4 ms·

Yes banks should be better regulated to avoid letting them make risky moves. That aside, many regional banks rather than a centralized government controlled ban

Yes banks should be better regulated to avoid letting them make risky moves. That aside, many regional banks rather than a centralized government controlled bank is critical to our freedom. Government controlled banks or CBDC will give government total surveillance and control over us since you cannot do much without money.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
In the US, a government-controlled bank would have stronger privacy because privacy is enshrined in law. Specifically my government cannot snoop on certain things. If the government kept all of my banking records, they wouldn't be able to legally access them. Currently, they can just use taxpayer money to purchase these records from the corporations who gather them.
- quest88 3y ago
  Apply your logic about laws to private banks. Make it so private banks have to adhere to some new law. Same outcome.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    > Apply your logic about laws to private banks. I'm pretty sure that's actually a more ambitious endeavor than insisting on a government-run solution. I otherwise still see the same issue in OP's comment: there is no reason for the private bank to exist.
- tastyfreeze 3y ago
  Sorry, you must not be paying attention or this is sarcasm. Giving the government the keys to your banking data and expecting them to respect rights is naive. Government ownership of data means they don't have to respect privacy because they already own the data. The US government is wholesale spying on the entirety of electronic communications and working with social media sites to make some voices less prominent. Private business should be able to tell the government to pound sand when banking data is requested without a warrant or subpoena. Banks are not able to do that. Banks exist as long as they are in the good graces of regulators. Laws prohibiting the sale of personal information (location, purchases, banking) closes the loophole. The solution is less government, not more.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    So these statements seem to contradict each other: > Government ownership of data means they don't have to respect privacy because they already own the data. > Banks exist as long as they are in the good graces of regulators. So we have this problem that the government doesn't want to respect our privacy and the problem that the government doesn't need to respect our privacy and somehow removing the bank in the middle will mean that the government isn't respecting our privacy. If the government is in control of the banks it will make it more obvious to the average citizen that the government has the ability to snoop on transaction information and it might be that such citizens decide to demand stricter privacy measures. Back to this statement: > Banks exist as long as they are in the good graces of regulators. That's kinda my point. The governments run the banks in practice, just not in theory. Changing that "not in theory" part brings the understanding to the citizenry that they can demand certain things from their bank.
    - tastyfreeze 3y ago
      I do not agree that giving government more power over banks is the solution. It may make it obvious to everybody what reality is but you just handed the keys to the entity that is abusing their powers already. Giving the government more power only reduces ours.
  - vharuck 3y ago
    >The US government is wholesale spying on the entirety of electronic communications and working with social media sites to make some voices less prominent. Private business should be able to tell the government to pound sand when banking data is requested without a warrant or subpoena. Do they actually tell the government to pound sand, though? In the end, if I can only rely on the moral codes of for-profit companies who are weighing the value of a good relationship with me versus one with the US government, then I can't rely on much. But the government can and regularly does tell itself to go pound sand. Like the IRS, Census, or any agency with confidential medical records. Also, your examples are of private companies selling data. The government is the buyer in those scenarios, not the guardian. IMO, data is less likely to be shared between government agencies because rarely do both parties benefit. For a company, the database team wins when sales wins, as long as they get to present their success together. Government workers follow strict pay scales, get no bonuses, and have nearly guaranteed job security. They also have notoriously few ambitious ladder-climbers. It's hard enough to get them to share data with each other when it's legal and ethical. If there's any possibility sharing data would break rules, government will refuse to risk it.
- lockhouse 3y ago
  I’m sure all the spooks in the three letter agencies will totally keep their hands out of that cookie jar. All the commenters here that think the federal government should directly provide their banking services are going to be in for a rude awakening if it ever actually happens.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    At least it would give a private citizen recourse if snooping did happen; it would become private by law. It is currently not. Maybe it all goes south and people are worse off with their privacy than now but I can't even imagine what "worse off" would be. The particular example you gave ("spooks in three letter agencies") currently happens and I can't exactly expect it to stop. How could it be worse?
    - lockhouse 3y ago
      I’m curious, what recourse do you or anyone else have against the CIA, FBI, or any other Department of Justice or Intelligence agency that you wouldn’t also have with a commercial bank?
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        The commercial bank has something called a "privacy policy" in which they explain that they will choose not to respect my privacy. A government entity isn't allowed to do that. There are actually stricter laws for government invasions of privacy than corporate. To your concern that these three-letter spooks will spy on you: what would they do that they're not already doing? That isn't to excuse the spying; I'm just pointing out that these are separate issues. Tackle the fact that the NSA compiles all unencrypted HTTP traffic separately from the fact that JP Morgan Chase knows my financial history and doesn't have to care about keeping it private per my idea of private.
        omgomgomgomg 3y ago
        So are ypu saying the constitution and its privacy protections are totally useless?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Laaas 3y ago
Technically, the CBDC could be a privacy coin, albeit very unlikely.
- imtringued 3y ago
  GNU Taler works fine. People have an anti CBDC bias that they project onto GNU Taler regardless of the privacy benefits of it. It is already hard enough for the GNU Taler Team to get their technology adopted. When you see comments on HN you get the impression that it is very unpopular hence it won't be implemented and the expectation is that any CBDC won't be privacy friendly.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago

In the US, a government-controlled bank would have stronger privacy because privacy is enshrined in law. Specifically my government cannot snoop on certain things. If the government kept all of my banking records, they wouldn't be able to legally access them. Currently, they can just use taxpayer money to purchase these records from the corporations who gather them.

quest88 3y ago
Apply your logic about laws to private banks. Make it so private banks have to adhere to some new law. Same outcome.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > Apply your logic about laws to private banks. I'm pretty sure that's actually a more ambitious endeavor than insisting on a government-run solution. I otherwise still see the same issue in OP's comment: there is no reason for the private bank to exist.
tastyfreeze 3y ago
Sorry, you must not be paying attention or this is sarcasm. Giving the government the keys to your banking data and expecting them to respect rights is naive. Government ownership of data means they don't have to respect privacy because they already own the data. The US government is wholesale spying on the entirety of electronic communications and working with social media sites to make some voices less prominent. Private business should be able to tell the government to pound sand when banking data is requested without a warrant or subpoena. Banks are not able to do that. Banks exist as long as they are in the good graces of regulators. Laws prohibiting the sale of personal information (location, purchases, banking) closes the loophole. The solution is less government, not more.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  So these statements seem to contradict each other: > Government ownership of data means they don't have to respect privacy because they already own the data. > Banks exist as long as they are in the good graces of regulators. So we have this problem that the government doesn't want to respect our privacy and the problem that the government doesn't need to respect our privacy and somehow removing the bank in the middle will mean that the government isn't respecting our privacy. If the government is in control of the banks it will make it more obvious to the average citizen that the government has the ability to snoop on transaction information and it might be that such citizens decide to demand stricter privacy measures. Back to this statement: > Banks exist as long as they are in the good graces of regulators. That's kinda my point. The governments run the banks in practice, just not in theory. Changing that "not in theory" part brings the understanding to the citizenry that they can demand certain things from their bank.
  - tastyfreeze 3y ago
    I do not agree that giving government more power over banks is the solution. It may make it obvious to everybody what reality is but you just handed the keys to the entity that is abusing their powers already. Giving the government more power only reduces ours.
- vharuck 3y ago
  >The US government is wholesale spying on the entirety of electronic communications and working with social media sites to make some voices less prominent. Private business should be able to tell the government to pound sand when banking data is requested without a warrant or subpoena. Do they actually tell the government to pound sand, though? In the end, if I can only rely on the moral codes of for-profit companies who are weighing the value of a good relationship with me versus one with the US government, then I can't rely on much. But the government can and regularly does tell itself to go pound sand. Like the IRS, Census, or any agency with confidential medical records. Also, your examples are of private companies selling data. The government is the buyer in those scenarios, not the guardian. IMO, data is less likely to be shared between government agencies because rarely do both parties benefit. For a company, the database team wins when sales wins, as long as they get to present their success together. Government workers follow strict pay scales, get no bonuses, and have nearly guaranteed job security. They also have notoriously few ambitious ladder-climbers. It's hard enough to get them to share data with each other when it's legal and ethical. If there's any possibility sharing data would break rules, government will refuse to risk it.
lockhouse 3y ago
I’m sure all the spooks in the three letter agencies will totally keep their hands out of that cookie jar. All the commenters here that think the federal government should directly provide their banking services are going to be in for a rude awakening if it ever actually happens.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  At least it would give a private citizen recourse if snooping did happen; it would become private by law. It is currently not. Maybe it all goes south and people are worse off with their privacy than now but I can't even imagine what "worse off" would be. The particular example you gave ("spooks in three letter agencies") currently happens and I can't exactly expect it to stop. How could it be worse?
  - lockhouse 3y ago
    I’m curious, what recourse do you or anyone else have against the CIA, FBI, or any other Department of Justice or Intelligence agency that you wouldn’t also have with a commercial bank?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      The commercial bank has something called a "privacy policy" in which they explain that they will choose not to respect my privacy. A government entity isn't allowed to do that. There are actually stricter laws for government invasions of privacy than corporate. To your concern that these three-letter spooks will spy on you: what would they do that they're not already doing? That isn't to excuse the spying; I'm just pointing out that these are separate issues. Tackle the fact that the NSA compiles all unencrypted HTTP traffic separately from the fact that JP Morgan Chase knows my financial history and doesn't have to care about keeping it private per my idea of private.
      - omgomgomgomg 3y ago
        So are ypu saying the constitution and its privacy protections are totally useless?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Laaas 3y ago

Technically, the CBDC could be a privacy coin, albeit very unlikely.

imtringued 3y ago
GNU Taler works fine. People have an anti CBDC bias that they project onto GNU Taler regardless of the privacy benefits of it. It is already hard enough for the GNU Taler Team to get their technology adopted. When you see comments on HN you get the impression that it is very unpopular hence it won't be implemented and the expectation is that any CBDC won't be privacy friendly.