12 ms·

There's a qualitative difference between the government being able to freeze the accounts of every person whose phone was detected at a protest, and the governm

There's a qualitative difference between the government being able to freeze the accounts of every person whose phone was detected at a protest, and the government having to send agents out to physically find each of those people, search them and their property, and seize their cash. The first is cheap and easy for the government to do on a large scale, and difficult for the protesters to block. The second is far more expensive for the government, and the protesters have more options to fight back—run, hide the cash, etc. Not to mention it will probably drum up sympathy for the oppressed. And in the end, physically seizing cash & goods only takes away what the protesters have at the time—they can still go earn more cash to transact with, unless they are arrested. Someone whose accounts are frozen, and who is prevented from opening new accounts, and who can't use cash, is running out of options.

fzeroracer 3y ago
Let's be real here: You, I, and most of the people in this thread talking about privacy concerns when it comes to cash and what not are playing pretend. I say this because the odds are we have a significant amount of our money invested in some form of digital investment. Whether it's stocks, certificates, money sitting in a bank account. The nature of cash means it scales up poorly; and the nature of holding cash means you are literally losing money year over year thanks to inflation. The system is built to encourage this. If the government wanted to freeze your accounts and take most of your net worth, they can. And while cash transactions can be secure, in our day to day life where our transactions are done cash is not meaningfully adding anything to our privacy. To actually achieve any sort of privacy with cash involves operating purely with cash: That means no bank accounts, no investments, you are paid directly by your workplace with cash etc. That's why again, cash will not protect you. It will not protect most of the people here acting like it will.
nayuki 3y ago
It sounds like you're still upset about the truckers protest in Ottawa in February 2022.
marcosdumay 3y ago
What kind of dystopian dictatorship are we talking about really? But well, no, there isn't much of a difference.

fzeroracer 3y ago

Let's be real here: You, I, and most of the people in this thread talking about privacy concerns when it comes to cash and what not are playing pretend. I say this because the odds are we have a significant amount of our money invested in some form of digital investment. Whether it's stocks, certificates, money sitting in a bank account. The nature of cash means it scales up poorly; and the nature of holding cash means you are literally losing money year over year thanks to inflation. The system is built to encourage this. If the government wanted to freeze your accounts and take most of your net worth, they can. And while cash transactions can be secure, in our day to day life where our transactions are done cash is not meaningfully adding anything to our privacy. To actually achieve any sort of privacy with cash involves operating purely with cash: That means no bank accounts, no investments, you are paid directly by your workplace with cash etc. That's why again, cash will not protect you. It will not protect most of the people here acting like it will.

nayuki 3y ago

It sounds like you're still upset about the truckers protest in Ottawa in February 2022.

marcosdumay 3y ago

What kind of dystopian dictatorship are we talking about really? But well, no, there isn't much of a difference.