Hacker News Reader

Comment by henrikschroder | Hacker News Reader

Another point is that cash allows you to buy unethical things and illegal things. It allows economical activity on the edges of society. Some of those edges are bad, but some are good.

How could you run a gay bar, in a place where gay bars are illegal, and the government could just block your payments? How could you sell marijuana and build the legalize movement, if government could just block those payments? How could you run a whistleblower leak site on the internet through donations, if the government can just block all payments to you?

Deciding what people can buy and cannot buy sounds great if you're the one in power. But if you're not, it will pretty quickly turn into another form of tyranny.

View on HN

How could you sell marijuana and build the legalize movement, if government could just block those payments?

It is even worse than that. In Canada, cannabis is going to become legal this week. Government stores will sell it in some provinces, regulated private stores in others. Despite this, experts are warning people to buy it with cash, and never ever with a credit card. You see, Visa, MasterCard, and Amex are American companies subject to American data protection law. Because cannabis is illegal in the US, buying it with a credit card means the US government can learn about the transaction and ban you for life from the US.

Credit card is only an option for the intersection of international laws. As soon as you want to do something that is not legal in some countries, you better switch to cash.

Here in San Francisco Bay Area, you can use your debit card and the charge is identical to an ATM. If your purchase is $31.50, you're charged $40 (like an ATM) and given the difference back as cash.

Do they really charge a 9.50 transaction fee?

No. They give the $9.50 back to you. But on paper, you took $40 out of an ATM. On their end it's like you handed them $40 and they owe you change.

No, it's a method to preserve purchaser privacy.

* You purchase some goods.

* Store triggers an 'ATM' withdrawal of a multiple of $20 that is greater than the cost of your purchase.

* You actually buy your goods with cash behind the scenes.

* The teller hands you your change from the cash transaction.

Same as having an ATM next to the checkout counter but the customer doesn't have to do the awkward step.

I paid for alcohol in multiple countries between 18-21 years old. Do you think the US Gov cares that much about anything non-terror to seek foreign transactions?

Maybe. Maybe not. Getting banned from the US is a pretty big inconvenience for most people living in southern parts of Canada (i.e. most people in Canada). It is unwise to play Russian roulette with that. Even if the current administration is cool with it, there is no guarantee that the next one will be.

Canadian media thinks it is not worth the risk [0], especially in the light of the statements made by US officials [1].

[0] https://globalnews.ca/news/4140898/legal-pot-data-banned-us-...

[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/13/canada-weed-pot-bo...

We ought not to rely on Security through Insignificance. The data isn't just available to a current administration that doesn't care about it. It's available to all future administrations that might.

To me it's not just about the government being able to block transactions.

The privatization of the payment system (which is basically complete in my country) means that my ability to participate in the economy is dependent on the whims of my bank, credit card issuer, and their (automated) blacklists.

Think of all the stories of Paypal accounts being frozen for no reason, or bad reasons, or even good reasons. Remember that at least once, for Wikileaks in 2010, Paypal unilaterally decided that what an account holder was doing was illegal and shut them down - and of course, legally, that's their right. Private companies get to choose who they do business with.

Personally, I think that's a rather worrying prospect: A private entity can now 401 my request for groceries. The payment system is critical infrastructure and should be treated as such.

Right - "the edges of society" are no longer being defined by government, they're being defined by platforms for {speech, payment, bandwidth...} that are privately (and centrally) controlled.

I was talking to a guy who worked at a hydroponic store.

He said they had to have armored guards at the store, because the thieves knew there was a good chance the customers were paying cash so the store carried a lot of cash and the customers did also.

I personally like cash, but there are some risks. Especially if you're in somewhat marginalized portions of society, cash is replete so robbers are attracted.

Every cannabis store has at least 1 ATM inside, and a common transaction involves a trip to the ATM. When the ATM goes down, the store basically shuts down - they have to send people down the street to the nearest ATM, and some customers of course just goto another shop with a working ATM.

Stores in CA now take debit cards. You buy a FED legal item such as a lighter and do cash back for the cannabis purchase. Wonder how long till the FED notice that...

> You buy a FED legal item such as a lighter and do cash back for the cannabis purchase.

(I'm not based in the US.) I don't get it — aren't the point-of-sales system and card processing machine separate? How does cash back make a difference when all the card company knows is how much you're spending at a particular store?

Maybe the card processor bans marijuana, so this is workaround for that rule.

Indeed - For society to continue to evolve imperfect application of the law is essential.

> Another point is that cash allows you to buy unethical things and illegal things.

Or even perfectly legal, not-unethical things which are not liked by your payment processor. Many will not process payments for firearms or firearm parts, and a whole host of other things which are perfectly legal; MasterCard (whatever your opinion on the validity of their choice) has coerced Patreon into shutting down the accounts of people whose speech they don't like.

A "cashless" system is one which requires a hell of a lot more regulation on payment processors, or a true virtual equivalent of fiat cash which doesn't involve the policy or whims of processors (or maybe a considerable deregulation, which allows individuals and upstarts to afford to process payments).

> perfectly legal, not-unethical things [...] firearms

I think you'll find that plenty of people disagree with you on both of those points, so it's clearly subjective.

Do you mean that some people consider them illegal, yet ethical?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com