Slashdot Mirror
'The Cashless Society is a Con -- and Big Finance is Behind It' (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes this opinion piece by former derivatives broker Brett Scott:
Banks are closing ATMs and branches in an attempt to 'nudge' users towards digital services -- and it's all for their own benefit... I recently got a letter from my bank telling me that they are shutting down local branches because "customers are turning to digital", and they are thus "responding to changing customer preferences". I am one of the customers they are referring to, but I never asked them to shut down the branches... I am much more likely to "choose" a digital option if the banks deliberately make it harder for me to choose a non-digital option. In behavioural economics this is referred to as "nudging". If a powerful institution wants to make people choose a certain thing, the best strategy is to make it difficult to choose the alternative...
Digital systems may be "convenient", but they often come with central points of failure. Cash, on the other hand, does not crash. It does not rely on external data centres, and is not subject to remote control or remote monitoring. The cash system allows for an unmonitored "off the grid" space. This is also the reason why financial institutions and financial technology companies want to get rid of it. Cash transactions are outside the net that such institutions cast to harvest fees and data.
A cashless society brings dangers. People without bank accounts will find themselves further marginalised, disenfranchised from the cash infrastructure that previously supported them. There are also poorly understood psychological implications about cash encouraging self-control while paying by card or a mobile phone can encourage spending. And a cashless society has major surveillance implications.
While a cashless society might make it cheaper to run a bank, "A cashless society is not in your interest..." argues the author.
"We must recognise every cash machine that is shut down as another step in financial institutions' campaign to nudge you into their digital enclosures."
Digital systems may be "convenient", but they often come with central points of failure. Cash, on the other hand, does not crash. It does not rely on external data centres, and is not subject to remote control or remote monitoring. The cash system allows for an unmonitored "off the grid" space. This is also the reason why financial institutions and financial technology companies want to get rid of it. Cash transactions are outside the net that such institutions cast to harvest fees and data.
A cashless society brings dangers. People without bank accounts will find themselves further marginalised, disenfranchised from the cash infrastructure that previously supported them. There are also poorly understood psychological implications about cash encouraging self-control while paying by card or a mobile phone can encourage spending. And a cashless society has major surveillance implications.
While a cashless society might make it cheaper to run a bank, "A cashless society is not in your interest..." argues the author.
"We must recognise every cash machine that is shut down as another step in financial institutions' campaign to nudge you into their digital enclosures."
It's not only banks/financial institutions, but also governments that like cashless societies, because it gives them better surveillance and more control.
The good thing is: they'll likely overplay their hand and lose control: if governments get rid of cash, people will find alternative payment means completely outside the control of banks and governments. Bitcoin didn't quite get it right technically, but systems like that will catch on.
It's not because technology allows it that it must be the preferred option (electronic voting is a poster child of the idea). I don't mind if my neighbor prefers being tracked with his credit card and iPay and Air Miles, but at this point, global customer insouciance seems to pave the road to forced global surveillance in every aspect of our lives; we don't need this crap, wake up people, thank you very much.
Banks hate cash. It requires physical handling. It can be stolen. It wears out. It "isn't working for us" as it sits in a vault, an ATM, or an armored car. Electronic money can be working all the time - earning interest, being leveraged, being arbitraged, whatever. Cash is so "static" compared to electronic funds.
The Brave New World is almost here. Add an implant and the process will be complete. Can you imagine being arrested on suspicion of a serious crime because 30 minutes prior to the crime, in the "walking distance" proximity, you bought a pack of gum with your implant (or your debit card, or your smartphone)?
I'm rather old, my friends, and as you revel in your youth (assuming you are there), marvel at how anyone could be happy to be older. This world is yours. I'll be in it for a little longer, but not nearly as long as so many of you. I suppose cashless is your future - not so much mine.
The American Dream is itself a massive con - credit history, mortgage. People born in captivity do not even know that freedom exists. The joke is on us for handing over the reigns to corporations whenever that happened.
The value of the data collected is enough
That's because the Chinese Government pays for the data to ensure it can execute your ass whenever you pay some dissident for his heretic brochure.
That's not exactly "progress" you dolt.
Why is it that morons do not see the obvious end-game in this mad rash to totalitarian dystopia for the sake of "convenience", I will never fathom. Humanity is doomed.
There's a big problem with a cashless society that hasn't been mentioned but is far greater than the aforementioned issues such as surveillance. With cash there is no way for anyone to prevent a particular transaction, given that the buyer and the seller are both willing, from happening. In a completely cashless society, however, there is some kind of company that has to handle the transactions. This company might say "no, we're not dealing with that" to a particular type of transaction.
The risk of this happening is unavoidable even if you give control to the government rather than to private corporations. The only safeguard is to make sure that there are multiple payment processing actors on the market so that a single one cannot go in and decide that some part of the otherwise legal market should be blocked from transactions.
The bank or Government can freeze your accounts on a whim if they donâ(TM)t agree with what youâ(TM)re doing. Thus, they can control or influence what you do since you wonâ(TM)t have the option to use cash.
Porn industry and Gun Dealers whoâ(TM)s accounts were closed for no reason other than the industry they represented come to mind for this.
Going full digital will basically add a hidden tax to every purchase. A processing fee or something similar.
Think of major CC vendors transaction fees.
Full digital is also a surveillance States wet dream as every purchase can be tracked, flagged and / or categorized.
Finally, the proliferation of malware and assorted nasty stuff designed to steal digital credentials for purposes of fraud is a real turn off for going cashless.
Fix all the aforementioned problems and weâ(TM)ll talk about it. Until then I will use cash when I wish because I can.