Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 325 posts

Re: Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

#301

Post by belorn »

sbarre wrote: post #271
belorn wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> before civil society (via it's police force and/or government) says "ok, that's enough". Can you elaborate why it is "and/or government". Why is it acceptable that the government by-pass the normal legal system in dealing with protestors?

> Why is it acceptable that the government by-pass the normal legal system in dealing with protestors? I'm not going to debate whether it was legal or not with you because (I'm assuming) neither of us are lawyers. I'll say that I don't particularly agree with the bank account shenanigans they pulled, but they only did that because the Ottawa police force completely failed to do their job in dealing with the blockade.…

The legality of the event is know. It was illegal, as deemed by a court of law.

The question I was after is if the concept is ever moral or reasonable to deal with protestors with methods outside the legal system. Common methods are the military, but also martial law, suspending bank accounts (without a court decision), and other methods.

Current in Sweden we had recent several demonstrations that lead to riots, and historically we had major ones including one that lead to several demonstrators getting shot. Every single time, researchers and government investigations has found that using anything other than the regular legal system is counter productive, and in some cases very deadly. If the police don't do their job you get more police from other regions. In a event just a few months ago, they even got police from nearby countries to help (despite massive demonstrations and influx of tourists, crime went significant down during that period).

In general, the problem of police not doing their job seems to stem from when they are afraid. Either because of being extremely outnumbered, or in combination with poor instruction (with can lead to being afraid of doing mistakes in a political hot situation). Both are problems that can be solved by politicians without going outside the framework of the legal system.

Re: Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

#302

Post by philistine »

acadapter wrote: post #20

The bad feeling I get from cashless is "what if some future political conflict will lower the status of my ethnicity to such a low position, so I'll be denied buying food and nobody will care?" or some similar scenario.

The risk is at the point of entry of your money, not the point of exit.

Find me an employer who will happily pay you cash directly in 2024. Find me a way to get your finances in order without a bank that then has to respect laws surrounding transactions.

The fact we can't obfuscate cash purchases does not reduce the ability of your government to deny you access to your money in a bank.

Re: Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

#303

Post by rexfarwell »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #232
rexfarwell wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The MOU of the protestors was to overthrow the government. Seems like an appropriate response. https://archive.org/details/convoymou2022/page/3/mode/2up

The MOU was no more an overthrow than people proposing any policy. IF protesters request the government set up a community oversight board for the police or build a playground, that wouldn't not be overthrow either. I have seen the MOU linked several times, but nobody has ever made a coherent argument how it constitutes treason, overthrow, or anything else of that nature. It is a simple list of demands from protester…

The protestors wanted the "Federal Government" to enforce their versions of laws in the MOU or they were to resign, and were prepared to take over by force if the MOU was not signed or their demands were not met. They wanted to have their own January 6 moment, but in Canada this time.

Re: Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

#304

Post by causal »

siliconc0w wrote: post #7

Cashless is convenient but effectively amounts to automatic inflation. Not just from the merchant fees but making it easier to slowly raise prices/fees/tip %. Plus whatever % of the population is dumb enough to revolve credit and get buried in debt.

You don't have to be dumb to get buried- just being poor is enough. Credit cards very much favor the well-off.

Re: Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

#305

Post by causal »

banish-m4 wrote: post #223

And panopticon surveillance and control over every move you make in life by corporations, small businesses, and governments. Want to tip the cashier or give money to the homeless window washer? No. Also, AI social credit and precrime are just a nightmare away.

These are worst-case scenarios worth considering, but IMO an obvious one not being discussed enough: credit cards are great if you're wealthy, horrible if you're poor.

Between fees, absurd penalties for missed payments, and horrible rates if you don't have great credit- credit cards fleece the most vulnerable in our society while granting sweet perks to those with plenty.

Cash is a poor person's best way to opt-out.

Re: Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

#306

Post by causal »

vasco wrote: post #83
Magi604 wrote: post #45

I feel like it would be easy to just mandate stores to have to allow for cash transactions. It seems simple to enforce too, just walk into a store and try and by something with cash. If not, report/fine. As a Canadian, I also feel like there are so many more pressing issues right now, like housing, employment, inflation, immigration. Does this cash/cashless issue somehow affect one of these things?

They take away your freedom in one area X, and when they want to take away your freedom in another area Y you go, "it's ok, we have bigger problems like X".

Well said. Not to mention the absurd implication that the housing crisis would somehow be helped by neglecting this issue.

Re: Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

#307

Post by s1artibartfast »

rexfarwell wrote: post #303
s1artibartfast wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The MOU was no more an overthrow than people proposing any policy. IF protesters request the government set up a community oversight board for the police or build a playground, that wouldn't not be overthrow either. I have seen the MOU linked several times, but nobody has ever made a coherent argument how it constitutes treason, overthrow, or anything else of that nature. It is a simple list of demands from protester…

The protestors wanted the "Federal Government" to enforce their versions of laws in the MOU or they were to resign, and were prepared to take over by force if the MOU was not signed or their demands were not met. They wanted to have their own January 6 moment, but in Canada this time.

None of that is supported by the document you linked.

It is just a list of demands. Is it a insurrection any time a protester makes a demand?

Re: Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

#308

Post by causal »

snakeyjake wrote: post #173
chihuahua wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For credit cards, my access can be disabled when the two networks are coerced into blacklisting me. For cash, the imaginary evil powers would have to convince tens of thousands of individual stores to do the same. And even then, it would be impossible to enforce, because with a cash payment, there is no record that could be checked to enforce compliance.

> For cash, the imaginary evil powers would have to convince tens of thousands of individual stores to do the same. You seem to be implying that this is somewhat unlikely. History is full of this exact thing happening. Recent history. Until the 1970s in the US it was legal, and common, for businesses to refuse to do business with a woman without a male's permission. There were only a precious few municipalities where…

What? You've completely reversed the facts here.

Women couldn't get credit cards until 1974- they could ONLY use cash before that. The 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act is what outlawed refusing credit to women, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Credit_Opportunity_Act

If anything history supports the opposite of your chosen narrative.

Re: Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

#309

Post by causal »

_visgean wrote: post #266
snakeyjake wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For cash, the imaginary evil powers would have to convince tens of thousands of individual stores to do the same. You seem to be implying that this is somewhat unlikely. History is full of this exact thing happening. Recent history. Until the 1970s in the US it was legal, and common, for businesses to refuse to do business with a woman without a male's permission. There were only a precious few municipalities where…

> Grocery stores until the mid-1900s did not actually sell products to women. Women would pick out and receive products and a bill would be sent to her male supervisor for his approval and payment. I find this hard to believe, how would that work in large and anonymous cities where nobody knows each other? If a woman went grocery shopping they would send the bill to where exactly, just a random address she gives them…

Because it's not true. Maybe mid-1800s, but by mid-1900s women could totally use cash. Not credit cards though, 1974 is when women were allowed to get those. In other words, the exact opposite of what that comment is saying.

Re: Canada 'sleepwalking' into cashless society, consumer advocates warn

#310

Post by causal »

brainwad wrote: post #211
arresin wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? With cashless you can’t spend at all if your account is frozen.

So the alternative is, what, you can spend whatever is left in your wallet, but the rest of your money is still frozen? The difference from maintaing physical cash seems very marginal. Or are you suggesting we all pull all our money out of bank accounts and store it in cash under the bed, just in case one day we get unpersoned? The costs of doing that vastly outweight the expected benefits.

This is a strawman argument: You've setup a scenario where cash isn't very beneficial, and then show why it's not beneficial.

Before the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, women could only use cash. Sure it would have been way cooler if they weren't discriminated against, but many women still only survived because of the cash option, and none of them would have said "Well since I might run out of money anyway go ahead and make it impossible for me to use what I have".

Post reply on HN