There are many stakeholders with much to gain from the mass collection of data

Right but they need our permission because they want to hold on to power. This is what Snowden covers when he talks about cover for action w.r.t. surveillance programs. They need the anti-terror excuse. They rely on it. Where does that excuse come from? This article covers it well.

It’s not that long of a read. But I thought this was a gem worth quoting here:

One of the senators, Russ Feingold, said during the debate preceding the vote on this law [US Patriot Act]:

“There’s no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country where the police were allowed to search your home at any time and for any reason, if we lived in a country where the government had the right to open your mail, listen to your phone conversations or intercept your e-mail communications… the government would probably discover and arrest more terrorists, or would-be terrorists, than in the past. But it would not be a country we would want to live in.”

He was not listened to by his colleagues, and was the only senator not to vote for the PATRIOT Act

I should also mention he was a democrat (not relevant to the point, but noteworthy nonetheless).

This is not to dismiss what you’ve said. But the “unthinking masses uncritically accepting the convenience” will be under the influence of the idea that anti-terror justifies it. A forced-banking policy will acquire the 55-65% you mention under that premise. The convenience of electronic payment is just the lubrication that will demotivate resistance. In fact I suspect we already have a majority believing the anti-terror narrative both as justification and the effectiveness of it.

I was trying to recall where I read about that. Search is terrible. Took some digging but found it here:

https://mander.xyz/post/18090719

When “such engagement” is required to exercise human rights, I’m not as quick as you to call that optional. I expect to have all of my human rights simultaneously satisfied together in aggregate.

A mandate can be explicitly written or merely implied. If you need food to survive, for example, and a law were to say all food distributors must refuse cash, you can safely call that an implied mandate to use a bank. Or would you say they are off the hook for the human rights consequences, perhaps on the basis that people can freely refuse to buy food and opt to grow their own food?

art.4 & art.23 (employment)

Are you suggesting that the ban on cash wages is not a banking mandate because it’s an “engagement”, despite exercise of human rights articles relying on that engagement? Consider that art.4 entitles people to be free from slavery and couple that with art.23 which states: “Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment”. In Belgium, it is illegal for an engineer to receive cash wages. But it is not illegal for a domestic worker to receive cash wages if that has been established as a common practice in that trade.

Do you see the issue? An unbanked engineer can freely refuse to work and live on welfare (if offered by their gov assuming no disqualifying requirements due to their ability to work), but then they must give up their rights under art.23. And even then, how do they get their welfare payment? See below.

art.25 (housing & social svcs)

Consider that no real estate transaction can involve cash, by law. Yet, art.25 states:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services

I highlighted social services as well as housing because social services in some countries refuse to pay cash to beneficiaries. You cannot get financial aid without a bank account.

Regarding utilities, is that also what you consider to be an optional engagement? That people do not need water and power service? This may be debatable but I believe the right to housing likely includes a right to energy in regions where a box with walls+roof is insufficient to prevent freezing. I believe housing implies having a warm space. So when the energy supplier refuses cash, is that not a mandate to use a bank? If you are wondering where the gov comes into play in this case, it would be when the utility supplier refuses cash then sues the unbanked consumer in court for non-payment. When the court finds the energy contract to be “legal” and sides with the utility company, that’d essentially be a case of the gov mandating the use of banks.

It’s also worth noting that the UDHR is not limited to govs. The private sector is also bound by the UDHR.

Anyway, this is all quite far off from the original question in the OP, which remains unanswered.

(edit) And what about tax?

Some govs require taxes to be paid electronically. Tax is by definition a mandate. Both income tax and property tax must be paid electronically. There was a guy in Germany to was denied the option to pay his radio licensing fees in cash. IIUC, that’s like BBC, a mandatory tax. You could perhaps argue that income tax is optional because income is optional, and that property tax is optional because home ownership is optional, but I’m not sure the same can be said for radio fees in Germany.

There is no public ledger for cash. There is no attack surface on the devices of yourself or the other party by which your cash transaction can be compromised. There are no electronic records to exfiltrate unless one party proactively deliberately records a transaction. And if they do, there is no non-repudiation. There is no risk that any cryptanalytic advances can later expose the whole history of all cash transactions or even a chain of cash transactions. Cash transactions leave no trace unless you do them under surveillance.

I answered that same question upstream earlier today.

This is the thread covering it:

https://links.hackliberty.org/post/2983664

Apparently the hospital eventually agreed to the patient not using the app but demanded the patient agree to an indemnity that the hospital would not be liable if they fail to reach him quickly.

No issue there… I cross-posted it today to the human rights community (which I did not know about at the time), since my question still stands.

I don’t quite recall the context I had in mind when I wrote that post 1 year ago, but Belgium (for example) has enacted a law that all suppliers must accept electronic payment. It’s not just shops or b2b situations. It all-encompassing including self-employed freelancers. Even someone who rents part of their home out must give the tenant the option to pay electronically.

Also in Belgium: employees and contractors can only accept cash payment if they happen to work in an industry where that is common. So if you’re not (e.g.) a domestic worker, receiving cash wages is banned. At the same time, no matter what the situation is, a cash transaction can never exceed €3k. Buying a house cannot involve 1 euro of cash, which is strictly banned from all real estate transactions.

Many water and utility companies refuse cash. So if you consider the right to housing to include a right to water and power, then those consumers are being forced to use a bank. But that’s not apparently government force.

Where is this? I think if he is in China or Europe he would already be excluded from society to some extent. But I don’t believe it would be a problem in the US (of course neglecting obscure cases like that of the Georgia attorney general).

There are so few of us without smartphones that are updated Google/Apple attached and subscribed that we should be collecting the stories of exclusion somewhere.

(edit) I take back what I said about the US. I just remembered a patient who was denied medical care in the US because he did not go to the Google Playstore to install the app of the hospital.

That link is unreachable from secure networks (tor). I can’t quite work out if you’re talking about a digital national passport, or a COVID “passport”. I suspect you mean the former.

I see no problem with border control forcing people to present a passport (or particular form thereof) if they have one. But a citizen is (or should be) absolutely entitled to enter their country, full stop. If they have no documentation at all, it would be an abuse of their rights to deny them entry on that basis. We might expect a citizen without docs to face a long inconvenient process to verify their citizenship, but it’d be a perverse injustice to deny them entry. IMO a passport should be a convenience, not a requirement.

I recall either Australia or NZ was refusing entry of their own well documented citizens if either they had COVID or were unvaccinated (I forgot which). Regardless of their COVID situation there is no good reason for denying a citizen entry. It dilutes the purpose and meaning of citizenship. Anyway, this is why I cannot be sure what passport you’re talking about.

I think the common term for “internet-izing” is #digitalTransformation. That’s the language used in the EU as they enact policy that ultimately cattle-herds people into a forced digital transformation. The quasi antithesis of that which wiser people support would be:

• right to be offline
• right to be analog
• right to unplug

I kind of favor right to be analog because it also somewhat implies a right to cash and to be unbanked.

Indeed in Netherlands I already encountered an e-receipt-only fiasco at a cafe. They forced me to order and pay by app as a cloud order (no cash… no paper menu either). I had a degoogled phone so I could not do Playstore and their captive portal did not work on my phone anyway. So a staff member had to lend me their phone just to be able to order. Then the order was trapped in their account. The receipt becomes more important when paying by card so I can check it against the bank statement later. They had no printer. Only e-receipts. And their app could not handle entering another email address than what the staff member already entered for their own account – assuming I were even willing to give them a (disposable) address as I oppose feeding Google on general principle and their email provider was Google. They could not handle pulling out a notebook and writing out a receipt.

Throughout the whole fiasco the staff must have been wondering “what’s wrong with this person? How can someone be walking around in public without a recent smartphone and all the Google services?” Probably wondered if I was part of an organised crime gang.

I’m also excluded from my public library’s Wi-Fi for not carrying a subscribed SMS-capable phone to get past the captive portal. So WTF, to get wi-fi service (financed with public money) you must already be equipped with tools that are generally redundant with wi-fi to begin with. They seem to be excluding the people who would need wi-fi the most from wi-fi service.

Not sure what your point is. Monero is far more traceable than cash. Any self-respecting privacy advocate would fight against the war on cash first and foremost. Anything else is less important to fight for because it’s less private. When cash is gone, gold coins will probably be more private than Monero.

If you try bringing 100k in cash to buy a car/house, there is a good chance it’ll get seized by police.

In the US debtors are /entitled/ to pay their debts using legal tender, and mortgages are not excluded AFAIK. In the UK, you can legally pay your mortgage with legal tender.

if you use a cell phone they know what store you went into. That can be combined with other metadata to know exactly what you’re doing. Carrying cash does not fix this.

You need not carry a mobile phone. I don’t. Cash is part of that equation. If I walk into an unsurveilled shop with cash, no phone, and no loyalty card to buy liquor, how does that get pinned on me?

It could become criminal in the future to not carry a smartphone (with the direction things are going in), but that’s not yet the case in most of the world.

mander.xyz has this:

mandermybrewn3sll4kptj2ubeyuiujz6felbaanzj3ympcrlykfs2id.onion

but it’s a disaster. Data loss. Posts go into a black hole. Use it on a read-only basis.

I do in fact do that. It’s very useful. But the breach notice came by postal mail.

(edit) In fact, it would have been cheaper for them to send the breach notices by email. I suspect they chose postal mail precisely to conceal from victims who the data source was due to people’s use of email aliases.

It’s a decent approach but incomplete. Couple problems:

• Lemmy would not host youtube videos. YT transcripts could (and should) be part of the post, but then there is the same problem as the next bullet:
• w.r.t text content, some people (very few people) indeed copy the content. It’s failing because people are lazy. Too lazy to check whether the link is in a walled garden; too lazy to warn people of the walled garden; also too lazy to copy the text. Sometimes it’s more naivety than lazy, but same problem: you are relying on the masses to make individual decisions that are wise, inclusive, and higher effort.

A good system is designed with the assumption that users are lazy. As such, Lemmy is poorly designed.

1 lazy author can inconvenience thousands of readers. Lammy’s design fails to address that.

Down-voting every youtube link is indeed the only individual action that can be taken in the current system. It could theoretically lead to a YT link being folded or sunk lower. Tricky though because people should know why their YT links get down-voted. Ideally you would be able to tell them in a response. But I think I know how that would go: people with digital inclusion principles have actually become a diluted small minority in the fedi. A flood of lemmy.world folks who would follow the crowd off a cliff would down-vote your reply and up-vote the YT link in solidarity of their favorite walled gardens.

You could DM the reason for down-voting. But then the problem does not get the exposure it needs.

The fedi has evolved like Burning Man. The movement was true to its founding principles early on but as the crowd grew over the years it became enshittified faster than a digital rights subculture could take hold.

BTW, I should mention that sh.itjust.works is also a centralised Cloudflare node.

My point still stands.

Of course it doesn’t. Your point doesn’t even grasp the problem. You think the problem is that fedi users have (or have not) entitlement to content. It’s a red herring. You cannot begin to solve a problem you do not understand. It does not matter who is “entitled” to the content. The content is exclusive; locked inside a walled-garden with a gatekeeper. The problem is that exclusive access content is being linked on an open content platform and shoved in the face of readers who do not have access to the closed content.

The moment you are using someone else’s platform

Again, you still fail to grasp the problem. Using someone else’s platform is not a premise. You can either be on someone else’s node or you can be on your own self-hosted node. Either way, exclusive links are in the reader’s face.

How can you get so many things wrong… then you claim using one platform inherently revokes rights outside that platform – of course not. Irrelevant regardless, but rights granted on one platform do not diminish rights on another.

you loose the rights to the content outside of that platform.

It’s not about “rights”. That’s a legal matter. It’s about digital inclusion (a technical matter). People don’t want to see links that exclude them. It’s just pollution.

To reach the particular law office which has become a specialist in this particular case, yes you are trapped because they use MS Outlook. There is no way to exchange email with them without involving MS.

Victims can use any lawyer, but any other lawyer will need to research the case (at the victim’s cost).