The Abolition Of Cash

[Endlessly Amazed]

A few points to say/ask:

Why don't you just open another account in the same bank? You keep all your assets in account one and have a set amount transferred over to account two every month (or transfer over when you need to). You then get a debit card connected only to account two and use this for your daily transactions. We have online banking and in my bank app I can open and close new accounts myself. I can block my card for overseas transaction and/or online transactions. If I want to buy something online, I unlock the card in the app, make the internet purchase and then can lock the card again.

Card transactions are free here even for tiny amounts. So I would rather carry a card and "blipp" it for a small transaction than carry coins and notes in my pocket.

Ringo – I suspect that laws and customs about banking actions are different in different countries. What you suggested will not work the way you envision in the US. Have you ever been defrauded in your bank account, debit card, or credit card? I have been, for a total of probably under $700US, in forged check cashings and credit card fraud, in maybe 10 transactions over 40 years. All the money was recovered for me. My goal is never again.

In the US, personal accounts, not business accounts (but sometimes these as well) are linked by the primary holder’s identification. So, all amounts in all accounts a person has in the same bank are linked. This means that ALL the funds in all the accounts can and WILL be drawn upon by the bank to pay a debit charge, check, or whatever, fraudulent or not. If it is fraudulent, and the account holder formally informs the bank about it, police investigation is done, etc., then the money will be returned.

In the meantime, any legitimate automatic withdrawals such as for a home mortgage, will not be paid. This can create a real hardship until the bank processes the fraud and returns the funds to you. It also may affect your credit score, at least temporarily, until the matter is resolved. Credit scores affect how much one is charged to borrow money.

How long does a return of fraudulently taken money take in Sweden? In the US, in my experience, it can take up to a month or more.

I have several credit cards, used for very specific different purposes. This way, if a card is used for a fraudulent purpose, and the bank automatically cancels the charge, all the other functions with other cards continue with no disruptions. I deliberately keep my online or phone app options very limited as a control mechanism.

As you do, I also use a (credit) card for most daily transactions. But cash is necessary for some transactions, usually away from cities, and always for transactions one wishes to keep private. (And no, I am not going to write what the purpose of those private transactions are, because they are private.)

I actually only use credit unions in the US, not banks. Cheaper, better options, more rigorous safeguards.

 

[Ringo]

Ringo – I suspect that laws and customs about banking actions are different in different countries. What you suggested will not work the way you envision in the US. Have you ever been defrauded in your bank account, debit card, or credit card? I have been, for a total of probably under $700US, in forged check cashings and credit card fraud, in maybe 10 transactions over 40 years. All the money was recovered for me. My goal is never again.

In the US, personal accounts, not business accounts (but sometimes these as well) are linked by the primary holder’s identification. So, all amounts in all accounts a person has in the same bank are linked. This means that ALL the funds in all the accounts can and WILL be drawn upon by the bank to pay a debit charge, check, or whatever, fraudulent or not. If it is fraudulent, and the account holder formally informs the bank about it, police investigation is done, etc., then the money will be returned.

In the meantime, any legitimate automatic withdrawals such as for a home mortgage, will not be paid. This can create a real hardship until the bank processes the fraud and returns the funds to you. It also may affect your credit score, at least temporarily, until the matter is resolved. Credit scores affect how much one is charged to borrow money.

How long does a return of fraudulently taken money take in Sweden? In the US, in my experience, it can take up to a month or more.

I have several credit cards, used for very specific different purposes. This way, if a card is used for a fraudulent purpose, and the bank automatically cancels the charge, all the other functions with other cards continue with no disruptions. I deliberately keep my online or phone app options very limited as a control mechanism.

As you do, I also use a (credit) card for most daily transactions. But cash is necessary for some transactions, usually away from cities, and always for transactions one wishes to keep private. (And no, I am not going to write what the purpose of those private transactions are, because they are private.)

I actually only use credit unions in the US, not banks. Cheaper, better options, more rigorous safeguards.

I remember being astounded at how antiquated the banking system was in the US when I was there over 15 years ago. It sounds like much hasn't changed.

Accounts are indeed separate here. If you don't have funds in one, they are not drawn from another. Fraud is less common here due to paper checks not being used for about 20 years. Also, we have a very robust identificaion system with linked two-step authentication. So any online/remote card purchase has to be verified by the owner of the card through an online security app. If I buy something online, a message from my bank asks me open the security app on my phone. I have to verify that it is indeed me making the purchase. If not, I just say No and the transaction is stopped. I can then also deactivate my card and render any stolen information unusable.

My card details were stolen once and somebody tried to make a purchase in a Gucci store is Paris (while I was in Stockholm) with a cloned card. The bank called me whilst the person was trying to pay to verify that it wasn't me. For example, if I bought a sandwich in Stockholm at 3pm, I'm probably not buying a pair of Gucci shoes two hours later in Paris. I said it wasn't and the bank cancelled my card and issued a new one before the call was even over.

Monies lost through fraud are usually refunded immediately i.e. as soon the bank can see that it was fraud. The bank is insured through the government so they get their money back instantly too.

Fraud here is more predatory. Fraudsters ring older people and claim to be from their bank. They say that suspicious activity has been noticed on the account and they ask the person to identify themsleves by logging in to the identification app. They then say that they have stopped the suspicious activity. Phew! - just in time. Then to "test" that the account is still OK, they set-up a test transfer from the victims account to the "banks bank account" promising to transfer it back immediately afterwards as part of the test. They ask the victim to verify the transaction in the security app and then hang up.

Identity theft is also a problem for older people here. Once somebody has your identity then they rack up debt in your name. The classic way is to get someones personal details and identification number (sort of like a social security number) and register a change of address with the tax office. The thief then applies for credit cards and loans in your name and all the paperwork, credit checks and forms get sent to the new address. They take the money and leave you with the debt. You don't find out about it until you are rejected for credit elsewhere and find out that you're neck-high in debt. All of the legal stuff and demands were still being sent to the new address.

 

[Ascalon]

I may have asked this earlier in the thread, but I'm still not quite sure how this topic comes under the conspiracy heading. There is no real secret to the fact that things are heading in this direction.
There is little doubt that there will not be a switch off date as such, but a gradual dwindling to an eventual nothing.

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

@Ringo - you write: "I remember being astounded at how antiquated the banking system was in the US when I was there over 15 years ago. It sounds like much hasn't changed."

I continue to be embarrassed at your compliments to my country. In fact, I am blushing. Except for the separate accounts being linked, I see no difference in the Swedish banking and credit and debit card system you describe.

...One day, perhaps you and I can have an animated discussion about the relative merits of bilateral and unilateral trade agreements with developing countries, as Sweden and the USA have different approaches to this.

 

[Peripart]

Almost always just with a credit card NOT linked to any bank account autopay. I use push technology only. I write a very small number of checks each year.

Checks (or, as it were, cheques, this side of the pond!) are certainly on the way out. I'm not sure I know anyone who might write more than one or two a year.

 

[Min Bannister]

I may have asked this earlier in the thread, but I'm still not quite sure how this topic comes under the conspiracy heading. There is no real secret to the fact that things are heading in this direction.
There is little doubt that there will not be a switch off date as such, but a gradual dwindling to an eventual nothing.

Because it could be seen as a conspiracy to control people. If you remove all access to cash and everything is done electronically then absolutely everything you buy can be logged and therefore controlled. It is also a good way to keep the poor poor since it is so much harder to budget if you just have a piece of plastic rather than a bunch of cash that you can see dwindling as you spend. And what are people meant to do while they wait for a new card if they lose or have theirs stolen? Or worse, the "system" goes down? They will be helpless. I have just lent someone £10 as they lost their card today. If there are no more £10 notes then that won't even be possible.

Even all these terribly convenient direct debits and standing orders just represent a lack of control over your own money. All that money just comes flying out of your account automatically. So for example if you lose your job and you never really paid much attention to all those payments coming out of your account because you could always afford it then suddenly you can't afford it any more. You can find yourself in quite a pickle, going into your overdraft and then facing charges for that. (This happened to the same friend by the way, who may not be the best with money but then not everyone is..)

Checks (or, as it were, cheques, this side of the pond!) are certainly on the way out. I'm not sure I know anyone who might write more than one or two a year.

I pay council tax that way so that is at least 10 a year for me! I am not paying that by direct debit although the council try to make you.

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

Because it could be seen as a conspiracy to control people. If you remove all access to cash and everything is done electronically then absolutely everything you buy can be logged and therefore controlled. It is also a good way to keep the poor poor since it is so much harder to budget if you just have a piece of plastic rather than a bunch of cash that you can see dwindling as you spend. And what are people meant to do while they wait for a new card if they lose or have theirs stolen? Or worse, the "system" goes down? They will be helpless. I have just lent someone £10 as they lost their card today. If there are no more £10 notes then that won't even be possible.

Even all these terribly convenient direct debits and standing orders just represent a lack of control over your own money. All that money just comes flying out of your account automatically. So for example if you lose your job and you never really paid much attention to all those payments coming out of your account because you could always afford it then suddenly you can't afford it any more. You can find yourself in quite a pickle, going into your overdraft and then facing charges for that. (This happened to the same friend by the way, who may not be the best with money but then not everyone is..)


I pay council tax that way so that is at least 10 a year for me! I am not paying that by direct debit although the council try to make you.

I agree! A cashless society will hurt the poor and the uneducated more than most, but isn't this usually the case with massive changes? I think that the US is continually reducing the types and numbers of transactions which are conducted in cash, but I think in my lifetime that cash will not be abolished by fiat. If it is, non-recordable equivalents will be invented and used - in fact they are used now. I genuinely support this even though it is very convenient for organized crime, because I fear big brother even more.

Off-track alert:
1. Random thoughts about money weirdness: a few years ago, I had to get a Medallion guarantee from a banking institution. This is a financial guarantee that a debt will be paid by the institution if the person defaults. The blase clerk asked me if the amount to be guaranteed was for more than $1M US. I just laughed helplessly!

2. Currently in the US, certain types of transactions must be conducted with cash or an agreed upon equivalent. The equivalent is usually an electronic transfer into an account or a type of guaranteed check. For real estate purchases in the American West, this equivalent is sometimes in livestock. Escrow companies have holding pens for cattle. On the east coast, some people pay for real estate with a bag of cash at the escrow company office. Very old school.

 

[gordonrutter]

I've got an interesting 50p you can by off me for 56p.

Some are worth quite a bit, but this like the attached picture are not standard! As this is the conspiracy thread how about this, I'm convinced this is some sort of money laundering scheme.

 

[RaM]

it’s like these special edition but legal tender coins people buy them but don’t spend effectively taking them out of circulation, so is this a plus for the country’s finances or not

 

[Beresford]

Some are worth quite a bit, but this like the attached picture are not standard! As this is the conspiracy thread how about this, I'm convinced this is some sort of money laundering scheme.View attachment 52069

£2500 postage! Delivered by G4S or some other security company perhaps.

I think you're right about the possibility of money laundering, or even just a plain old nasty scam. There were nearly 3.5m of these coins minted.

 

[RaM]

There’s quite a lot of chancers about asking very high prices just to see if they can catch someone out they were asking well over face value for the new plastic £10 note when they came out you need to know what you are buying and have your wits about you that’s for sure, though some modern coins do command high prices

 

[gordonrutter]

There’s quite a lot of chancers about asking very high prices just to see if they can catch someone out they were asking well over face value for the new plastic £10 note when they came out

The ebay picture I posted was of a sold price. Of course legitimate people then see these and think their coins are worth these amounts. If they were I would sell mine like a shot.

 

[Ringo]

I continue to be embarrassed at your compliments to my country. In fact, I am blushing. Except for the separate accounts being linked, I see no difference in the Swedish banking and credit and debit card system you describe.

My sincere apologies if I caused offence - it wasn't my intention to be rude or patronising. I was referring to the "usability" and "efficiency" of the banking system. Please allow me to explain.

Based on my experiences when in Boston in 2004, the banking system was similar to what it had been in the UK during the 90's with teller systems, masses of cash and plastic deposit bags, endless paper slips to fill in, opening times which were a pain in the ass, jumping through hoops, proving your identity with utility bills, seeing the Bank "Manager" who had the ultimate say etc etc. And it was decades behind Europe when it came to handling transactions speedily, digitally and for the convenience of the customer (rather than the bank). The reason banks had bad opening hours is that the employees had to work lots of hours when the bank was closed processing all the bits of paper.

I remember seeing a poster on the wall whilst in a Bank of America which read something like "We process over 10,000,000 checks (cheques) per day". And I thought to myself, "Is that really something to boast about? Who still uses checks?"

But I am aware that this was over 15 years ago and so things might have changed considerably.

I think the digital infrastructure behind our two banking systems are probably exactly the same. It's the execution which I was referring to. Walk into a Swedish Bank today and it looks like a normal office. There is no lobby and imposing counter, no tellers, no security guards, no glass windows, no all-seeing Bank Managers and no paper slips to fill in. It's all open landscape and your personal banker takes you to their desk and carries out whatever business you have. They can also make decisions based on you, your finances and your lifestyle as they know you, rather than a Bank Manger who has no clue as to who you are. There's no waiting 3-5 business days for things to clear or to be sent here and there. Bank robbery doesn't exist here as there is nothing to steal (except ringbinders and gaudy curtains).

Here's a branch of Handelsbanken (The Merchant Bank):

Armoured trucks were still getting hit though (carrying cash out to supermarkets etc), almost Hollywood style heists with explosions, automatic weapons, helicopters, blocked off highways etc. But since cash is being fazed out these too have stopped.

 

[Mythopoeika]

An exploration of further reasons why a cashless society is a bad thing:

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

An exploration of further reasons why a cashless society is a bad thing:

I agree. Although there are both advantages and disadvantages to both cash and cashless societies, until human nature in the aggregate changes, I hope that cash will be an option. Human nature in the aggregate includes national governments, organized crime, big corporations, and increasingly, the civilian coalitions of cancel culture. I am cautious about all of them.

 

[Min Bannister]

A cashless society would also be worth a FORTUNE to advertisers as it would be possible to see every tiny little thing that a person buys if someone were to sell that info to them. The next big banking scandal?

 

[Beresford]

Last weekend I was in pub I used to frequent years ago, along with 50 and 60 something mates. We paid with cash, the youngsters paid using their phones. I felt old.

 

[Lord Lucan]

Last weekend I was in pub I used to frequent years ago, along with 50 and 60 something mates. We paid with cash, the youngsters paid using their phones. I felt old.

Working in retail, most payments over the counter that we see are by credit/debit card. Roughly only 10% is cash. Of course that can change on any single day, but that would be a fairly decent overall estimate. In our 10 years of trading, we have only ever had two cashless day, that is, where every transaction was made by card.
Many younger people pay using their phones these days, and many also use their smart watches using Samsung/Apple or Google Pay as it means they no longer have to carry a wallet or purse. I have also seen a couple of smart rings and one time (I shit you not), a smart fingernail - on a Chinese lady. I've never seen one since, and this was a couple of years ago, however it worked just like any other tap and go payment.

 

[Min Bannister]

I have also seen a couple of smart rings

A smart ring is something I would vaguely consider as being handy for all those "popped out for a walk without my purse and suddenly fancied an ice cream" moments and other combinations of forgetting/not taking any money with me. The price does put me off though. And I have just looked at the FACs for McLear which seems to be the market leader in the UK and seen this:-

Does the ring expire?
The ring and associated in app wallet are valid for 36 months from the time of order as standard, after which time the ring will no longer be able to perform any transactions and you will not be able to add funds to it.

At the 36 month period, we will arrange to return any funds remaining in your wallet to you. We plan to offer a significant discount on a new ring for existing ringholders.

So you pay £89 and after three years you have to buy a new one? And they only "plan" to offer a significant discount and you don't know what that is yet?

No.

Thanks.

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

A smart ring is something I would vaguely consider as being handy for all those "popped out for a walk without my purse and suddenly fancied an ice cream" moments and other combinations of forgetting/not taking any money with me. The price does put me off though. And I have just looked at the FACs for McLear which seems to be the market leader in the UK and seen this:-



So you pay £89 and after three years you have to buy a new one? And they only "plan" to offer a significant discount and you don't know what that is yet?

No.

Thanks.

Good God! Think of what you are giving up for only about 11 cents a day: the image of being:
Walletless
Free
Modern
Carefree
Techosavy

...as well as being seen as:
Vulnerable to no back up as wallet is not with you
Chained to the ring device
Someone who needs to be liberated from her prepaid ring
Due-paying sheep
Trackable
etc.

And one Ring to rule them all!

 

[Solexman]

There’s an awful lot of paranoia in this thread.
Ive not carried cash as a habit for about 3 years.
So the bank knows I spent money on spare parts for my vintage moped? Or an inordinate quantity of pickled onion space raiders?

who cares?

 

[Mythopoeika]

There’s an awful lot of paranoia in this thread.
Ive not carried cash as a habit for about 3 years.
So the bank knows I spent money on spare parts for my vintage moped? Or an inordinate quantity of pickled onion space raiders?

who cares?

Is it paranoia? Or is it 'informed caution'?
It's best not to take democracy and freedom of speech for granted.

 

[Solexman]

Is it paranoia? Or is it 'informed caution'?
It's best not to take democracy and freedom of speech for granted.

Don’t see how being cashless affects freedom of speech or democracy for that matter?
Amd “informed caution” suggests that everyone else is uninformed, and only YOU know the “truth”.

Which sounds awfully like paranoia….

 

[Mythopoeika]

Don’t see how being cashless affects freedom of speech or democracy for that matter?
Amd “informed caution” suggests that everyone else is uninformed, and only YOU know the “truth”.

Which sounds awfully like paranoia….

Hmmm. You read that 'informed caution' as an insult. Which it wasn't intended to be.
By 'informed caution' I mean, we are informed by history. By what has actually happened and by knowing what can be done to us in the modern day. If the people who ran East Germany had the tech we have today, they'd have used it as a tool for oppression.
It's not paranoia, it's just about protecting ourselves.

 

[Min Bannister]

And one Ring to rule them all!

Okay, you have got me there!

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

Don’t see how being cashless affects freedom of speech or democracy for that matter?
Amd “informed caution” suggests that everyone else is uninformed, and only YOU know the “truth”.

Which sounds awfully like paranoia….

May I ask: what nationality are you and in which country do you reside?

I did not interpret what @Mythopoeika wrote the same way you did. What Myth wrote was a neutral statement; you then responded in a personal way which comes across perhaps inadvertently as rather, well, personal. As well as judgmental in terms of his potential paranoia as perceived by you.

I am an American, and live in the US. Our Federal constitution has a long appendix to it, called the Bill of Rights, which lists baseline rights of people. These baseline rights are the basis of the interpretation of new situations, such as credit card and debit card use for purchases, which bear on the lives of the ordinary persons. The following amendment is the basis of unreasonable searches. Illegally tracking a person's purchases by electronic transactions is a violation against that person's right to be secure against unreasonable searches. Different governments and nongovernmental groups in different countries throughout history have used any means possible to monitor their citizens. To not be aware of this history, or to be aware and not care, is very different than my own approach.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

The 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Solexman, you have only been a member here for 2 weeks. If you really enjoy discussing or debating topics, I think that drifting to rhetorical questions and personal comments in 3-4 short sentences while not presenting a cogent argument will not gain you many friends. There are some really smart and thoughtful posters here, from around the world. I benefit greatly by reading their various thoughts on topics, even when or especially when I don't agree with them.

 

[hunck]

May I ask: what nationality are you and in which country do you reside?

I did not interpret what @Mythopoeika wrote the same way you did. What Myth wrote was a neutral statement; you then responded in a personal way which comes across perhaps inadvertently as rather, well, personal. As well as judgmental in terms of his potential paranoia as perceived by you.

I am an American, and live in the US. Our Federal constitution has a long appendix to it, called the Bill of Rights, which lists baseline rights of people. These baseline rights are the basis of the interpretation of new situations, such as credit card and debit card use for purchases, which bear on the lives of the ordinary persons. The following amendment is the basis of unreasonable searches. Illegally tracking a person's purchases by electronic transactions is a violation against that person's right to be secure against unreasonable searches. Different governments and nongovernmental groups in different countries throughout history have used any means possible to monitor their citizens. To not be aware of this history, or to be aware and not care, is very different than my own approach.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

The 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Solexman, you have only been a member here for 2 weeks. If you really enjoy discussing or debating topics, I think that drifting to rhetorical questions and personal comments in 3-4 short sentences while not presenting a cogent argument will not gain you many friends. There are some really smart and thoughtful posters here, from around the world. I benefit greatly by reading their various thoughts on topics, even when or especially when I don't agree with them.

I’d be very surprised if your spending wasn’t tracked. The more you spend the more valuable the tracking info becomes.

The only way to avoid it is to pay for everything with cash - but who can be bothered? Even then your income tax, council tax, insurance, household expenses - power, phone, car if you have one, would still be tracked. You could keep your other spending more secret if you wanted.

That 4th amendment is quite non-specific & online isn’t mentioned at all. I’d suspect that tracking spending wouldn’t fall into the ‘unreasonable searches’ category.

If you were under investigation by the police, couldn’t they look at your bank statements if it were relevant to the case? That’s when it becomes reasonable.

The super-rich can probably avoid some tracking by doing all their spending through a shell company registered in the Virgin Islands or some such ruse.

For most people I reckon it’s impossible.

 

[Floyd]

May I ask: what nationality are you and in which country do you reside?

I did not interpret what @Mythopoeika wrote the same way you did. What Myth wrote was a neutral statement; you then responded in a personal way which comes across perhaps inadvertently as rather, well, personal. As well as judgmental in terms of his potential paranoia as perceived by you.

I am an American, and live in the US. Our Federal constitution has a long appendix to it, called the Bill of Rights, which lists baseline rights of people. These baseline rights are the basis of the interpretation of new situations, such as credit card and debit card use for purchases, which bear on the lives of the ordinary persons. The following amendment is the basis of unreasonable searches. Illegally tracking a person's purchases by electronic transactions is a violation against that person's right to be secure against unreasonable searches. Different governments and nongovernmental groups in different countries throughout history have used any means possible to monitor their citizens. To not be aware of this history, or to be aware and not care, is very different than my own approach.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

The 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Solexman, you have only been a member here for 2 weeks. If you really enjoy discussing or debating topics, I think that drifting to rhetorical questions and personal comments in 3-4 short sentences while not presenting a cogent argument will not gain you many friends. There are some really smart and thoughtful posters here, from around the world. I benefit greatly by reading their various thoughts on topics, even when or especially when I don't agree with them.

Bit harsh. @Solexman didn't say anything derogatory or offensive to Myth- as far as I could tell, anyway.

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

I’d be very surprised if your spending wasn’t tracked. The more you spend the more valuable the tracking info becomes.

The only way to avoid it is to pay for everything with cash - but who can be bothered? Even then your income tax, council tax, insurance, household expenses - power, phone, car if you have one, would still be tracked. You could keep your other spending more secret if you wanted.

That 4th amendment is quite non-specific & online isn’t mentioned at all. I’d suspect that tracking spending wouldn’t fall into the ‘unreasonable searches’ category.

If you were under investigation by the police, couldn’t they look at your bank statements if it were relevant to the case? That’s when it becomes reasonable.

The super-rich can probably avoid some tracking by doing all their spending through a shell company registered in the Virgin Islands or some such ruse.

For most people I reckon it’s impossible.

@hunck, you make good points. Yes, of course my spending is tracked by the relevant credit card companies. However, not all of it is when I pay with cash, and this is by my choice as I value my privacy.

Regarding the USA’s 4th amendment: I disagree with your interpretation. As it is a baseline principle, it defines the goal or intent, which is focussed on unreasonable searches and seizures, and not the specific mechanisms, such as telephones and online actions. If a governmental agency, at any level, wishes to legally inspect one’s financial transactions, then it must apply for the warrant specific to that action. The judicial, court system is the authority for approving warrants. In my country, the judicial system is responsible for interpreting the intent and scope of the laws. This includes the US constitution and its amendments.

That a credit card company tracks one’s purchases does not mean that any governmental agency has the right to that information without a warrant.

@Floyd1, perhaps I misinterpreted @Solexman’s intent. I hope Solexman will explain what was meant.

 

[Solexman]

@hunck, you make good points. Yes, of course my spending is tracked by the relevant credit card companies. However, not all of it is when I pay with cash, and this is by my choice as I value my privacy.

Regarding the USA’s 4th amendment: I disagree with your interpretation. As it is a baseline principle, it defines the goal or intent, which is focussed on unreasonable searches and seizures, and not the specific mechanisms, such as telephones and online actions. If a governmental agency, at any level, wishes to legally inspect one’s financial transactions, then it must apply for the warrant specific to that action. The judicial, court system is the authority for approving warrants. In my country, the judicial system is responsible for interpreting the intent and scope of the laws. This includes the US constitution and its amendments.

That a credit card company tracks one’s purchases does not mean that any governmental agency has the right to that information without a warrant.

@Floyd1, perhaps I misinterpreted @Solexman’s intent. I hope Solexman will explain what was meant.

1. I’m Scottish and live in the UK. (Relevance?)
2. I can’t put any store in a constitution that permits ordinary citizens the right to own assault weapons, and equally doesn’t protect the lives of innocent schoolchildren.
3. My comment was perfectly clear.

Those who make statements about being “informed“, which insinuates that everyone else is not “informed “ comes across as paranoia.
Seems fairly simple to me. Sorry if I didn’t go into a rambling 500 word , in depth analysis , but sometimes less is more.

p.s- I didn’t realise there was a probation period on here or a limitation on interaction until I had “served my time”.