According to the article, the main problem of a financial police state where you cannot so much as buy a loaf of bread without permission and surveillance from the payment system, is that not everyone is included.
But that's the point: people will not be able to buy a loaf of bread if they don't meet with the system's approval.
Look, I switched to completely contactless payment through my phone since Covid, and it's so convenient I'm not going back. And it's hard for me to imagine people who don't have access to a bank account or smartphone, but those people do exist, and they may eventually become unable to buy a loaf of bread, and that's a problem.
That's not a real choice because governments will abuse it. If you don't have private, permissionless payments, you face the risk that the government will stop you from buying bread.
Don't believe it? Here are some other programs governments have abused: The US put people on the no fly list for refusing to become FBI informants [1]. Canada froze bank accounts of protestors. China abused their COVID tracking app to stop protests. [2]
It's important to remember past government abuses so we don't give them more tools for future abuses.
If you give me the choice between a government that tries to force me to cede my autonomy and my privacy in order to buy a loaf of bread or go hungry, I'm sharpening my pitchfork and lighting my torch ten times out of ten.
If you want total financial control over people, you sure want it over the whole population, and not just those who already have too much to lose to actually protest or do something against the government.
Since the "two missed meals" that are between today and a revolution are most probable for the poor, skipping them would be bad for the overlords.
It does seem to be a more clear and present danger to health and wellbeing for a chunk of society than the usual HN paranoia about loss of some imagined supreme personal autonomy and the government stopping you from buying what you want.
It's an exceptionally flexible and convenient method of control.
Earlier this year, donors to the truck convey protest in Canada had their bank accounts frozen. This wasn't a targeted list of "these 37 people have broken a law"--rather, it was a broad mandate to freeze accounts assocated with the protests, operationalized a bit differently by each bank.
In a society where most businesses don't take cash anymore, this turnkey coercive capability becomes more airtight.
The frog will boil slowly. A few years ago, all US payment processors blocked donations to Wikileaks, after they reported on war crimes in Iraq. Today, most people still think of digital money in the same way as physical cash; in reality, every transaction is a request for permission, with fraud heuristics and blocklists that might say yes or no.
Soon, a guy gets DUI, loses the ability to buy alcohol for six months--who would oppose that? Over time, the scope and frequency of financial deplatforminig will expand. Twitter does one-week suspensions for violating their terms of service. Why not your credit card?
Few stores keep video recordings indefinitely. A fair number don't even bother with recording at all, they just make sure cameras are visible to act as a deterrent.
Financial transaction records at banks might as well be forever, though.
One of those is far more powerful than the other, and far more dangerous if it gets leaked to malicious actors.
There are anonynous digital payment services. It is very difficult to surveil your loaf of bread transaction history if it isn't recorded and the customer is unknown.
One of the key selling-points of Central Bank Digital Currencies for governments is that they will be able to provide extensive insights into citizens' behavior (how demand and consumption patterns change according to various factors) as well as a variety of levers that they will be able to use adjust that behavior in subtle and opaque ways. I'm not sure how much parallel privacy-focused systems will be tolerated under such future regimes.
Shoplift? No big deal. Have the theoretical potential to avoid even 1 penny in taxes? The only option is a financial panopticon that tracks the flow of all money!
kevincox|3 years ago
I'm not saying that privacy isn't important but I don't think it is the main problem compared to people being unable to use currency.
mcv|3 years ago
Look, I switched to completely contactless payment through my phone since Covid, and it's so convenient I'm not going back. And it's hard for me to imagine people who don't have access to a bank account or smartphone, but those people do exist, and they may eventually become unable to buy a loaf of bread, and that's a problem.
leereeves|3 years ago
Don't believe it? Here are some other programs governments have abused: The US put people on the no fly list for refusing to become FBI informants [1]. Canada froze bank accounts of protestors. China abused their COVID tracking app to stop protests. [2]
It's important to remember past government abuses so we don't give them more tools for future abuses.
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/us/supreme-court-case-no-...
2: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/business/china-code-prote...
tboyd47|3 years ago
Privacy isn't the most important thing in the world but it's shortsighted to just throw it out the window. You don't need it 'til you need it.
It's okay to be friends with people who can't keep a secret but you need to have at least one friend who can.
john_the_writer|3 years ago
What if you get arrested because you sold a train ticket to someone who doesn't have enough "social credit" to buy said train ticket?
happyopossum|3 years ago
StanislavPetrov|3 years ago
AinderS|3 years ago
ajsnigrutin|3 years ago
Since the "two missed meals" that are between today and a revolution are most probable for the poor, skipping them would be bad for the overlords.
Nursie|3 years ago
EdwardDiego|3 years ago
In my country, a warrant is required to access both sources of data.
dcposch|3 years ago
Earlier this year, donors to the truck convey protest in Canada had their bank accounts frozen. This wasn't a targeted list of "these 37 people have broken a law"--rather, it was a broad mandate to freeze accounts assocated with the protests, operationalized a bit differently by each bank.
In a society where most businesses don't take cash anymore, this turnkey coercive capability becomes more airtight.
The frog will boil slowly. A few years ago, all US payment processors blocked donations to Wikileaks, after they reported on war crimes in Iraq. Today, most people still think of digital money in the same way as physical cash; in reality, every transaction is a request for permission, with fraud heuristics and blocklists that might say yes or no.
Soon, a guy gets DUI, loses the ability to buy alcohol for six months--who would oppose that? Over time, the scope and frequency of financial deplatforminig will expand. Twitter does one-week suspensions for violating their terms of service. Why not your credit card?
zdragnar|3 years ago
Financial transaction records at banks might as well be forever, though.
One of those is far more powerful than the other, and far more dangerous if it gets leaked to malicious actors.
imtringued|3 years ago
brippalcharrid|3 years ago
seibelj|3 years ago
mistrial9|3 years ago