this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
-8 points (36.7% liked)

Privacy

833 readers
14 users here now

Privacy is the ability for an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively.

Rules

  1. Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you.
  2. No Porn, Gore, or NSFW content. Instant Ban.
  3. No Spamming, Trolling or Unsolicited Ads. Instant Ban.
  4. Stay on topic in a community. Please reach out to an admin to create a new community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
c0mmando@links.hackliberty.org
-8
WHAT WILL A CASHLESS SOCIETY MEAN? (aeon.co)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by BodaciousMunchkin@links.hackliberty.org to c/privacy@links.hackliberty.org
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Image Transcription:

WHAT WILL A CASHLESS SOCIETY MEAN?

THE PROS

CONVENIENCE — THERE WILL NO LONGER BE ANY NEED TO CARRY CASH AROUND

THE CONS

EVERY TRANSACTION YOU MAKE WILL BE TRACKED YOUR SPENDING HABITS CAN BE LINKED TO YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT

YOU WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED TO SPEND ON THINGS THE GOVERNMENT APPROVES OF. THINGS THAT ARE DEEMED TO BE LUXURIES — MEAT, FUEL, TRAVEL — CAN BE RESTRICTED

YOUR MONEY CAN BE PROGRAMMED WITH AN EXPIRY DATE — IF YOU DON’T SPEND IT BY A CERTAIN DATE, YOU'LL LOSE IT

THERE WILL BE NO ‘BLACK’ ECONOMY. IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE TO AVOID TAX, BUT THEN YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GIVE POCKET MONEY TO CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN AND NEITHER WILL YOU BE ABLE TO BORROW OR LEND MONEY TO FRIENDS WITHOUT THAT BEING TAXED BY THE GOVERNMENT

PARKING AND SPEEDING FINES WILL BE TAKEN AT SOURCE, WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF CHALLENGE AND POSSIBLY EVEN WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE

IF YOU PROTEST THE ACTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT, YOUR MONEY CAN BE SWITCHED OFF. IF YOU THINK THAT’S UNLIKELY, IT’S ALREADY HAPPENED TO TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CANADIANS WHEN THEY PROTESTED AND IT ALSO HAPPENED TO A BRITISH JOURNALIST

A CASHLESS SOCIETY MEANS THE END OF HUMAN FREEDOM

IF YOU WANT THAT, DO NOTHING

IF YOU DON'T, THE FIRST THING YOU MUST DO IS RESPOND TO THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSAL ON DIGITAL ID, UPON WHICH A CASHLESS SOCIETY MUST BE BASED

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/draft-legislation-to-help-more-people-prove-their- identity-online/consultation-on-draft-legislation-to-support-identity-verificat

Image Credit: Brett Scott

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They grasped a small kernel of truth and encrusted a huge wad of nonsense around it. You already have to use credit for some transactions, effectively. If you try bringing 100k in cash to buy a car/house, there is a good chance it'll get seized by police. Corporations already do that tracking and they don't need credit card transactions for it - if you use a cell phone they know what store you went into. That can be combined with other metadata to know exactly what you're doing. Carrying cash does not fix this.

[–] soloActivist@links.hackliberty.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If you try bringing 100k in cash to buy a car/house, there is a good chance it’ll get seized by police.

In the US debtors are /entitled/ to pay their debts using legal tender, and mortgages are not excluded AFAIK. In the UK, you can legally pay your mortgage with legal tender.

if you use a cell phone they know what store you went into. That can be combined with other metadata to know exactly what you’re doing. Carrying cash does not fix this.

You need not carry a mobile phone. I don’t. Cash is part of that equation. If I walk into an unsurveilled shop with cash, no phone, and no loyalty card to buy liquor, how does that get pinned on me?

It could become criminal in the future to not carry a smartphone (with the direction things are going in), but that’s not yet the case in most of the world.

[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

My point was not that cash wasn't being accepted. It's more that carrying large amounts of cash around is extremely risky for non obvious reasons.

Not carrying a phone is definitely possible and even commendable, but for many people it's not an option. Just off the top of my head:

If you are in an unfamiliar area unexpectedly you won't have been able to print off a map ahead of time

Many people's employers require them to be contactable during on call periods

If you are trying to get a job/caring for a sick relative, there may be risk with being unreachable for an extended period

Obviously these examples are things that can be worked around in many cases, but currently society is arranged around the idea that you have a phone on you if you want to do anything. I agree with you this is not a good thing, generally. If you are able to push the trend back it's worthwhile but short of an EMP / solar flare removing all communication networks worldwide I don't believe there is a realistic chance this changes.

Other unsorted thoughts:

I know bill serial numbers are tracked, if they really wanted they could probably find video of you getting money out of the bank/ATM. Again, there are workarounds but it gets to be more and more commitment to POSSIBLY be untraceable.

If you have friends with phones who travel with you or you get photographed in the background of someone else's social media you can get profiled that way

  • All this to say, I agree with the gist of what you are saying but I don't think it's realistic to expect many people to be able to do the work for something that has less tangible benefit to them than being able to pay rent. Social change will require personal habits changing along with political pressure to make databrokers illegal, prevent tracking via metadata, etc.
[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, the clownvoy isn't exactly something you want to use to prove a point.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/freedom-convoy-protest-how-did-we-get-here-1.5772901

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

To defend a liberty is to defend said liberty for your enemies. You cannot possibly be arguing its ok to restrict some peoples rights without the court ruling on it.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The courts literally were involved. Also, who was restricting rights? The clownvoy or the people in downtown ottawa? Hint it was the clownvoy.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Did the courts order that people would have their money disabled. If not thats denying someone their right to do as they wish with their private property. Also how can a court order somthibg like this dont u need to be charged with a crime first.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why can't I fucking drive my car on a sidewalk! The government is denying my right to do as I wish with my private property! Why can't I make bombs at home! Fucking government!

We've only ever been allowed to do what we want with our stuff within reason, that is how society works.

And no you don't need to be charged with a crime fist, for example a warrant is done before charges are laid. Civil forfeiture in the US is another great example of it.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There are laws against driving on the sidewalk. There is no law sayibg the governmwnt can disable ur money whenever they please. A warrant is granted to collect evidance in cases of reasonable suspicion. Civil forfeiture is often used for abuse of police powers and breaks the rule of innocent until proven guilty is that really what u wanna be basing ur argument on? A racist rule used by cops to abuse a system for their own financial gain while violating a fundamental human right. Nice one.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And there are laws about how protesting works and violating those laws has penalties. Yes a warrant requires evidence, and judge, that's what I was saying, thank you for agreeing whth my point. I'm not saying civil forfeiture is just or good. But it is legal, and in your own words, there are law against driving on a side walk and civil forfeiture is legal. Nice one.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Was their a court order to stop these peoples money working or did some agency call up the bank and the bank complied without question?

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, legally, if an emergency is declared, because the clownvoy didn't comply with reasonable requests. The law grants further powers to those in charge. You know to prevent further violent occupation of downtown ottawa.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I asked a very specific question. Was there a court order to cut off the money? Stop avoiding my points engage in good faith stop giving non answers its not productive.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Yes.

https://torontolife.com/city/ontario-froze-20-million-in-freedom-convoy-assets-now-what-we-asked-monique-jilesen-the-toronto-based-lawyer-who-filed-the-injunction/

I'm not avoiding your point giving non answers. I'm saying there is a system in place that allows stuff like this to happen, the entire point of this back and forth. You're the one who keeps moving the goal posts.

[–] Didros@beehaw.org 1 points 1 month ago

On one hand, I don't think currency should exist at all, cash or otherwise.

On the other hand, I would love for everything we do to be tied to us. You cheat in video games? Congrats, no possibility to ban evade. You take a bribe as a politician? Congrats, we can all see it the second the transaction goes through. You earned a company $6,000 this week working with three other guys making only $1,000 total? They can look at the Financials and start their own company and stop making money for you. Ups and downs as with all things.

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Monero fixes this. They are incredibly afraid of it, and they have every right to be.

[–] astropenguin5@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Even if your monero wallet or account or whatever is firmly linked to your real identity?

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That's really not very doable since Monero acts as digital cash. Therefore, once you have it in Monero, you can spend it and they have no idea, you can lose it and they have no idea, or you can keep it and they have no idea. And you can move it around and they have no idea. So if they ask about it, you can very easily make the argument that you no longer have it unless they're going to use force on you that is.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Curious how that will work when crypto was billed as untraceable, until it came out that it was in a manner of speaking.

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

There are two types of cryptocurrencies. There are transparency coins, and those are blockchains such as Bitcoin, where the receiver address, the sender address, and the amount are all known. Then there are privacy blockchains such as Monero, where the sender is one of 16 people currently. The receiver is unknown and the amount sent is unknown as well. This is the nightmare of governments all over the world.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Interesting!

[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

https://decrypt.co/40284/us-homeland-security-can-now-track-privacy-crypto-monero

It seems that it's at least somewhat traceable as of 2020, and if you have any opsec failures you might be compromised and not even be aware. It's still better than cash but not a magic bullet.

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

You can call me and the rest of the Monero community skeptical. The article says that $3 million was made available for this, but the IRS has a $615 million bounty, and it has not been claimed. And the bounty is for Tracing Monero. So why would they take $3 million over $600 million? Monero does a really excellent job at preventing mass surveillance. There are a very few pinpoint target attacks that can be performed, but most normal people are not going to run into those sorts of issues. Basically, if you were selling, say, Bibles in North Korea and you bought from an Asian exchange and then sold accidentally to North Korean government operatives that were purposely sent out to find Bible sellers, they could link your buying with your selling to the compromised agents. But again, that's a very targeted attack. Also, keep in mind that the protocol is constantly improving and there is going to be a very big update to the privacy functionality in about a year or less.

[–] soloActivist@links.hackliberty.org 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Not sure what your point is. Monero is far more traceable than cash. Any self-respecting privacy advocate would fight against the war on cash first and foremost. Anything else is less important to fight for because it’s less private. When cash is gone, gold coins will probably be more private than Monero.

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Please explain how Monero is more traceable than cash. I absolutely must hear this.

[–] soloActivist@links.hackliberty.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

There is no public ledger for cash. There is no attack surface on the devices of yourself or the other party by which your cash transaction can be compromised. There are no electronic records to exfiltrate unless one party proactively deliberately records a transaction. And if they do, there is no non-repudiation. There is no risk that any cryptanalytic advances can later expose the whole history of all cash transactions or even a chain of cash transactions. Cash transactions leave no trace unless you do them under surveillance.

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

True, and while Monero does technically use a public blockchain, the cinder, the receiver, and the amounts are all hidden. If Monero's encryption is broken, then we have to worry about other fundamental parts of the internet, such as HTTPS and end-to-end encryption as well.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My conspiracy theory is the whole nft thing was a psyop to make crypto untrustworthy in the eyes of the majority.

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

If so, it was only partially successful. Surveys show about 15% of US adults own crypto and that number is rising as multiple cycles pass and people end up with multiple touch points. A person who heard about it in 2013 is probably like, no, I'll check this out later and forget about it. And then in 2017, they hear about it again. And it's like, oh, I'll check this out later. And they forget about it. And then in 2021, they're like, okay, this thing is still here. I really need to actually check it out now and go look into it.