3 ms·

>If a criminal spies on my credit card # as I make a purchase and uses that to go on a spending spree I can fix it with the credit card company with little cost

>If a criminal spies on my credit card # as I make a purchase and uses that to go on a spending spree I can fix it with the credit card company with little cost but a few hours of time and frustration. However, if a much more powerful criminal spies on your credit card # as you send money to Wikileaks or a bunch of truckers who drive to Ottowa for a protest you can never fix it when your card is cancelled and your bank account is seized. Or when you face a variety of other sanctions and persecutions for spending or donating your own hard-earned money. >Crypto? No. It may, eventually, have some other benefits though that’s yet to be seen. These benefits have already been seen and realized by people targeted by authoritarian governments and banking cabals all over the globe.

Eisenstein 4y ago
That argument could be made for anything if you are the one targeted. I mean, prison is authoritarian an oppressive. There are innocent people in them. Do we make it so that it is not possible to track crimes and put people in prison? It is all about motives. If you think that the government is doing something wrong, change that, don't make it impossible for anyone to enforce laws at all.
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >It is all about motives. I disagree completely. Motive is completely irrelevant. Mass surveillance and government spying (among other things) on people who have done nothing to suggest they are engaged in criminal activity is absolutely wrong and a violation of human rights and human dignity no matter what the motive. >If you think that the government is doing something wrong, change that, don't make it impossible for anyone to enforce laws at all. The issue is that people with morality and dignity believe that the government is doing something wrong by violating the privacy and human dignity of every citizen (by spying on their communications and tapping their phones), while those who don't see the value of privacy or human dignity don't believe the government is doing anything wrong. That is the crux of the issue. Trying to explain the importance of privacy and human dignity who people who don't believe that privacy and human dignity have any value is like trying to explain what blue looks like to someone who has been blind since birth. >I mean, prison is authoritarian an oppressive. There are innocent people in them. Do we make it so that it is not possible to track crimes and put people in prison? We have a Constitution that theoretically prevents the government from violating the rights of every person so that it may catch those few people who are committing crimes. Unfortunately the system of checks and balances that is supposed to be in place to stop the government from violating our privacy, rights and human dignity is entirely broken (if not non-existent) as abundantly chronicled for everyone who has paid attention. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-29/fbi-searched-the-data-of-millions-of-americans-without-warrants https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-29/fbi-searc... https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/united-states-v-moalin-ninth-circuit-opinion https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/united-states-v-moalin-n... https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/a-brief-history-of-the-cias-unpunished-spying-on-the-senate/384003/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/a-brief... https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fisa-court-issues-rare-order-doj-fbi-scathing/story?id=67785661 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fisa-court-issues-rare-order...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    > It is all about motives. I was speaking of the motives of the institution with the power. In the crypto case, the people with the power are motivated by greed. In the government's case, it could be anything, but at least they are theoretically accountable in a representative democracy. > The issue is that people with morality and dignity believe that the government is doing something wrong by violating the privacy and human dignity... What does this have to do with reversibility of financial transactions? If you think there is some government conspiracy with the 'bankers' against you or your group, what is taking away basic consumer protections going to do to help you?
    - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
      >what is taking away basic consumer protections going to do to help you? You define centralized control over wealth and the ability of an individual to send and receive payments to whomever they choose, without sanction, as "basic consumer protection", while I define it as unacceptable authoritarianism. Yes, it is true, an all-powerful governing entity that has complete control over how everyone sends, receives and stores their own money has the power to reverse fraudulent transactions, which is desirable in some circumstances. It also has the power to monitor, regulate, control and prevent individuals from sending and receiving their own money, as well as punishing them for sending, receiving, or trying to send or receive, money from those who are frowned upon by the controlling authority - which is incredibly undesirable. >If you think there is some government conspiracy with the 'bankers' against you or your group There's no conspiracy - this is happening right out in the open - and the powers-that-be are happy to brag about their unfettered power. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.wired.com/2010/12/wikileaks-congress-pressure/ https://www.wired.com/2010/12/wikileaks-congress-pressure/
      - Eisenstein 4y ago
        > You define centralized control over wealth and the ability of an individual to send and receive payments to whomever they choose No, I define that as 'oversight' which is necessary for a functioning macroeconomic system. If we can't do that then we can't collect taxes. If you are opposed to all taxation then we have a fundamental disagreement on the function of society. > There's no conspiracy - this is happening right out in the open - and the powers-that-be are happy to brag about their unfettered power. You linked to two things from the past that were proposed and never occurred. What does that prove? The government is working as intended and bad ideas are usually stopped in their tracts. The difference is that if money is the be-all-end-all of power, then any rich person can just make their own laws, and I fail to see how that is a better option than a government accountable to its citizens.

Eisenstein 4y ago

That argument could be made for anything if you are the one targeted. I mean, prison is authoritarian an oppressive. There are innocent people in them. Do we make it so that it is not possible to track crimes and put people in prison? It is all about motives. If you think that the government is doing something wrong, change that, don't make it impossible for anyone to enforce laws at all.

StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>It is all about motives. I disagree completely. Motive is completely irrelevant. Mass surveillance and government spying (among other things) on people who have done nothing to suggest they are engaged in criminal activity is absolutely wrong and a violation of human rights and human dignity no matter what the motive. >If you think that the government is doing something wrong, change that, don't make it impossible for anyone to enforce laws at all. The issue is that people with morality and dignity believe that the government is doing something wrong by violating the privacy and human dignity of every citizen (by spying on their communications and tapping their phones), while those who don't see the value of privacy or human dignity don't believe the government is doing anything wrong. That is the crux of the issue. Trying to explain the importance of privacy and human dignity who people who don't believe that privacy and human dignity have any value is like trying to explain what blue looks like to someone who has been blind since birth. >I mean, prison is authoritarian an oppressive. There are innocent people in them. Do we make it so that it is not possible to track crimes and put people in prison? We have a Constitution that theoretically prevents the government from violating the rights of every person so that it may catch those few people who are committing crimes. Unfortunately the system of checks and balances that is supposed to be in place to stop the government from violating our privacy, rights and human dignity is entirely broken (if not non-existent) as abundantly chronicled for everyone who has paid attention. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-29/fbi-searched-the-data-of-millions-of-americans-without-warrants https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-29/fbi-searc... https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/united-states-v-moalin-ninth-circuit-opinion https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/united-states-v-moalin-n... https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/a-brief-history-of-the-cias-unpunished-spying-on-the-senate/384003/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/a-brief... https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fisa-court-issues-rare-order-doj-fbi-scathing/story?id=67785661 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fisa-court-issues-rare-order...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  > It is all about motives. I was speaking of the motives of the institution with the power. In the crypto case, the people with the power are motivated by greed. In the government's case, it could be anything, but at least they are theoretically accountable in a representative democracy. > The issue is that people with morality and dignity believe that the government is doing something wrong by violating the privacy and human dignity... What does this have to do with reversibility of financial transactions? If you think there is some government conspiracy with the 'bankers' against you or your group, what is taking away basic consumer protections going to do to help you?
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    >what is taking away basic consumer protections going to do to help you? You define centralized control over wealth and the ability of an individual to send and receive payments to whomever they choose, without sanction, as "basic consumer protection", while I define it as unacceptable authoritarianism. Yes, it is true, an all-powerful governing entity that has complete control over how everyone sends, receives and stores their own money has the power to reverse fraudulent transactions, which is desirable in some circumstances. It also has the power to monitor, regulate, control and prevent individuals from sending and receiving their own money, as well as punishing them for sending, receiving, or trying to send or receive, money from those who are frowned upon by the controlling authority - which is incredibly undesirable. >If you think there is some government conspiracy with the 'bankers' against you or your group There's no conspiracy - this is happening right out in the open - and the powers-that-be are happy to brag about their unfettered power. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.wired.com/2010/12/wikileaks-congress-pressure/ https://www.wired.com/2010/12/wikileaks-congress-pressure/
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      > You define centralized control over wealth and the ability of an individual to send and receive payments to whomever they choose No, I define that as 'oversight' which is necessary for a functioning macroeconomic system. If we can't do that then we can't collect taxes. If you are opposed to all taxation then we have a fundamental disagreement on the function of society. > There's no conspiracy - this is happening right out in the open - and the powers-that-be are happy to brag about their unfettered power. You linked to two things from the past that were proposed and never occurred. What does that prove? The government is working as intended and bad ideas are usually stopped in their tracts. The difference is that if money is the be-all-end-all of power, then any rich person can just make their own laws, and I fail to see how that is a better option than a government accountable to its citizens.