With many countries already heading towards cashless transactions, we are facing some hard decisions. These decisions will be made whether we ignore them or not, so to have a say it is essential to be active. These are not new issues, but they are quickly approaching. Dominic Frisby at The Guardian is the latest to take up some of the pertinent questions around the move to a cashless society.
Poor people and small businesses rely on cash. A contactless system will likely entrench poverty and pave the way for terrifying levels of surveillance.
Source: Why we should fear a cashless world
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
In a World Without Cash, Every Payment You Make Will be Traceable
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 56 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Friday July 21 2017, @08:13PM (3 children)
When you abandon cash, then you will see other trade to take its place. It is true that the rich will stay rich (well, get richer on paper) and the poor will have nothing of monetary value. That is when you see people do trade in old-fashioned ways. New "cash" will establish itself. It will be painful and a lot of bandits will prey on the new cash, but the "poor" will have no other choice.
It would truly become a divided society, one that we should prevent by all means. However, just like digital currencies emerged, a parallel economy will emerge too. Once the parallel gets too big it can no longer be ignored. You may outlaw the parallel economy, but if you have nothing, you cannot take anything away. Otherwise you will set up for a revolutionary movement that will destroy the establishment (see history).
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @09:20PM (2 children)
Barter? But my Mr. Spock bust is hard to carry in my pocket and most people don't value it enough for general trade. One has to pretty much agree on what to trade ahead of time via the web, and small shops will be chock full of clutter for pending or future trades.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday July 21 2017, @10:07PM (1 child)
But that is exactly the sort of thing that poorer people used to do after all their cash had been spent on subsistence, very common in the UK until around 50 years ago. There used to be entire publications dedicated to people swapping things such as Exchange and Mart [wikipedia.org]. The TLA "WHY" meant like : "What Have You in exchange for my Mr Spock bust?"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday July 21 2017, @11:41PM
I'll trade my fully functional 561A [wordpress.com] for your bust of Mr. Spock and your first-edition leaked nude photos of Laura Schlessinger and Diana Muldaur.
Anyway, although the usual civil-liberties crowds are freaking out here, there's a much more pragmatic reason to abolish cash -- card vendors earn exorbitant and extortionate transaction fees from card usage. So much, in fact, that they're willing to pay up front to sweeten the deal. [cnn.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 21 2017, @08:17PM (9 children)
The elite don't like cash because it's anonymous. Not being able to mine cash transactions for ad data is the *least* annoying thing to them; what's more important is you can't track people by their purchase history with cash.
What the fuck is wrong with the people in charge? This has a creepy, almost sexual or voyeuristic overtone to it, like they're getting off on tracking and controlling people.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Friday July 21 2017, @08:34PM (6 children)
The rich have always gotten off on controlling people. Why wouldn't they also get off on tracking people, since it enables more control.
Most things that the rich buy represent 'stored labor' of the workers. A building. An exotic automobile. Yes, it has materials, but even those represent workers getting those materials from the ground and working them into usable materials. A fine meal is also stored labor served up on a plate.
The wealth is stored labor. It is itself a form of control. With their wealth the rich will get the workers to build whatever the rich want. What they don't want is a revolt. That might end their comfortable lives. They don't even want to simply narrow the wealth divide. That is just a form of loss of power and control.
Thus they will get off on tracking. It gives them more advance intelligence about potential trends leading to revolt.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday July 21 2017, @09:00PM (3 children)
Can you share the name of your dealer? Seems like quality product.
"The Rich" want to use the system to get richer. Bond-level villains who want to take over and control everything are cute, but they're extremely rare. Too much work, too many downsides, for too little profit.
So "they" invest (by contrast with the not-rich, who buy things losing value over time, consume), and "they" use their money to influence the system for a maximum return on investment.
Team up to control the result of the election? Why not, I'm sure some do try. But that's not the finality, which is return on investment. Those who reach very powerful official positions quickly notice that public office is a burden in which you're constantly exposed and criticized, and where building a shiny historical legacy is hard work against bad odds, and interferes with running the kind of successful business that got you there in the first place. That's why, until recently, billionaires weren't as common in office as your statement would imply. Giving bribes towards your desired ROI is a lot cleaner than direct "control".
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 22 2017, @12:04AM (2 children)
> "The Rich" want to use the system to get richer
If the rich wanted to get richer, they would promote development. Because development is more wealth, more stuff to get richer on.
Fact, the economic crisis, who started in 1990, has been forced. There was no need to optimize production at the expense of the workers and that triggered insecurity that triggered less consumption. Add to that the banking phase (first, lend out a lot, then, ask for sums back knowing that the money isn't there, then, seize assets)
And if you start with the capitalist fairy tale about optimization being inevitable, consider that lack of optimization is here, now. In fact you see lack of optimization for stuff like cars, or for a blatant example look at the difference in price/performance between mobile and PCs. They don't want to sell PCs anymore.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Saturday July 22 2017, @04:58PM (1 child)
Without PCs, what would people use to make mobile apps? AIDE [android-ide.com]? When does Xcode come to iPad Pro?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 22 2017, @11:31PM
Of course, corporations will buy PCs so they can create apps. But you, the consumer, are supposed to just have a mobile device for consuming content, not creating it.
Look at Apple, how they restrict who and what can be published in their store, and how they charge people to even be able to make apps for their iDevices. And their computers are becoming more and more like expensive dongles for iDevice app development rather than a platform anyone takes seriously anymore.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Saturday July 22 2017, @10:01AM (1 child)
The rich have always gotten off on controlling people.
The poor are every bit as much into controlling as the rich - possibly even more so. Does not
"the dictatorship of the proletariat" mean anything to you? or 1984? or union power?
It is true the poor generally have less opportunity, but they are very often more powerfully
motivated - at least partly because the rich tend to know that controlling people is not
all its cracked up to be, and certainly not in line with the fantasies of the powerless.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 23 2017, @02:50AM
You do indeed live up to your name...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Lagg on Friday July 21 2017, @08:44PM
Not that I don't find it extremely distressing to see parallels in Apocalypse Now, and this line is debated as to who/what it refers to. But there was something to this both then and now. Greed only works to explain it for a certain amount of money before it becomes clear the greed is a symptom. Terrified liars are still human. Reacting to things they can't control by going well beyond sane means to exert it anyway. Even if it's an illusion.
And you're right, it turns them on. I have the most minimal government experience possible. But I've seen county supervisors install security equipment at the cost of millions in an underfunded state just for that illusion of control because they were scared of constituents. No one ever attempted to attack them either. They simply overestimated their importance.
They bathe in the resulting outrage and criticism because they're aware that they're straddling a line. We can see reactions of state officials in this vein on live TV that people sometimes mistake for discomfort, appeasement or evading. It's a dance to them and probably goes a long way towards answering why politicians persist through the outrage of their own people. They're blase, miserable human beings that have trouble feeling otherwise.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Friday July 21 2017, @09:10PM
"What the fuck is wrong with the people in charge? This has a creepy, almost sexual or voyeuristic overtone to it, like they're getting off on tracking and controlling people."
Power is a drug, once you start getting it, you want more and more. Arguably people prone to getting addicted to power are drawn towards power, hence the high concentration of addicts in said positions of power. This isn't new, in fact, it is more than 2000 years old. When the ancient Greeks developed democracy, they knew of the risks brought upon by those who seek power for powers sake, so they forbade people from being politicians and lawyers.
Of course, over the millennia that really really important bit (not having professional politicians and lawyers) got eroded away, and with it democracy floundered, and now we got some nasty crap that is democracy in name mostly.
(Score: 2) by pgc on Friday July 21 2017, @08:29PM
The author just woke up in 2017?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @08:38PM (7 children)
..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Friday July 21 2017, @08:42PM (6 children)
Could use bitcoin maybe?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @10:00PM (4 children)
You're replying to what is most likely a troll who is just SO MAD about people modding their comments down.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @10:23PM (3 children)
Every day I hope to wake up in a world without SoylentNews and every day it's the same nightmare instead.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @10:35PM (1 child)
I mean really, who uses a site they hate? Who does that?
Oh, trolls apparently, cause they get off on misery.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Saturday July 22 2017, @05:30PM
Citizens in a taxing jurisdiction, customers of a utility, students at a school, sellers on a dominant online store, developers on a dominant computing platform, etc.
I concede that SN is none of the above.
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Friday July 21 2017, @11:15PM
I hate to see you sad. Just Google "block url" with the name of the browser you use and you'll quickly find how to block soylentnews.org so that it never dirties your computer screen ever again. You can also blacklist the domain name in your hosts file so that all the browsers you use on a computer will never go to SN ever again.
Just think of it. A little man-upping and 15-30 minutes of effort. Then the nightmare goes away for good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 22 2017, @12:35AM
Bitcoin is not private, but Monero [reddit.com] may be.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday July 21 2017, @08:45PM (4 children)
We didn't read it the first time so but the same quote in twice?
I use cash less and less. I often forego purchases that I can't do electronically, even if I happen to have the cash in my pocket.
I've never found cash all that convenient. You spend it, you had to make a trip somewhere, bank, ATM, to get more.
I found that as soon as you break that $100 bill, its gone. I'd think twice about spending a hundred, but nothing of spending 5 twenties.
Rather than fear the demise of cash, why not just put in play laws to prevent the abuse of power. You really only have to put one or two
FBI or CIA guys in front of a firing squad (figuratively or literally) to put a stop to the abuses. But first you have to have the balls to pass the laws.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Lagg on Friday July 21 2017, @08:54PM (1 child)
Haven't other countries proven that doing that shit to the government employees - even if willful and compliant - does the opposite of making an example? If people start thinking they'll get shot because other people don't like them they start doing their own stockpiling. But yeah I avoid carrying too much cash for similar reasons. Plus no reason to have more than a few 20s in your wallet.
In any case, people still need to buy an ounce of heaven's manna every now and then. Closest those have gotten to cashless is integrated ATMs or ATMs directly in a shop. The government itself needs to buy metric tons of illegal (by their own will) drugs or drugs that kill people. And also must accept payment from other such entities. Plus gun running. Plus the "let's just throw bricks of money at it" solution like with the palettes. You can only do so much with those magical "black" accounts before it gets obvious that money isn't put somewhere it should be.
I honestly think the government finds cash more important than we do still.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 21 2017, @11:23PM
You can hide a death star in those "black" accounts in the US. So it's not a serious problem for the US.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Friday July 21 2017, @09:10PM
Because those laws are made by the very people who abuse the power.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nuke on Friday July 21 2017, @10:13PM
Failed junior school maths? That's your problem. A greater concern is about maths-challeged people thinking nothing of spending $500 on credit, because nothing actually leaves their pocket at the time.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday July 21 2017, @08:55PM (5 children)
It couldn't be that hard to create cash machines at stores that scan serial numbers of all incoming and outgoing bills and upload them someplace. Why isn't this considered a possible issue with cash as well?
(Score: 2) by LVDOVICVS on Friday July 21 2017, @09:00PM
Some people already do that for fun. I've seen bills stamped with this website. https://www.wheresgeorge.com/ [wheresgeorge.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @10:30PM (1 child)
Because until absolutely every last place is logging every transaction, the partial trail is pretty useless.
"This bill you got out of an ATM last night was used for something illegal the next day."
"I owed my booky and paid him that night."
...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 21 2017, @11:27PM
"I was walking around town last night and had a couple of loose 20s in my pocket. They must have fallen out somewhere.
(Score: 2) by sgleysti on Saturday July 22 2017, @04:35AM (1 child)
Since stores don't also require your ID when you pay cash, this is far less of a definitive link of monetary transactions to individual persons.
Even if every bank and ATM required ID for withdrawal and recorded the serial numbers, you could potentially engage in cash transactions with other people, and then the link is broken.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Saturday July 22 2017, @05:34PM
Unless the purchase includes at least one of alcohol, tobacco, medication, R-rated movies, M-rated video games, spray paint, spray sealant, or anything else on the growing list of products whose purchase by a minor is a status offense.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Friday July 21 2017, @08:57PM (11 children)
I'm not rich, I'm not poor. I just don't see any benefit for me for giving up cash. I don't get lower prices if I pay with card, I can swipe my "membership card" in the store if I want to and still get store credit even tho it's hardly worth it. I could get a CC that gives me credit or points or so but is it enough? It just doesn't really add up for me unless I then bought everything on card. As it is now I have to have money in an account that give me 0% interest so I can swipe my card, unless I want to shop on credit and then pay it off every month. I might pay big ticket items with a card since it's just a pain to carry large amounts of cash. But for everyday stuff? Hell no.
There seems to only be benefits for the bank, for the store and for the government but there are no benefits for me. So why should I change to something that is only good for them? The added privacy is just a perk as far as I'm concerned, I'm not paranoid enough I guess. If anything about the cashless-society is pissing me off it's the banks and the way they act, I'm not even sure they should actually be called banks anymore cause they clearly don't want anything to do with money. All they seem to want to do is sell me on getting loans and buy stock and that is about it. If I step inside the bank that appears to be a giant drag for them, they want me to do all my banking online. Which once again is at no benefit whatsoever for me as I will do all the work and they get all the benefits. Also they get all pissy if I want to withdraw or deposit "large" sums of money -- I think the limit at the moment before they start asking questions is about $650 here. "Where did you get the money", "What are you going to use them for" ... etc.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday July 21 2017, @09:14PM (1 child)
I use a friends membership card (you and I call it a phone number) at the grocery store. I think he's got a couple other friends using his phone number as well. I'm happy, I typically save 30% on groceries. He's happy, he gets any perks like gas discounts that flow from his card.
By paying cash the store will need face recognition software to know who I am and what I buy.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @11:48PM
Is his name Jenny [wikipedia.org]?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @09:46PM (7 children)
There's less risk. Lose your card? So what, call to get a new one. Have your card stolen? So what, call to get a new one. With cash, if it's lost or stolen then it's gone forever.
It's easier and faster. It's much easier to carry around a single card than a bunch of bills and coins. It's also faster to checkout unless the store bought cheap card readers.
Maybe for you driving to a bank and standing in line is a good use of time, but for me being able to manage my account while dinner is cooking is vastly better than having to take off work to get to the bank during business hours.
I think you should switch to a better bank or credit union.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @10:12PM (2 children)
If you told someone from 50+ years ago that they would be able to do all their banking from home and have a single card to replace all their cash I'm sure they would be amazed and quite interested.
Then tell them that every purchase they make with the card will be tracked and the data analyzed to try and sell them stuff, build psychological profiles and track their physical movements. You will be given directions to the nearest bridge along with a a few helpful suggestions. Oh, also let them know that if someone steals their card they could very possibly steal a lot of their money that won't be reimbursed if its a debit card.
We have normalized insanity in the name of convenience. The genie won't go back in the bottle so we need to keep pushing for privacy laws and massive punishments for corporations that don't protect consumer data.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Saturday July 22 2017, @10:44AM (1 child)
You were obviously not around 50 years ago: that was 1967 - a time when people were indeed aware of the possibilities you describe,
and, indeed duly scared. After all, WW2 was still very much in people's minds, and (in the UK anyway) 1984 was on the 'O' level English
syllabus - if not that exact year then within a few years either side.
Computers as "Electronic brains" were also much in the news.
Privacy laws will, as a whole, be not much more use than anti-drug campaigns - at best they drive it underground. Do you know
what GCHQ are doing? what they could do? What they could do but don't, to avoid suspicion of their abilities? (Tin foil won't help).
Ultimately, I predict that what will kill this is "bit rot" and false positives. Watch what happens to spread sheets after a few years,
databases after 10's of years. Hell, the H/Ds on both Linux and Windows machines seem to leave piles of stray bits all over the
machine room floor! And even if the data is intact, with a high rate of staff turnover and piss poor documentation, the system
will fall to bits fairly quickly (ask you local ex kgb man about his experience).
Entropy may or may not be your friend, but it is a powerful enemy!
Believe me: I have consulted with the Dark Lords, and they said "You are fucked, mate".
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 1) by terryk30 on Saturday July 22 2017, @11:40AM
However: cheap storage, big data, AI?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nuke on Friday July 21 2017, @10:28PM (1 child)
What BS :
It does not need to be all or nothing. I carry around $25 for buying smaller things and a card for larger things. If I got $25 stolen it would be less hassle and value than spending the rest of the day phoning banks and doing paperwork.
My card wallet is much fatter and heavier than the $25 cash. Nevermind, I'm strong enough to manage.
Are you posting from 1950 through a time machine? Have you ever seen told about cash dispensers? There is one right outside my local supermarket - sorry I lied - there is a row of them outside my supermarket , one at each of three filling stations and one outside each of six banks in my typical small UK country town. All are within about 800 yards of each other.
WTF has managing you account got to do with it? I manage my account at home online too, nothing to do with how I pay for things.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday July 22 2017, @02:35PM
You may be unaware that the land of the free, home of the brave is also the land of double-dipping. In addition to inbound and outbound telephone call charges and inbound and outbound SMS charges, people in the US are accustomed to a 3% bank teller charge [mybanktracker.com] or similar to use an ATM [wikipedia.org]. The US doesn't have a reciprocal inter-bank cash dispensing fee. Instead, they fleece the customer.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by looorg on Friday July 21 2017, @10:42PM (1 child)
It's not like I carry around some kind of McDuck sized moneybag. If I lose my wallet I lose perhaps a few hundred bucks, which would be annoying but nothing more, it's not money worth dying for. If I lose, or somehow get scammed out of, my CC or bankcard they could in theory clean out my account completely. How is that better? I might get it back or part of it back after some investigation if they somehow find I wasn't at fault. But I might not even know for days, weeks or months that some store I shopped in got skimmed or had some giant databreach. If I drop my wallet I'll know within a day, if someone sticks a knife in my face and wants my wallet I'll know right away. The money in that case will never be the issue - it will be ID cards and such that are a much bigger pain to have to deal with.
Convenience seems to be what they are trying to sell me on. But it really isn't much of convenience. Their benefit is so much greater then mine. I guess I just don't live as busy a life as most people that need to do like everything all the time from anywhere. Plus I already get a benefit from not using cards in the store -- since most other people do the line for manual checkout is a lot shorter these days. Plus I get to interact with a real human, sometimes entertaining -- sometimes not. But otherwise when I cook dinner, I cook dinner - I might do some dishes or so when things are on the stove. Balancing my account has not really crossed my mind, but that is a personal preference I gather. I think I walk past a bank or an ATM almost every day, even when I don't live in the city I can pass by one at least once a week without going out of my way. That is enough for me.
I think I should switch bank to, if only they where not all the same and sucked equally. The only difference between them appears to be the sign in front of the building.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25 2017, @07:25AM
If you managed your credit card statements every month you'd easily see fraud transactions and be able to report them as such. I don't consider credit cards to be the same as debit card and never carry debit cards. In USA you're limited to $50 of fraudulent transactions (most credit cards companies will eat that $50 for good PR) and it's up to the merchant to prove the transaction was valid, not you.
I track all my finances and tracking card purchases is a lot easier than tracking cash. It was very helpful as a starving student and being close to $0 as well as when making sure I'd have enough to purchase and maintain my first home. There's some piece of mind in not having to remember how much I have in my wallet, but all the stores I shop at have to be driven to so I don't have easy access ATMs I'd always pass while shopping. Being able to get cash at every store would make using cash easier, but then I'd have to start carrying around a debit card which would matter if that was stolen.
Each way has it's pros and cons. As long as both stay possible, I'm fine with that.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday July 22 2017, @10:32AM
I'm not rich, I'm not poor. I just don't see any benefit for me for giving up cash
90% of my expenses are via something other than cash, I can see exactly where my money has gone. The 10% that is cash gets spent on various things. Sometimes I remember, other times I don't.
I know exactly how much I spend on lunches, or on coffee, or takeaways, because it gets categorised every few weeks when I dump my statements into homebank, this allows me to make useful spending decisions.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday July 21 2017, @09:23PM
Quid pro quo? Payment in kind? Status quo? Rocking all over the world?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @09:44PM
maybe it's time to buy stock in the companies that insure all this electrically powered economy?
just dump it before the next big-o solarflare : )
(Score: 3, Informative) by liberza on Friday July 21 2017, @10:37PM (2 children)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Friday July 21 2017, @11:07PM (1 child)
That's what they want you to think.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 22 2017, @06:07PM
there are multiple crypto projects working on privacy.
(Score: 4, Informative) by stormwyrm on Friday July 21 2017, @11:55PM (1 child)
Yeah. I made a submission for the exact same article last year [soylentnews.org]!
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Saturday July 22 2017, @08:21AM
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 22 2017, @12:12AM
He was a soldier of glory."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 22 2017, @07:55AM
Unless you're a rich fucker doing the tax dodge offshore dance with shell companies and dirty banks etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 22 2017, @09:23PM
Problem solved.
Other than having to pay the rent, use bitcoin for when you need 'money', and anything else you just barter.