4 ms·

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 pr

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.
- themacguffinman 4y ago
  Just uttering the words "this only really happened because of the dramatic increase in organized crime prosecutions" is not really evidence that transaction records are not useful, neither is noting the date of money laundering laws. Money laundering laws necessarily came after the organized crime crackdown because we had to study these cases to proactively address them. You can't build an Al Capone-style cash empire in the US anymore. Unlike what you imply, money laundering is not about tacking on charges but rather detecting and tracing criminal organizations so it can be effectively prosecuted. Money laundering's critical role in organized crime is now widely understood [1]: - without money laundering, criminal finance is easy to discover - criminalizing it provides a legal basis for international cooperation that wouldn't otherwise exist to pursue global organizations There also aren't any Great Depressions and bank runs anymore, but we don't ask to remove those finance laws even though they historically didn't prevent the Great Depression. [1] https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/organized-crime/module-4/key-issues/money-laundering.html https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/organized-crime/module-4/key-is...
from 4y ago
> funds the most depraved regimes I would also push back against this idea. The two biggest "rogue regimes," Iran and Russia, generate hundreds of billions in clean money and substantial portions of their budget from oil/gas sales. Iran just has to have somewhat unique financial relationships with Turkey/China/UAE due to sanctions and their removal from SWIFT but I don't think that's really what you or most people mean by organized crime. They don't need financial crimes to make money. In fact their governments are often the victims of massive financial crimes and looting (Russia during privatization, Russia today with corrupt government contracts, Iran with subsidized goods like gasoline being smuggled out of the country on a massive scale, etc). North Korea is maybe an example of what you're talking about but as a percent of total financial crimes its activities are small. They're also aren't doing structured cash deposits in bank accounts or whatever. They're stealing money through phishing and wire transfers or crypto hacks. After stolen money has been sent through 3 or so jurisdictions the amount of international cooperation needed to recover it will take at least a year.
- themacguffinman 4y ago
  Transaction identification is essential for sanctions and trade enforcement. While countries like Iran & Russia do a lot of legitimate oil/gas sales, their oligarch leaders evade sanctions that cut them off from enjoying Western luxuries they crave. Transaction records also ensure hiding domestic sanction violations is extraordinarily difficult (unless you're state-backed like Swiss or Chinese banks). You won't see these countries rely on financial crime because these transaction systems already largely prevent them, few organizations really think they can get away with it. For example, North Korea cannot use cash to transfer large amounts of money because that's not even allowed in the first place, it has to use things like wire transfers. They are already subject to a monitored financial system that blocks major undocumented cash transactions. Once the records are mandatory, international data search & coordination can be made more efficient independently.

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.

themacguffinman 4y ago
Just uttering the words "this only really happened because of the dramatic increase in organized crime prosecutions" is not really evidence that transaction records are not useful, neither is noting the date of money laundering laws. Money laundering laws necessarily came after the organized crime crackdown because we had to study these cases to proactively address them. You can't build an Al Capone-style cash empire in the US anymore. Unlike what you imply, money laundering is not about tacking on charges but rather detecting and tracing criminal organizations so it can be effectively prosecuted. Money laundering's critical role in organized crime is now widely understood [1]: - without money laundering, criminal finance is easy to discover - criminalizing it provides a legal basis for international cooperation that wouldn't otherwise exist to pursue global organizations There also aren't any Great Depressions and bank runs anymore, but we don't ask to remove those finance laws even though they historically didn't prevent the Great Depression. [1] https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/organized-crime/module-4/key-issues/money-laundering.html https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/organized-crime/module-4/key-is...

from 4y ago

> funds the most depraved regimes I would also push back against this idea. The two biggest "rogue regimes," Iran and Russia, generate hundreds of billions in clean money and substantial portions of their budget from oil/gas sales. Iran just has to have somewhat unique financial relationships with Turkey/China/UAE due to sanctions and their removal from SWIFT but I don't think that's really what you or most people mean by organized crime. They don't need financial crimes to make money. In fact their governments are often the victims of massive financial crimes and looting (Russia during privatization, Russia today with corrupt government contracts, Iran with subsidized goods like gasoline being smuggled out of the country on a massive scale, etc). North Korea is maybe an example of what you're talking about but as a percent of total financial crimes its activities are small. They're also aren't doing structured cash deposits in bank accounts or whatever. They're stealing money through phishing and wire transfers or crypto hacks. After stolen money has been sent through 3 or so jurisdictions the amount of international cooperation needed to recover it will take at least a year.

themacguffinman 4y ago
Transaction identification is essential for sanctions and trade enforcement. While countries like Iran & Russia do a lot of legitimate oil/gas sales, their oligarch leaders evade sanctions that cut them off from enjoying Western luxuries they crave. Transaction records also ensure hiding domestic sanction violations is extraordinarily difficult (unless you're state-backed like Swiss or Chinese banks). You won't see these countries rely on financial crime because these transaction systems already largely prevent them, few organizations really think they can get away with it. For example, North Korea cannot use cash to transfer large amounts of money because that's not even allowed in the first place, it has to use things like wire transfers. They are already subject to a monitored financial system that blocks major undocumented cash transactions. Once the records are mandatory, international data search & coordination can be made more efficient independently.