Hacker News Reader

Comment by oulipo | Hacker News Reader

Interestig, but this is also worrying to know that the government now knows exactly what you bought, where, when, and for how much. They can also (if there's a rogue government) create fake transactions to implicate you in things you haven't done

View on HN

Is it much more worrying than having Visa being able to do that? Especially when you see how the US is going downhill, I think it'd rather take the risk of having to deal with hypothetical local fascist state.

There’s pretty much no practical difference between Visa knowing all this stuff and the government knowing it. All Visa’s data is at most one subpoena away and that’s the optimistic scenario.

Of course there is a difference the other way. With a government run payment system only the government knows it. Not the government and some for-profit corporation.

And maybe even some other government which was an ally until a new old president is elected.

You cannot seriously believe that. Visa or any other private card processing company would actively seek to exploit it for its financial gains within the limits of the rules. The central bank (which is not "the governmentTM") would use the data to make sure the system is functioning properly or some other public policy goal. That's all the difference in the world.

> Is it much more worrying than having Visa being able to do that?

Yes, of course it is. How could anybody think otherwise? What is the worst thing Visa can do and what is the worst thing Visa has done? What is the worst thing the government can do and what is the worst thing the government has done?

Visa has to respect whatever laws apply in the country they operate in. So if the police want Visa info on whoever, provided that a legal framework cover this issue, Visa has to give it. It makes 0 difference if the payment system is government-operated or not. In any democratic country, the police would need the approval of a judge whether the service is public or a private company. And in dictatorship, the government will get the data or ban you from doing business in the country anyway.

I can think of at least one difference. If the government wants to lie about credit card transactions, Visa has to go along with it.

If Visa has it, the government simply needs to ask for it. There's a difference, but it's not much of one.

Sell your data to interested 3rd parties? Because anything else a government can do through their own systems they can require Visa to do as well, so seems like Visa with a profit motive has the potential to misuse the data even more than a government.

You could always just use cash then Visa wouldn't know.

Yes, it is more worrying. But indeed both are bad

A lot of governments have that ability for electronic transactions. In Brazils case specifically it was implemented as a payment broker between institutions that participate in the SPI (instantaneous payment system) and works pretty much like any other inter bank transfer system. It is also possible to use the system semi-anonymously by using a "non bank" participant that will broker the transaction for you using random keys. Which would mean not even your bank account no gets exposed, because its not used.

As far as I can tell the legal landscape of the solution currently only allow the actual government to look at the data with the standard court orders. I believe not even the 10k report limit is applied to pix atm the same way as the other methods.

Regarding fake transactions, that would be a non concern to me, the system is only centralised in parts, the banks still hold most of the data so they would have to collaborate on this potentially leaving lots of evidence behind. Governments do not need to be subtle to screw you over, see current US deportation news.

Its not that much different than how bank transfers in Europe work in practice. The US is particularly archaic in banking technology available to the public.

> this is also worrying to know that the government now knows exactly what you bought, where, when, and for how much

As a citizen of a still kind-of-functioning democracy, I'd happily make the trade if that means Apple, Google, Visa or Mastercard don't have the information anymore.

I don't think you've thought that through - fascists and communists both have more control over the institutions of democracy than they do over those companies. The banking companies generally don't want to be involved in anything ideological except moneymaking.

Correct. Moreover, when you are trapped by the government, few things work better than raising international awareness. Even if the companies ultimately comply, that is typically done loud and clear, and eventually snowball until it's unsustainable.

So there's this thing called a gag order.

What "institutions of democracy" would that be, if the state is fascist or communist? And I think you severly underestimate the reach a totalitarian state has. Hint: it is total.

People don't change because a state is democratic. There are still authoritarians getting voted into power and present in the government; they just get voted out if the damage they are doing gets too visible.

People change a lot when the environment changes, this has been shown over and over again. You actually only have to look around. Yet it's the people who make the state not vice versa. Quite a conundrum.

Banking companies are more than happy to fold like a cardboard box if either government threatens their money-making.

Then I would prefer to do transactions with crypto. I don't want neither a government nor corporation to peek on all my transactions.

.. so you put them on a globally visible blockchain?

As long as the blockchain provides anonimity, sure.

Tornado cash has been delisted from OFAC, and there is also something like monero / privacy coin.

There is virtually no difference with a private entity which can be compelled by the government to do the same, plus has its own profit motive which could also create incentive to do it.

There must be a non-repudiation and integrity check to verify transactions (e.g., in Estonia I sign digitally all my transactions), so the latter problem is easier to mitigate.

Yes but in a private entity, the government still has to do some work (which is in the public eye) to do it, there can be more whistleblowers, etc

So there would be more safeguards

In a sense it didn't change much. It's not like the government can access your transaction data all the time. They still need to go to court and request a warrant for that, to break your bank secrecy.

It's not different from what we had before.

EDIT: it didn't actually change a thing. Banks are still required to maintain transaction data private, and agencies, including the government, MUST obtain a warrant to break transaction data secrecy.

Brazil has an insane level of financial fraud and tax evasion. Pix mitigates some of that, but at the cost of privacy - something that Brazilians do not care too much about.

That’s a pretty sweeping generalization about 200M+ people!

But it's correct though

A statistic isn't a generalization.

He's not wrong though. "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is a popular saying here. People who lived under a military dictatorship not even half a century ago will actually utter those words.

But is true. I am a Brazilian who lives in Sweden and there are multiple banks here that have blank bans on transfers from/to Brazilian banks due to the amount of fraud and money laundering and lax KYC controls. It is simply too much work for the banks here to vet those transactions and they decided just to refrain from doing it.

Pix does not substantially changes the tax evasion problem as that is mostly a problem with higher earners and small/medium business who evade tax using cash payment, convoluted setups of companies and "laranjas" (our slang for someone borrowing the name to do something for someone else, the scapegoat) as well as "non cash" transactions.

Pix mostly replaces and eats on credit card transactions that were done for the convenience aspect and no the credit aspect. As well as allow a whole new part of the country to accept electronic payments, and although that would increase tax revenue from business it also substantially increase their revenue since there is no x% from card processors and don't require special rented/bought equipment.

If you pay with Google Wallet or Apple Pay it's a corporation what you bought, when and where. And since Google knows your location and has access to your mail, social media and everything on your phone, they can connect more dots.

Google is not going to put me in a concentration camp, enslave me, or send me to die in a trench on the front lines.

(If you're reading this, please note this comment was written in 2025)

Google will just sell your data to anyone who pays more. Who might not have the best intentions regarding you.

On top of that, it will provide the said information to government agencies if asked.

Google isn't, but there might be a startup that will in the next batch.

There's those entire thing called "laws" and "constitution" that forbids this.

And if a government decides to just ignore those, it will also have no need to watch your transactions or create fake ones.

That's why central bank digital currencies are the way to go - same amount of trust as the (real) base currency and near-cash-level privacy (modulo implementation details)

Visa/Mastercard report all of that to governments anyway.

Any half competent government can always create fake transactions to implicate people, whether it’s a paper or electronic (government currency) transaction.

And a government who would resort to creating fake transactions, probably wouldn't bother with creating fake transactions at all. So that argument sounds quite out of touch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com