701–710 of 915 posts
With inflation, “worker shortages”, and prices rising - 10,000 will soon become within reach for lots of normal people. Pushing them to NEED to use a profit driven banking system. Forcing them to be tracked. To have data mined and sold. To rely on “too big to fail” banking systems that practically schedule economic downturns every 20 years or so.
Source ?
"To have data mined and sold."
Which is completely illegal according to GDPR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instant bank transfer using your phone or laptop, smartcard + token.
If I were to wager then I would bet that at least half the population would be unable to make that work. I don't know anybody in real life who accesses their money via a phone. They can do it via a computer, but most people I know don't have laptops.
Most people I know over 70 have internet banking on their phones. Every adult I know under that age does.
Where do you live where this is incredibly rare?
There already exists laws where you have to register with tax authorities to receive payments in cash over 10,000 euros. It would be quite easy for the government to look at this list and decide that there's no reason they can't be done by BACS and then introduce this law. There's a lot of replies that are quite shocked, but in the EU and the UK it is very unusual to use cash for high value payments. For example, you…
I rarely use cash and oppose it. Why keep money on you? Cash promotes tax evasion and money laundering, plain and simple.
"Why would you want a contingency plan?" seems an odd take on a forums primarily composed of IT professionals. "I oppose you having contingency plan" seems downright hostile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I went to the bank [..] Would a certified check so the same trick?
No, that's actually a popular scam at the moment. People think certified/cashiers checks or money orders are trustworthy. They can be faked.
Cash can be faked too
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's actually a popular scam at the moment. People think certified/cashiers checks or money orders are trustworthy. They can be faked.
Then perform the exchange in a bank, under a similar arrangement as the cash transaction of the scenario I was replying to. Cash can be faked too
Cash can be faked but it has good anticounterfeiting features, unlike checks.
Everyone saying "muh GDPR" has no clue none of it applies to financial transactions. To get a PSD2 "Open Banking" license one needs to KYC every user and keep every transaction that passes through the system, for 5 years, including the KYC data. Being PSD2 licensed doesn't even make you a bank. Just imagine what an actual bank has to keep around... Also every business has to keep invoices and transaction data around…
What GDPR gives you, is to know which data is kept, for how long and with access to whom. It also forbids for a bank to give your these information to Google or Facebook, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Entire transaction took place in bank - and cash was immediately deposited into bank and never even left bank building. Not entirely sure why it would be a problem or enable anything? (and obviously, seller wanted cash) (and it is possible that I misunderstood something) And I would do the same - just to avoid worrying that maybe transfer is not going to arrive or get reverted or something (that is 100% hypothetical,…
What you said doesn't make sense. The seller requested the buyer to pull the money out of the bank into cash and then immediately deposited that cash into their bank account. What would be the reason for doing that? Doesn't make sense unless you've worded what happened incorrectly by accident.
I would be really anxious if I would be selling something worth 80% of my wealth.
Maybe the entire thing was hilariously pointless? But neither buyer nor seller was expert on this stuff.
(unless seller was hiding really well and it was some 6D chess)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Entire transaction took place in bank - and cash was immediately deposited into bank and never even left bank building. Not entirely sure why it would be a problem or enable anything? (and obviously, seller wanted cash) (and it is possible that I misunderstood something) And I would do the same - just to avoid worrying that maybe transfer is not going to arrive or get reverted or something (that is 100% hypothetical,…
This sounds like how you would buy a flat where you didn't want to make a paper trail. In the real (non-criminal) world you would have a conveyancing solicitor handle it, and he would take care of the contract, the transfer, checking for liens, stamp duty etc. How do you even know the seller owns the flat when you do everything in cash?
I expect that they also checked at least basic status of that property and that it had no mortgage, encumbrances etc recorded in the land register.
I bet that bank also recorded that transactions.
A similar thing was attempted in Australia [1]. I just ask people to consider that even though we all have bank accounts and we take that for granted, there _are_ actually people who don't, and they're not operating a criminal enterprise. My grandparents came as refugees. My grandfather has never had a bank account. He bought a car with $50 bills once. It was so funny, they were all stuck together and the clerk had t…
> If a ban prevented him from paying for that surgery with cash, he just wouldn't get the surgery He can go to a bank with the cash and do a wire transfer.
I don’t trust banks either. I don’t trust the Canadian government anymore as of last winter either.
But if I need surgery and I have the means then I make it happen. I figure out the banking system and I get surgery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The EU is an incredible boon to civil rights We don’t even have a true right to free speech. That puts us behind the U.S., because I struggle to think of a “civil right” that we have but Americans don’t. And before you pull “healthcare”, first of all, it’s got nothing to do with the EU, and secondly, in most EU countries the state-funded healthcare is so abysmal that everyone who can afford it still takes out priva…
> We don’t even have a true right to free speech. That puts us behind the U.S., because I struggle to think of a “civil right” that we have but Americans don’t. > And before you pull “healthcare”, first of all, it’s got nothing to do with the EU, and secondly, in most EU countries the state-funded healthcare is so abysmal that everyone who can afford it still takes out private insurance. So free speech is an EU matte…
- SIM card registration in nearly every member state
- No exclusionary rule in many member states (evidence obtained illegally is admissible in court)
- A "warrant" in the American sense is confined to a set of specific locations that the police think are tied to criminal activity but in many member states are much more general and open for abuse
- Mandatory data retention (until the ECJ struck it down)
- Mandatory key disclosure laws in many member states
- No option of trial by jury in some member states
- Guilt by association crimes in some member states ("mafia-type association" in Italy)