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

Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 717 posts

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#671

Post by [deleted] »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #662
tekknik wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People just like the convenience, and cash is on its way out. My favorite question that many of the people on this site love to ignore, what about natural disasters? Do you believe CC terminals still work when the rest of the infrastructure has failed? Cash is far from on the way out, you’re being naive.

Sure, natural disaster occurs, then...maybe I have more things to worry about then having cash? If the POS is down at the store, the cell phone networks are surely down (since many POS these days are just cellphones attached to Stripe or similar), and I'm guessing your saying FEMA help won't come very soon, it will be everyone for themselves in the city? At least I won't be the only one suffering in such a DOOM scena…

[deleted]

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#672

Post by mstipetic »

marssaxman wrote: post #667
mstipetic wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every system can be corrupted. Feels like Americans are so afraid of the slippery slope at every turn, instead of accepting it is there always and the onus is on the people to manage them correctly and participate in the policy decision making that does that.

That's like complaining that Americans are so afraid of house fires that they strive to build their houses from flame-retardant materials and avoid the use of open flame, instead of accepting that house fires just happen and the onus is on the fire department to come by and put them out.

No it’s not. I’m saying Americans are afraid of slippery slopes and it’s leaving them paralyzed to affect any change, instead of accepting that the world is messy and the role of governing is to navigate this. In your analogy it would be like they are afraid to build any houses because a house fire could destroy it.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#673

Post by [deleted] »

JohnFen wrote: post #664
onionisafruit wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that a postal carrier would be criminally liable for knowingly delivering a live bomb, but I think you’re wrong on the end part. There is no legal obligation to try to stop crimes you know about. In most cases there isn’t even an obligation to report them.

In most US states, it is illegal to fail to report a crime. This is usually a misdemeanor, but is a felony in some states and with some types of crime.

[deleted]

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#674

Post by thesz »

neom wrote: post #559
thesz wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Invoction of Emergencies Act during and after protest convoy and related banking regulation changes.

That's hardly "changing the law" - that was invoking an existing law in the face of a valid national security risk. Granted law makers voted to extend the law slightly, never the less, the law has always existed in Canada. I would never want to live in a Canada where payment processors are blind to transactions and the government couldn't freeze accounts of extremists/terrorists.

Define extremists/terrorists, again.

Be sure to define it in such a way that you can't be labeled as such in any cicumstances.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#675

Post by [deleted] »

mstipetic wrote: post #672
marssaxman wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like complaining that Americans are so afraid of house fires that they strive to build their houses from flame-retardant materials and avoid the use of open flame, instead of accepting that house fires just happen and the onus is on the fire department to come by and put them out.

No it’s not. I’m saying Americans are afraid of slippery slopes and it’s leaving them paralyzed to affect any change, instead of accepting that the world is messy and the role of governing is to navigate this. In your analogy it would be like they are afraid to build any houses because a house fire could destroy it.

[deleted]

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#676

Post by rsaesha »

JCharante wrote: post #575
rsaesha wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an option: a direct payment system provided by the Central Bank to the general public. In Brazil it is called PIX, and was implemented in 2020. Last month it has processed more than 3 million operations. Works 24/7, 0 fees to end users, low cost for business. IMO, going cashless is not an "if", it is a "when". https://www.bcb.gov.br/en/financialstability/pix_en

3 million ops in 1 month, 30 days per month = 100,000 ops per 24 hours (on average) = 4166 ops per hour = 69.4 ops per minute = ~more than 1 op per second. I think we really should have such a system (Vietnam has something like this) but I wouldn't use it as an example just yet.

I will never condemn caution, even more so for financial systems.

International institutions such as the Bank of International Settlements have recognized PIX as a successful case:

https://www.bis.org/publ/bisbull52.htm

A similar service has been prepared for years, and US Federal Reserve will launch FedNow this July:

https://explore.fednow.org/

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#677

Post by autoexec »

usernew wrote: post #581
colinsane wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if the payment processor knew the transaction was for a contract killing but processed it anyway, would they not be facilitating a crime (“aiding and abetting”)? are you saying we should specifically exempt payment processors from being held responsible for crimes that the rest of us — or any other business — could be found guilty of when performing the same functions? or are you suggesting something more broad: that…

They key is, the payment processor would not know, because they should not have the ability to ask. What's needed here, is a replacement for cash. Nothing more, nothing less. The digital dollar wallet, with a number and a passcode that only you have. And you can send that to another wallet number. That is the scope, and the complete scope. Bitcoin w/o the blockchain. This should be provided by a government, not a ban…

> The court looked at the wife's toll records, showing she comes home from work real late, and that would impact the quality of life for kids. Boy, I bet she never thought she'd lose her kids by using a toll tag.

Do you have a source for that? Google wasn't being helpful.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#678

Post by fineIllregister »

arcticbull wrote: post #207
fineIllregister wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it wouldn't have protected Pornhub. The payment processors pulled out due to CSAM, revenge porn, and copyright infringement, none of which are legal.

Are you saying that's a bad thing?

Not sure how you got that from my comment. I'm not the one arguing for "payment nuetrality". I'm just saying that such a provision wouldn't apply in the Pornhub case if it allowed for a suspected illegality escape hatch.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#679

Post by kubanczyk »

tchaffee wrote: post #631
kelnos wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know it's for human trafficking? Are you deputized by the government to act as judge and jury? If you think something might be for human trafficking, you report it to law enforcement and let them deal with it. They'll gather evidence, build a case, make arrests, and hand things off to a DA/prosecutor who will file charges. Or, at some point, someone will decide it's not human trafficking, or at least that…

> How do you know it's for human trafficking? It's a thought experiment. There are surely cases in life in which you know for sure that crime is being committed. What you're asking for though is that due criminal process be a part of denying a payment. Which seems extremely heavy handed. If my payment processing company doesn't want to help sell guns, or help with human trafficking, or hell, doesn't want to support t…

> There are surely cases in life in which you know for sure that crime is being committed

These are the cases of having evidence, right? Which should be reported.

> I should be able to run my business according to those ethical choices. My company isn't sending someone to jail. They are just refusing to accept a payment. There is no need for due criminal process to refuse a payment.

And if two or three large businesses cover 99% of a given market (payment market), how about some anti-monopolistic legal protections? Them colluding to stop the meat industry, continuing your example, would be a monopolistic practice.

Re: Pro-cash movement warns that people could be losing more than they bargained for

#680

Post by tchaffee »

kelnos wrote: post #589
lazide wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you reading what you are writing? People can (and do) know things without having enough evidence to stand up in court. It’s how 99% of everything works, frankly. Banks right now are denying transactions because they ‘know’ it’s fraud, based on ML models and probability and no other evidence. If you require someone to not ‘know’ something until they have enough evidence they could prove it in court, they won’t be…

The entire point of this subthread is that this way of doing things is garbage. Banks shouldn't be allowed to deny transactions because they "know" it's fraud, but we've allowed our governments to force them into the position of doing law enforcement, something we should not want them to do. But people who think the government should outsource its responsibilities seem to think this kind of thing is a good idea. Simi…

Denying a payment isn't the same as putting someone in jail and therfore shouldn't require the same standard of due process. Allowing a business to accept credit cards is not a basic human right.
Post reply on HN