5 ms·

>When a serious crime is committed you might be surprised how much the police can do to trace cash. Serial numbers in and out of ATMs and shops are tracked, and

>When a serious crime is committed you might be surprised how much the police can do to trace cash. Serial numbers in and out of ATMs and shops are tracked, and frequently your face is captured by cameras in stores, ATMs and vending machines. Which is neither here, not there. Cash is effectively anonymous for 99% of uses that don't involve "major crime". Your buying something is not logged anywhere, for example.

grobbyy 3y ago
You fell for a simple fallecy. The line isn't that cash is used in a major crime. It's that someone in power wants someone in prison. 1. You might not be involved in a major crime but you might be a suspect. Lots of innocent suspects get convicted. 2. You might be a whistleblower. Lots of whistleblowers get framed. Etc. "If I've done nothing wrong I have nothing to hide" didn't work out well for Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. A lot of the reason many of us want privacy preserved is to prevent a similar path here. Totalitarian governments don't always pop up overnight on a revolution; they often creep up on you. The creeping process is also often: 1. We'll track X with major checks on privacy; it will only be used for terrorism and child abuse investigations and held in a secure vault 2. We're just doing a better job of sharing / using data we already collect Neither off those is objectionable, but together, you end up in a distopia.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
> Which is neither here, not there. Cash is effectively anonymous for 99% of uses that don't involve "major crime". Exactly. Almost all cash transactions remain anonymous because there's no criminal investigation involved. Most people are honest and just going about their business with friends and family. That's how it should be. A cost bar for tracing is a desirable feature for non-authoritarian societies. Digital currency mediated by bank apps, active cards, smartphones or whatever, makes for "convenience" but also zero cost to spy on people who are not criminals. And that's a problem. So maybe it is here. Or there. I'm not sure where you're standing :)
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Exactly. Almost all cash transactions remain anonymous because there's no criminal investigation involved. It's disingenuous to even suggest that the traceability of cash transaction is even remotely close to that of credit cards and e-payments, and that what keeps them anonymous is that "there's no criminal investigation involved". It's the exact opposite: cash transaction are anonymity friendly by nature, and only when there's a great need, and with quite an effort, like in a criminal investigation, are they attempted to be traced, and even there it's more difficult exacty because of the nature of cash making it more difficult.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    That's exactly what I am saying. You are repeating my own argument back to me and labelling it "disingenuous". You've misunderstood something, somewhere. Do please read again with care.

grobbyy 3y ago

You fell for a simple fallecy. The line isn't that cash is used in a major crime. It's that someone in power wants someone in prison. 1. You might not be involved in a major crime but you might be a suspect. Lots of innocent suspects get convicted. 2. You might be a whistleblower. Lots of whistleblowers get framed. Etc. "If I've done nothing wrong I have nothing to hide" didn't work out well for Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. A lot of the reason many of us want privacy preserved is to prevent a similar path here. Totalitarian governments don't always pop up overnight on a revolution; they often creep up on you. The creeping process is also often: 1. We'll track X with major checks on privacy; it will only be used for terrorism and child abuse investigations and held in a secure vault 2. We're just doing a better job of sharing / using data we already collect Neither off those is objectionable, but together, you end up in a distopia.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

> Which is neither here, not there. Cash is effectively anonymous for 99% of uses that don't involve "major crime". Exactly. Almost all cash transactions remain anonymous because there's no criminal investigation involved. Most people are honest and just going about their business with friends and family. That's how it should be. A cost bar for tracing is a desirable feature for non-authoritarian societies. Digital currency mediated by bank apps, active cards, smartphones or whatever, makes for "convenience" but also zero cost to spy on people who are not criminals. And that's a problem. So maybe it is here. Or there. I'm not sure where you're standing :)

coldtea 3y ago
>Exactly. Almost all cash transactions remain anonymous because there's no criminal investigation involved. It's disingenuous to even suggest that the traceability of cash transaction is even remotely close to that of credit cards and e-payments, and that what keeps them anonymous is that "there's no criminal investigation involved". It's the exact opposite: cash transaction are anonymity friendly by nature, and only when there's a great need, and with quite an effort, like in a criminal investigation, are they attempted to be traced, and even there it's more difficult exacty because of the nature of cash making it more difficult.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  That's exactly what I am saying. You are repeating my own argument back to me and labelling it "disingenuous". You've misunderstood something, somewhere. Do please read again with care.