That is a pretty fringe worry of tracking that places a major burden on the business. While I am no fan of the amount of tracking going on, I'd say this is pretty far down the list. You're still tracked when you pull out cash. Credit cards have quite a bit of protection on them.
Should this really be far down the list of privacy concerns? My debit cards record every single transaction I make with them. Anybody motivated enough could find out exactly where, when, and what I buy. Seems like a pretty major privacy concern.
> It means somebody has to go to the bank each day to drop off the cash and collect change.
So... just like the past few hundreds years then.
> So it's inconvenient
So is taking out the trash. But are you going to complain about the janitor who gets paid to do it?
> and an unnecessary security risk to whichever staff member is required to do that.
Is it really so unnecessary? Moreover, is dealing with money ever not considered a security risk?
> Compared to not accepting cash and not having to deal with any of that, then yes it's a major burden.
Even not accepting cash is a security risk. Do you deal with your computer infrastructure? Card skimmers? What about cameras that take pictures of card information while being slid across the scanner? How do you deal with the security audits of the backend software? What about the background checks of the people who wrote the backend software?
You're falsely painting a rose garden. It's just a different garden, that's all.
> If you have the option not to, wouldn't you opt out?
I have the "option" to opt-out of things that I never opted into in the first place. It's ludicrous that I have to do "opt out" of something I didn't have a choice of being opted-into in the first place.
> Those are risks of accepting cards, not risks of "not accepting cash"
Yes absolutely. And those risks (of accepting cards) mean that I disagree with the implied statement that not accepting cash removes burdens. It simply shifted the burden elsewhere (onto the customer).
> I have the "option" to opt-out of things that I never opted into in the first place. It's ludicrous that I have to do "opt out" of something I didn't have a choice of being opted-into in the first place.
What are you even talking about? The context is that cash is inconvenient and costly to deal with. You said "So is taking out the trash. But are you going to complain about the janitor who gets paid to do it?"
To which I basically responded yes - wouldn't you opt out of paying the janitor if you didn't have to? i.e. reduce the cost of doing business - if we're not making trash we don't need to pay someone to take it out. Hey, let's not make trash!
Your response doesn't make any sense in that context.
> those risks (of accepting cards) mean that I disagree with the implied statement that not accepting cash removes burdens
It's not implied, it's flat-out stated. Taking cash involves a variety of extra costs, risks and infrastructure. If you don't take cash you don't need a cash till, you probably don't need a safe, you don't need to pay staff to count and reconcile it, you don't need to get it to the bank safely, or pay banking fees.
If you're going to take cards all you really need these days is a smartphone and a reader.
> It simply shifted the burden elsewhere (onto the customer).
So? We're talking about burdens on the business. If you feel that having to use a card in an unacceptable burden, then perhaps you don't use that business.
By the sounds of it, not many people feel this way. And it's quite funny in itself - given that it's far easier not to bother with cash as an individual too.
> What are you even talking about? The context is that cash is inconvenient and costly to deal with.
You replied with a non-sequitur so I replied in kind.
Asking about opting-out of paying someone? No, that's immoral. Only scumbags would consider asking that let alone actually do it.
Asking about opting-out of using cash? No, that doesn't make sense given that I've clearly stated that I won't be a customer of businesses who have.
Asking about opting-out of taking out the trash? Nobody likes trash to pile up and I have a lot of respect to people who deal with it.
Asking about opting-out of being a janitor? I was a janitor for a long time. How does that make sense in the conversation though?
> To which I basically responded...
Your new reply doesn't include what you originally replied with. There's new context here and it changes what your first message meant to me. Here, have a new reply:
No, I am not a scumbag. People deserve to be paid fairly.
Further: janitors do real work that robots simply cannot do. I cannot ask a robot how their day was, how long they've worked there, what their hobbies are, or where to find the competing store. I can ask a janitor that though and perhaps even build a friendship.
> Taking cash involves a variety of extra costs, risks and infrastructure. If you don't take cash you don't need a cash till, you probably don't need a safe, you don't need to pay staff to count and reconcile it, you don't need to get it to the bank safely, or pay banking fees.
Taking cards involves a variety of extra costs, risks and infrastructure. If you don't take cards you don't need a card reader, you probably don't need internet, or have IT staff to manage all of that, you don't need to pay staff to count and reconcile sales, or pay processing fees...
Do you want me to go on? The risks aren't gone. They're just moved.
> If you feel that having to use a card in an unacceptable burden, then perhaps you don't use that business.
> You replied with a non-sequitur so I replied in kind.
No, I didn't, saying "If you have the option not to, wouldn't you opt out?" in reponse to your comment "are you going to complain about the janitor who gets paid to do it?" is absolutely not a non-sequitur.
If there is a business cost you don't have to pay, if you have that option, why would you not take it?
> Asking about ...
You missed an option there - not generating the trash in the first place, so you don't need to pay a janitor. That's the analogy with not taking cash - deciding not to create the issue in the first place that requires the costs and hassle.
> Taking cards involves a variety of extra costs, risks and infrastructure. If you don't take cards you don't need a card reader, you probably don't need internet, or have IT staff to manage all of that, you don't need to pay staff to count and reconcile sales, or pay processing fees..
As a small business you also don't need all of that, just a tablet and a reader. Everything else is already done.
We're also not talking about taking cash or taking cards, we're talking about the difference between taking both, or taking cards only, and whether that constitutes a reduction in hassle and risk.
Also this is not the same argument you were making before, which was that the burden was transferred to you the potential customer.
> The risks aren't gone. They're just moved.
The risks of taking cash are gone if you don't take cash.
If you're taking cards anyway, deciding not to take cash is an absolute reduction in risk and hassle.
> If you have a problem with cash... well usually there _isn't_ a resolution so why bother trying?
By this logic it's better to die than break a limb. Dead is dead but getting something fixed is a huge hassle. More nonsense I'm afraid!
> saying "If you have the option not to, wouldn't you opt out?" in reponse to your comment "are you going to complain about the janitor who gets paid to do it?" is absolutely not a non-sequitur.
Sure it is.
> If there is a business cost you don't have to pay, if you have that option, why would you not take it?
You are implying that a business could opt-out of paying janitors. No, that is not an acceptable business practice. Janitors cannot work for free, they are not slaves. And we cannot allow trash to pile up and things to go uncleaned.
> You missed an option there - not generating the trash in the first place, so you don't need to pay a janitor.
There is no situation wherein trash will not be generated. Likewise there is no situation where cash shouldn't be accepted.
> As a small business you also don't need all of that, just a tablet and a reader. Everything else is already done.
Sure, everything else is already done if your shitty small business offloads all of the work to the customer instead.
> The risks of taking cash are gone if you don't take cash. If you're taking cards anyway, deciding not to take cash is an absolute reduction in risk and hassle.
No, it's not a reduction in risk at all. It's offloading the risk to someone else.
> By this logic it's better to die than break a limb.
In the United States with the current state of healthcare, this logic is practically true.
Look, our discussion clearly shows that you might do well at increasing business profits. But your arguments are unable to reconcile basic compassion to your fellow humans. That's unfortunately common in modern businesses.
It's not illegal because of tracking worries, it's illegal because cashless businesses discriminate against the large population of under- and un-banked people who live in NYC.
It's even worse: I've spent time on the phone with banks trying to get my money back without any effect. I wouldn't have spent that time if I'd spent cash in the first place.
"It's gone forever without any recourse" certainly isn't exclusive to cash. And it can be expensive to even try.
Your cellphone is doing far, far more to profile you than any $5 spend at a local coffee shop would.
All a CC company would know is you like expensive lattes; your cellphone would know how long you stayed there, where you say in the joint, and how many memes you looked at before you left. And might overhear everything you say, including your order.
If you're using any sort of digital payment or points app on your phone it'll probably know your order, too.
Listen, most places should take cash, but this is silly.
Disposable gift cards are widely available in the US that will run as debit/credit without any need for identity verification. They are disposable, though, and as the other comment mentions aren't very economical (~1% outright in fees if you buy in $500 increments).
Is this only through a web portal that is tied directly to your bank account? Do you have a link?
Such a card, if it exist, would quickly be the most popular card on all churning and credit card reward forums.
Also if it exist but requires a bank account or Amex credit card to purchase, it goes back again to being pointless for the people who can't get banking services and rely on cash.
There are only 39.8 billion US banknotes in circulation, it can easily tracked in a Postgres database, banknote numbers when it exits the ATM, banknote numbers when they are redeemed by the baker, or by your drug dealer of choice, banknotes are only in circulation for one or two exchanges before coming back to a bank, it’s very possible that they are tracked to identify curious loops in circulation.
In fact, if they weren’t, that would be unprofessional from the FBI.
Easily? Tracking a credit card transaction is probably by far the easiest way to track money. And cash being the most difficult. And crypto being both easy and difficult depending on how it's used.
Sure, credit card tracking is much easier, but I wouldn't call the "most difficult" nature of cash to be all that difficult, certainly not for a state actor that heavily regulates its banks.
Please correct me if I’m missing something. You’re describing a map where the key is a note and the value is, a linked list of banks? I’m not clear what the point is that you’re trying to make.
I believe what they're saying is - we have the capability to track every physical banknote as it leaves/enters the bank and attach it to the person who deposits/withdraws it.
There may be extra steps in between, but if you're tracking a transaction / relationship type which happens twice or more, you can expect that the person on the record is the person you're after or can point you at them.
But I don't know why they expect FBI to actually have it implemented. The system would have to be so widespread/common that we'd know if it existed. I mean, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_bill_tracking but that's for hobbyists. Otherwise banks may check for duplicate numbers... but I can't find any mention of more widespread tracking.
The person who made this point addressed this already:
> banknotes are only in circulation for one or two exchanges before coming back to a bank
No, you don't get the 100% whole picture, but you can mine a ton out of data points like "note 38573204 was given to John Doe via ATM on 2023-01-10, and returned to bank by Jane Smith (owner of ABC Widgets) on 2023-01-14".
Many people don't, but businesses deposit excess cash daily.
Certainly, though, those same businesses keep a lot of cash in order to give change to other customers. But that cash will still likely end up back at a bank before too long.
If any of them worked sensibly as currency, maybe. But end result would probably be "the crypto transaction processor" most companies taking crypto use getting all the info needed to link person with their money anyway.
Cryptocurrency exposed thousands of pedophiles a few years ago. It stores a record of every transaction. They just had to connect the dots starting from the wallet of the CSAM website.
Blockchain sleuthing had become much more commonplace since then.
If you have a public ledger, you don't need names to identify people's wallets.
