforcement. Anti-laundering laws are written in blood and they are designed to prevent those scenarios, not tie law enforcement hands then blame them for not working hard enough. You're going to have to do more than spout libertarian cliches to convince anyone.
    - from 4y ago
      > I absolutely refuse to regress to the era where the mafia and cartel leaders ruled the streets and stood toe to toe with law enforcement Assuming you're talking about the US, this really only happened because of the dramatic increase in organized crime prosecutions in the 70s (mostly due to the departure of Hoover), the RICO act which significantly increased sentences for typical mafia activities like drugs/loansharking/extortion/etc, and the witness protection program which changed informing from a likely death sentence to a potential to turn a new leaf. Money laundering only became a crime in 1986, the original BSA mainly just introduced cash reporting requirements (which had a threshold that at the time was two times GDP per capita). Also things like carjacking, cigarette trafficking across states were made federal crimes which again made prosecution easier. "Follow the money" is touted as this law enforcement panacea but historically is not really that effective. Which is why for instance most major narcotics trafficking cases today almost always rely heavily on wiretaps and informants/government witnesses. And the now standard practice of adding money laundering charges to non drug cases really only started happening after 9/11. So in my opinion there is a lot of evidence that these laws have had rather limited benefits in terms of stopping crime but because of the erosion of the threshold due to inflation are having an increasingly large negative effect on privacy of regular people.