Heading towards a cashless society...

The National Security Agency isn’t just snooping into phone and online communications. It also appears to be keeping a close eye on credit card transactions. Time Magazine.

According to unnamed sources in the Wall Street Journal, the NSA has been obtaining purchase information from credit card companies. The Journal didn’t specify what type of credit card providers were providing information to the NSA; it could be networks like Visa and MasterCard, third-party processors, or issuing banks like Bank of America and Chase.

You can be sure that if The NSA are snooping around the US citizens card details, then the UK equivelent, namely MI5 are probably doing much the same here in the UK.
 

So many people are struggling to make ends meet or keep up with rising costs of living, despite working hard and playing by the rules. Universal basic income is a possible solution to these problems, it is possible that it is a way to ensure that everyone has access to a basic standard of living, regardless of their circumstances.
In an increasing caseless society who controls the big players? The inequality could sky rocket. There are ways to implement a UBI without needing to use peoples personal data.
 

This is never going to happen. Plus, the bid by Silicon Valley and tech evangelists for a cashless society is only so providers can make money off of the idea via fees and data tracking. If everyone is cashless, that creates more data to track and sell.

Data is their primary goal - more data generated to trade and sell. They don't like cash because it doesn't leave a data trail.

When will we ever learn that Silicon Valley is not really out for our best interests, only its own?
 
I understand your concerns about the feasibility and potential pitfalls of a UBI, particularly in the context of a cashless society driven by Silicon Valley interests.

Here are some key points to consider:

UBI Implementation Challenges:
  • Funding: Determining a sustainable and equitable funding mechanism remains a significant challenge. While the methods I mentioned can minimize data collection, they still require significant resource allocation.
  • Political Will: Implementing a large-scale social program like UBI faces various political and ideological hurdles. Building consensus and addressing concerns about potential societal impacts requires sustained public discourse and debate.
  • Infrastructure & Distribution: Depending on the chosen method, building the necessary infrastructure for distributing UBI to everyone efficiently and fairly can be complex and costly.
Cashless Society & Data Concerns:
  • Privacy Risks: As you mentioned, a cashless society driven by tech companies raises serious concerns about data collection, tracking, and potential misuse. The increased data trail generated could be used for profiling, targeted advertising, and even social control.
  • Digital Divide: Transitioning to a cashless system could exacerbate existing social inequalities, leaving behind those without access to technology or financial literacy.
  • Financial Control: Centralized control over financial transactions in the hands of corporations or governments could undermine individual autonomy and create vulnerabilities to financial manipulation.
Silicon Valley's Motivations:
  • Profit Motive: It's true that large tech companies stand to gain financially from a cashless society through transaction fees, data monetization, and potential control over financial networks.
  • Technological Innovation: While their primary driver might be profit, technological advancements in payment systems can offer convenience and efficiency that benefit consumers.
  • Potential for Good: Tech companies can also play a positive role in developing UBI implementation solutions that prioritize privacy and financial inclusion.
Moving Forward:
  • Critical and Informed Discourse: It's crucial to engage in open and critical discussion about both UBI and the implications of a cashless society. Public awareness and informed skepticism are essential to guide responsible technological development and policy decisions.
  • Prioritizing Privacy: Privacy-focused solutions and strong regulatory frameworks are vital to ensure that any potential societal benefits of a cashless system don't come at the cost of individual data privacy.
  • Balancing Interests: Achieving a balance between technological innovation, social welfare, and individual autonomy requires careful consideration of all stakeholders' interests and potential consequences.
Remember, the future of UBI and the transition towards a cashless society are not predetermined. Through informed public discourse, responsible technological development, and critical analysis of vested interests, we can shape these developments to serve the best interests of society as a whole.
 
All of these hi-tech payment systems are interesting but I have two areas of concern:

1.). What if the tech fails? For example, the face recognition says I recently bought $200 of the finest beef steaks at a butcher shop. But, I did not. Who takes the loss? Must I prove I was not at the butcher shop at the time of sale? We will need good strong consumer protection laws to prevent financial institutions and businesses from forcing any negative consequences of their decisions on the consumer.

2.) Why should I have to go through a bank or of private financial institution to spend my money? Why will I need a relationship with a financial institution to buy things? What right do they have to refuse money, which is legal tender for all debts public and private.
 
Brookswood said:
What if the tech fails? For example, the face recognition says I recently bought $200 of the finest beef steaks at a butcher shop. But, I did not. Who takes the loss? Must I prove I was not at the butcher shop at the time of sale? We will need good strong consumer protection laws to prevent financial institutions and businesses from forcing any negative consequences of their decisions on the consumer.
Click to expand...
1.
You're absolutely right, the potential for failures in technology like face recognition raises serious concerns about financial security and fairness. Here's a breakdown of your scenario and some considerations:


Who takes the loss?

In your example, where facial recognition incorrectly identifies you as a buyer, the onus of responsibility is currently a complex and evolving issue. It depends on several factors, including:
  • Terms of service: Financial institutions and businesses often have user agreements outlining liability in case of technological errors. These agreements might place the burden of proof on the consumer to dispute charges.
  • Specific regulations: Some regions may have laws dictating liability for fraudulent transactions or errors in biometric authentication. For example, the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) requirements provide consumer protections in certain situations.
  • Investigation and evidence: If you can provide convincing evidence like alibi proof or inconsistent purchase habits, the merchant or bank might be willing to resolve the issue in your favor.
Proving your innocence:

The burden of proof can be challenging for consumers. While providing alibi evidence like witness statements or time-stamped activity records can help, these might not always be readily available or easily verifiable. This puts consumers at a disadvantage compared to larger corporations with access to sophisticated data and analytics.

Need for strong consumer protection laws:

You're right that strong consumer protection laws are crucial to address these concerns. Ideally, such laws would:
  • Shift the burden of proof: Place the onus on the financial institution or business to prove the transaction was authorized, especially in cases of biometric authentication errors.
  • Limit liability: Cap the potential financial losses consumers face due to technological errors.
  • Require robust dispute resolution mechanisms: Ensure fair and efficient processes for consumers to contest erroneous charges and have them reversed.
  • Transparency and data protection: Regulate how biometric data is collected, stored, and used to minimize fraud risks while protecting consumer privacy.
Future of technology:

While technological advancements offer convenience and efficiency, responsible implementation with strong safeguards is essential. As face recognition and other biometric authentication methods become more prevalent, the need for robust consumer protection measures will only grow.

It's important to stay informed about developments in this area, advocate for fair regulations, and hold businesses accountable for ensuring the accuracy and security of their technological solutions. By prioritizing consumer protection, we can harness the benefits of technology while mitigating the potential risks it poses to our financial security and privacy.

Remember, technological progress needs to be accompanied by ethical considerations and robust legal frameworks to ensure it serves the best interests of everyone involved.

2.
You raise a valid point about the potential limitations of relying on banks and financial institutions for everyday transactions.

While historically, banks have played a crucial role in facilitating financial transactions, their dominance isn't absolute, and the landscape is evolving. Here's a breakdown of your concerns:

Why banks?

Banks and financial institutions offer several benefits:
  • Security: They safeguard your money from theft and loss, providing peace of mind and ensuring access to funds when needed.
  • Convenience: They offer various payment options, from debit cards and online banking to checks and bill pay, making it easier to manage finances.
  • Financial tools: They provide loans, credit cards, and other financial instruments to help individuals and businesses achieve their financial goals.
  • Regulation: They operate under regulations designed to protect consumers and ensure the stability of the financial system.
Alternatives to banks:

Despite these benefits, some argue for alternatives due to concerns about:
  • Fees: Banks charge various fees for services, which can erode your savings over time.
  • Limited access: Not everyone has access to traditional banking services, creating inequality and financial exclusion.
  • Control: Banks have the power to refuse transactions or freeze accounts, sometimes with limited transparency or recourse.
  • Data privacy: Concerns exist about banks collecting and using personal financial data for commercial purposes.
Shifting landscape:

Technology is creating alternative financial systems like:
  • Cryptocurrencies: Blockchain-based digital currencies like Bitcoin aim to create decentralized, peer-to-peer financial systems without intermediaries like banks.
  • Digital wallets: Mobile apps like Apple Pay and Google Pay enable contactless payments without physical cards or traditional bank accounts.
  • P2P lending platforms: These platforms connect lenders and borrowers directly, bypassing banks and potentially offering lower interest rates.
The future of transactions:

The question of whether you should "need" a bank for everyday transactions depends on your specific circumstances and preferences. Both established banks and emerging technologies offer unique advantages and disadvantages.

Ultimately, the future of how we spend money likely involves a mix of systems. Traditional banks might adapt and embrace new technologies, while alternative financial solutions continue to grow in popularity.

What matters most is ensuring access to secure, convenient, and affordable financial services for everyone. This requires ongoing dialogues about:
  • Regulation: Balancing innovation with consumer protection and regulatory frameworks that adapt to new technologies.
  • Financial inclusion: Ensuring everyone has access to basic financial services regardless of income or background.
  • Data privacy: Protecting personal financial data while allowing for innovation and efficient financial systems.
 
Thefts will increase if we go all electronic! To many already know how to hack into a person's information. Increase the flow of money in the medium, and the crooks will have a field day!
 
Timewise 60+ said:
Thefts will increase if we go all electronic! To many already know how to hack into a person's information. Increase the flow of money in the medium, and the crooks will have a field day!
Click to expand...
It's true that transitioning to a fully electronic financial system brings potential security challenges. Hacking and fraudulent activity are concerns that need to be addressed, but it's not necessarily accurate to assume such a system would automatically lead to an increase in overall theft.

Here's a more nuanced perspective:

Potential downsides of all-electronic systems:
  • Increased hacking risk: As you mentioned, online systems can be targets for hackers who aim to steal information or funds. It's crucial to invest in robust cybersecurity measures and ongoing vigilance against evolving threats.
  • Digital divide: Not everyone has equal access to reliable internet or digital literacy skills, potentially leaving them behind in an all-electronic financial world. Bridging this gap requires initiatives to increase digital access and education.
  • Dependence on technology: System outages or technical glitches could disrupt access to funds and essential financial services, highlighting the need for redundancy and contingency plans.
Potential benefits of a shift towards digital payments:
  • Reduced physical theft: Replacing cash with electronic transactions can decrease the risk of physical robbery and theft of hard currency.
  • Improved record-keeping: Digital transactions generate a clear audit trail, making it easier to track spending, detect fraud, and resolve disputes.
  • Financial inclusion: Electronic systems can expand access to financial services for unbanked populations, promoting financial inclusion and economic development.
  • Increased efficiency: Digital payments can be faster, more convenient, and more efficient than traditional cash transactions.
The key lies in finding a balance:

Technological advancements in the financial sector offer both opportunities and challenges. To maximize the benefits while mitigating the risks, it's essential to:
  • Invest in robust cybersecurity and fraud prevention measures.
  • Prioritize financial inclusion to bridge the digital divide.
  • Develop reliable and resilient technological infrastructure.
  • Implement strong regulations and consumer protections.
  • Foster financial literacy and awareness among all segments of the population.
Ultimately, whether a shift towards electronic payments leads to more or less theft depends on how effectively we manage these challenges and ensure a secure and inclusive financial system for everyone.

Remember, technology is a double-edged sword. It's up to us to use it responsibly and with foresight to reap its benefits while safeguarding against potential risks.
 

Heading towards a cashless society...​


No, no, no, no, no, no..... erm, did I tell you, no......

Well, I for one would hate to see the total demise of cash, I love the feel of it, it makes me feel that I do have some money instead of flickering numbers on a digital screen. 😊
 
Comparing data collection and social surveillance between China and the United States :

China:
  • Extensive CCTV network: China boasts the world's largest network of surveillance cameras, estimated to be over 200 million. These cameras are often equipped with facial recognition and artificial intelligence, enabling the government to track and monitor individuals' movements.
  • Social Credit System: China's Social Credit System assigns scores to citizens based on their social and financial behavior, influencing their access to certain services and opportunities. This system raises concerns about privacy, discrimination, and government control over individuals' lives.
  • Internet censorship: China heavily censors the internet, restricting access to certain websites and information deemed sensitive by the government. This censorship limits freedom of expression and access to information.
United States:
  • NSA surveillance programs: The National Security Agency (NSA) in the US has been exposed for collecting vast amounts of data on American citizens and people around the world, including phone calls, emails, and internet activity. These programs raise concerns about mass surveillance and government overreach.
  • Data aggregation by private companies: Tech giants like Google and Facebook collect and analyze massive amounts of user data, which they use for targeted advertising and other purposes. This raises concerns about data privacy and the potential misuse of personal information.
  • Facial recognition technology: The use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement and private companies is growing in the US, raising concerns about potential misuse and discrimination.
Overall:
  • China has a more systematic and centralized approach to data collection and social surveillance, with a focus on physical tracking and social control.
  • The US has a more decentralized approach, with government and private companies collecting and using data for various purposes. However, the NSA programs and the extensive data collection by tech companies raise significant privacy concerns.
Additional factors to consider:
  • Transparency: China's data collection and surveillance practices are often opaque and lack public oversight, while the US has more legal frameworks and regulations in place.
  • Purpose: The stated goals of these programs differ, with China focusing on maintaining social order and economic stability, while the US focuses on national security and crime prevention.
  • Impact on individuals: Both China and the US's programs have significant impacts on individuals' privacy, freedom of expression, and overall sense of security.
Conclusion:

Determining which country has "more" data collection and social surveillance is difficult due to the complex nature of these programs and the different contexts in each country. However, it's crucial to be aware of these practices in both countries and advocate for strong privacy protections and responsible data use by governments and private companies.
 
I like using a credit card for convenience and security, rarely use the debit card anymore, and prefer having cash
for personal transactions. I would most definitely NOT want people scanning my face and eyes nor any other parts
of my body. If and when stores start trying to do that to customers then I will leave them and shop somewhere else.

Personally I feel if a person can't get to the point in one or two paragraphs and without posting drivel,
then they're wasting space and taking too long. The same goes for long pasted postings of copied information.
 
John cycling said:
I like using a credit card for convenience and security, rarely use the debit card anymore, and prefer having cash
for personal transactions. I would most definitely NOT want people scanning my face and eyes nor any other parts
of my body. If and when stores start trying to do that to customers then I will leave them and shop somewhere else.

Personally I feel if a person can't get to the point in one or two paragraphs and without posting drivel,
then they're wasting space and taking too long. The same goes for long pasted postings of copied information.
Click to expand...

It is your choice to read information that is usually answered by personal opinions, or understand complex issues by understanding the nuances, and the "not so easy answers". Opinions are like noses, every bodies got one, and usually it grows longer as they support their own bias. I prefer to understand the issues, not to find personal conclusions or biases when examining such important issues. I know it takes more attention span, which is shortening all the time, but getting information from reliable sources and then shared is a must.
 
Panhandlers are gonna need free portable transaction devices instead of free phones. Or I suppose they could download Venmo on their free phones....after our ever-helpful, forward-thinking gov't sets up free bank accounts for all of them.
 
I kind of like the idea of a social credit score, especially on dating sites. I would never use a dating site (well, now that I'm old I wouldn't anyway, but thinking 30 yrs back...) because you have no way of knowing if the person is a good person or not. But, if there were social scores that you could tell on the dating site whether a person was a dependable law-abiding bill-paying citizen, that would be a game changer.

What is probably natural for our species is to be living in small communities where we know who is admirable and who is not, a few hundred years ago when people moved around I think they had to have reference letters so their new landlords and employers knew they were okay people, but now that we live in massive groups in cities a social score system might be a clever adaptation.
 
HoneyNut said:
I kind of like the idea of a social credit score, especially on dating sites. I would never use a dating site (well, now that I'm old I wouldn't anyway, but thinking 30 yrs back...) because you have no way of knowing if the person is a good person or not. But, if there were social scores that you could tell on the dating site whether a person was a dependable law-abiding bill-paying citizen, that would be a game changer.

What is probably natural for our species is to be living in small communities where we know who is admirable and who is not, a few hundred years ago when people moved around I think they had to have reference letters so their new landlords and employers knew they were okay people, but now that we live in massive groups in cities a social score system might be a clever adaptation.
Click to expand...
What if their spouse ruined their credit before the divorce, or AI took their job, or their business failed and they had to file bankruptcy, or their identity was stolen...what if they're temporarily struggling for any number of reasons?

You wouldn't see the details...confidentiality.
 
Murrmurr said:
What if their spouse ruined their credit before the divorce, or AI took their job, or their business failed and they had to file bankruptcy, or their identity was stolen...what if they're temporarily struggling for any number of reasons?
Click to expand...
I guess in an intimate and risky situation like dating strangers I would rather some guys be unfairly filtered out if that is a consequence of removing the creepy types.

Perhaps if there were social scores the guys wouldn't have married someone who would ruin their credit score.

I think the universal income plan would help people who lose their jobs to AI (and probably would save a lot of money replacing all the current systems of supporting people).

It sounded like volunteer work would improve a person's social score, so a person who doesn't act like rules don't apply to them and who does volunteer work if they don't have a paying job, they'd maybe have a decent social score.
 
HoneyNut said:
I guess in an intimate and risky situation like dating strangers I would rather some guys be unfairly filtered out if that is a consequence of removing the creepy types.

Perhaps if there were social scores the guys wouldn't have married someone who would ruin their credit score.

I think the universal income plan would help people who lose their jobs to AI (and probably would save a lot of money replacing all the current systems of supporting people).

It sounded like volunteer work would improve a person's social score, so a person who doesn't act like rules don't apply to them and who does volunteer work if they don't have a paying job, they'd maybe have a decent social score.
Click to expand...
Ah, I get what you're saying. But *social scoring* is not the same thing as social credit. I could get behind social scoring as long as it was voluntary. Then, if you're considering dating someone but they didn't participate in a scoring questionnaire or whatever, you could pass just for that reason alone.

(Before online dating, there were dating services where you'd go to a building to fill out a lengthy questionnaire and be recorded doing an interview with a service rep, and watch recordings of interviews of people you were "matched" with.
I did that once. Membership was a few hundred bucks, if I remember right. Plus, I bought a shirt, a jacket, and shoes.)

*Social credit* is innately prejudiced and divisive. A caste system is built into it. It has the potential to ruin people's lives due to one crucial mistake, a victimization, or plain bad luck.
 
Murrmurr said:
*Social credit* is innately prejudiced and divisive. A caste system is built into it. It has the potential to ruin people's lives due to one crucial mistake, a victimization, or plain bad luck.
Click to expand...
I don't know a whole lot about it (only watched part of the China video in this thread), but it sounded like a social credit score would indicate if a person was a decent upstanding citizen. I would love for people who walk out of the restroom without washing their hands to get a ding on their social credit score.
What part is prejudiced and divisive?
 
HoneyNut said:
I don't know a whole lot about it (only watched part of the China video in this thread), but it sounded like a social credit score would indicate if a person was a decent upstanding citizen. I would love for people who walk out of the restroom without washing their hands to get a ding on their social credit score.
What part is prejudiced and divisive?
Click to expand...
The built-in caste system....social stratification. The CCP doesn't care if anyone washes their hands after using the toilet, their social credit system literally categorizes people into groups based on their wealth and economic responsibility and helps the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

People who are doing financially well are rewarded with bonuses and special opportunities. People who are struggling to make ends meet are punished...can't apply to certain colleges, don't get promotions at work, can only get crappy jobs, etc. And it's those people who could use an extra opportunity now and then.
 
Paco Dennis said:
So many people are struggling to make ends meet or keep up with rising costs of living, despite working hard and playing by the rules. Universal basic income is a possible solution to these problems, it is possible that it is a way to ensure that everyone has access to a basic standard of living, regardless of their circumstances.
In an increasing caseless society who controls the big players? The inequality could sky rocket. There are ways to implement a UBI without needing to use peoples personal data.
Click to expand...
It makes more sense to me for the gov't to stop intentional inflation. I also liked that work-for-welfare program back in the 80s. I forget what it was called.

To get welfare you had to go to the EDD and register for work, had to be working at least 15 hours/wk or attending community or career college within 3 months or something, which could be extended if needed. You got free childcare, food stamps, a supplement check and rent vouchers until you could support yourself.
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top