7 ms·

National Park Service Sued over New No-Cash Policy at National Parks

37 points by LinuxBender 3y ago

marssaxman 3y ago
I hope the suit wins. It's bad enough that Visa and Mastercard get to act as gatekeepers for so much of the economy already - they certainly should not be in control of entrance to the national parks.
- DannyBee 3y ago
  It won't. They only have to accept cash for debts already incurred.
  - buffington 3y ago
    I wonder if a fine for not paying an entry fee counts as a debt...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - autoexecbat 3y ago
      I would be rather surprised if it didn't
    - objectivetruth 3y ago
      [dead]
  - Kon-Peki 3y ago
    The lawsuit: https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/sites/default/files/attachments/vdw-v.-nps-filed.pdf https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/sites/default/files/at... It refers to 31 U.S. Code § 5103: > United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103 They argue that the fees at the parks are public charges, not debts. I can't find anything in the US code that provides a definition for "public charge." It may be there and I just haven't found it. It seems likely that there are prior judicial cases that help shine a light on what is and is not a public charge. I hope these folks win.
    - Salgat 3y ago
      Public charges seems to include things like fees for services and tolls, so it would seem that payment for entry to public parks is included here. Unfortunate though, as it may not make financial sense to open up areas if it requires someone there to accept payment (unless enough people are paying on an honor system). It may also result in parks just widening the scope of specific park passes and increasing the cost of a pass, meaning you can no longer visit one specific area of the park for a small fee. I wonder if you could just require that cash payments be made in advance at a park center if you don't choose to pay online.
  - marssaxman 3y ago
    That may well be what the law currently says, but if so, the law is wrong and needs to be changed.
kyboren 3y ago
Publicly-funded infrastructure must accept public money. This increasing trend towards exclusively accepting electronic payment with private money: - unjustly enriches the payments cartel - excludes unbanked people, privacy-conscious people, and conscientious objectors from the fractional reserve banking scam--all of whom ought to have equal access to public infrastructure - presents unnecessary resiliency and national security risks--if the payments system goes down, no payments can be made On a related note, this trend is particularly acute in the EV charger space. Whereas every gas station accepts cash, practically no EV charging station accepts cash. This will have the same effects on EV ownership and mobility as I listed above. And in addition, undocumented people will face serious risks charging their EV at a public charging station once ICE catches on. It's a huge and definitely under-reported shift in our societal status quo, especially given the contemporary hyper-focus on underprivileged groups, equity, and inclusion.
- sneak 3y ago
  EVs share their unique identifier with the charger, so the privacy issue remains even if all the chargers get bill feeders. ICE will still be able to track anyone they wish this way. Every time you plug in an EV it creates a data point (location, timestamp, vehicle ID) in an ongoing tracklog.
  - Teever 3y ago
    I would imagine that it's the same for a significant portion of gas stations that have security cameras that automatically read and store plate numbers.
    - thejazzman 3y ago
      Pretty sure police/parking/etc vehicles do this in real time. We've had low fidelity tracking of everyone for awhile I'm surprised we don't have license plates on our roofs yet but I'm sure it's coming real soon
      - out-of-ideas 3y ago
DannyBee 3y ago
This lawsuit will be dismissed quickly. Legal tender does not mean what they think it does.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
sneak 3y ago
The problem with card-only payments is that every card swipe discloses your location to dozens of third parties and creates a timestamped tracklog. The park doesn’t require your identity to enter; everyone who can pay is allowed to enter without identifying themselves. Payment cards are strong identity, thereby deanonymizing park visitors.
- Salgat 3y ago
  America the Beautiful Passes (which gives access to national parks and federal recreational land) require a valid photo ID with each pass, so it's not like cash alone solves this issue.
  - pengaru 3y ago
    If that's true it's so poorly enforced I had no idea they checked ID for the yearly national parks pass. At JTNP we'd just get waved through the gates without even stopping by presenting one on approach. It's common for the locals to loan theirs to friends/family/guests...
  - valianteffort 3y ago
    They don't scan your ID. The park employee just checks the name you wrote on the pass against the name on your ID and hands it back to you.
sneak 3y ago
This is a growing trend at airports and elsewhere, too. Thankfully many cities like NYC have passed laws making it illegal to not accept cash; a federal law to do the same would be welcome. I’m very glad to see people keeping the federal government accountable when it comes to these privacy-destroying, exclusionary policy decisions.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Maybe the solution is a premium rate for cash? There is a cost for taking cash. And our parks are underfunded. Maybe a no-change policy might work. But mandating such requirements without balancing funding just means more gates closed while rangers, instead of accepting visitors or keeping eye on errant hikers, must sit indoors to count cash and draw up the rules for doing so.
- mikhailfranco 3y ago
  There is a cost for taking cards. I think the argument to ban cash due to handling cost, is actually a mask for the real reason: preventing fraud by employees pocketing payments.
  - SR2Z 3y ago
    I mean, increased fraud risk and security costs ARE the cost of taking cash. You can generally deposit cash into any bank with no fees - the issue is getting the right amount of cash there on time.
  - thrawa8387336 3y ago
    This also assumes they can afford to pay employees-that-do-not-pocket fees. A service like a National park is hyperlocal, these employees could have quite a bit of power actually

37 points by LinuxBender 3y ago

I hope the suit wins. It's bad enough that Visa and Mastercard get to act as gatekeepers for so much of the economy already - they certainly should not be in control of entrance to the national parks.

DannyBee 3y ago
It won't. They only have to accept cash for debts already incurred.
- buffington 3y ago
  I wonder if a fine for not paying an entry fee counts as a debt...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - autoexecbat 3y ago
    I would be rather surprised if it didn't
  - objectivetruth 3y ago
    [dead]
- Kon-Peki 3y ago
  The lawsuit: https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/sites/default/files/attachments/vdw-v.-nps-filed.pdf https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/sites/default/files/at... It refers to 31 U.S. Code § 5103: > United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103 They argue that the fees at the parks are public charges, not debts. I can't find anything in the US code that provides a definition for "public charge." It may be there and I just haven't found it. It seems likely that there are prior judicial cases that help shine a light on what is and is not a public charge. I hope these folks win.
  - Salgat 3y ago
    Public charges seems to include things like fees for services and tolls, so it would seem that payment for entry to public parks is included here. Unfortunate though, as it may not make financial sense to open up areas if it requires someone there to accept payment (unless enough people are paying on an honor system). It may also result in parks just widening the scope of specific park passes and increasing the cost of a pass, meaning you can no longer visit one specific area of the park for a small fee. I wonder if you could just require that cash payments be made in advance at a park center if you don't choose to pay online.
- marssaxman 3y ago
  That may well be what the law currently says, but if so, the law is wrong and needs to be changed.

kyboren 3y ago

Publicly-funded infrastructure must accept public money. This increasing trend towards exclusively accepting electronic payment with private money: - unjustly enriches the payments cartel - excludes unbanked people, privacy-conscious people, and conscientious objectors from the fractional reserve banking scam--all of whom ought to have equal access to public infrastructure - presents unnecessary resiliency and national security risks--if the payments system goes down, no payments can be made On a related note, this trend is particularly acute in the EV charger space. Whereas every gas station accepts cash, practically no EV charging station accepts cash. This will have the same effects on EV ownership and mobility as I listed above. And in addition, undocumented people will face serious risks charging their EV at a public charging station once ICE catches on. It's a huge and definitely under-reported shift in our societal status quo, especially given the contemporary hyper-focus on underprivileged groups, equity, and inclusion.

sneak 3y ago
EVs share their unique identifier with the charger, so the privacy issue remains even if all the chargers get bill feeders. ICE will still be able to track anyone they wish this way. Every time you plug in an EV it creates a data point (location, timestamp, vehicle ID) in an ongoing tracklog.
- Teever 3y ago
  I would imagine that it's the same for a significant portion of gas stations that have security cameras that automatically read and store plate numbers.
  - thejazzman 3y ago
    Pretty sure police/parking/etc vehicles do this in real time. We've had low fidelity tracking of everyone for awhile I'm surprised we don't have license plates on our roofs yet but I'm sure it's coming real soon
    - out-of-ideas 3y ago

DannyBee 3y ago

This lawsuit will be dismissed quickly. Legal tender does not mean what they think it does.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

sneak 3y ago

The problem with card-only payments is that every card swipe discloses your location to dozens of third parties and creates a timestamped tracklog. The park doesn’t require your identity to enter; everyone who can pay is allowed to enter without identifying themselves. Payment cards are strong identity, thereby deanonymizing park visitors.

Salgat 3y ago
America the Beautiful Passes (which gives access to national parks and federal recreational land) require a valid photo ID with each pass, so it's not like cash alone solves this issue.
- pengaru 3y ago
  If that's true it's so poorly enforced I had no idea they checked ID for the yearly national parks pass. At JTNP we'd just get waved through the gates without even stopping by presenting one on approach. It's common for the locals to loan theirs to friends/family/guests...
- valianteffort 3y ago
  They don't scan your ID. The park employee just checks the name you wrote on the pass against the name on your ID and hands it back to you.

sneak 3y ago

This is a growing trend at airports and elsewhere, too. Thankfully many cities like NYC have passed laws making it illegal to not accept cash; a federal law to do the same would be welcome. I’m very glad to see people keeping the federal government accountable when it comes to these privacy-destroying, exclusionary policy decisions.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

Maybe the solution is a premium rate for cash? There is a cost for taking cash. And our parks are underfunded. Maybe a no-change policy might work. But mandating such requirements without balancing funding just means more gates closed while rangers, instead of accepting visitors or keeping eye on errant hikers, must sit indoors to count cash and draw up the rules for doing so.

mikhailfranco 3y ago
There is a cost for taking cards. I think the argument to ban cash due to handling cost, is actually a mask for the real reason: preventing fraud by employees pocketing payments.
- SR2Z 3y ago
  I mean, increased fraud risk and security costs ARE the cost of taking cash. You can generally deposit cash into any bank with no fees - the issue is getting the right amount of cash there on time.
- thrawa8387336 3y ago
  This also assumes they can afford to pay employees-that-do-not-pocket fees. A service like a National park is hyperlocal, these employees could have quite a bit of power actually