Preparedness for when

Frugalsod

nuatha wrote: »

I disagree with your assessment of the real risks - what goes hand in hand with the move to cashless is every transaction being traceable and those records being permanently stored and available for manipulation. Given the history of profiling, it is only a matter of time before some authority decides that transaction data is a key to resolving some perceived threat to national security and you have a substantial number of innocents occupying state resources while the actual threat continues unobserved.

Incidentally going cashless isn't a threat to boot and jumble sales or roadside stalls, micropayment systems have been trialled and its perfectly feasible to handle card payments with a smartphone (if you choose to disenfranchise yourself by not using a smartphone that isn't the state's problem)

I think the very immediate risk is from bail-ins. This is why I am against it.

Further out I do agree that the potential for governments trying to control us through our money will become a real and credible risk. The state security services probably would attempt to use it to gather information on every single one of us.

Many of our current transactions are already done by banks digitally and we have not really solved the terrorism funding problem with existing technology will making every transaction electronic make things better? Probably not. I suspect that they will be creating even bigger haystacks of data to search for that terrorist needle in.

The problem is that any such all tracking technology like the block chain could also be used by foreign powers and banks to try and control us. If say a truly evil nation for example lets call it Switzerland decided it wanted to get information about our prime minister it would also have access to it and could black mail him or anyone else over their purchases. If governments decided to use that technology against the people it could also be used against them.

thriftwizard

if you choose to disenfranchise yourself by not using a smartphone that isn't the state's problem

Nuatha, I have & do use a smart phone. What I don't have, at many of the places we trade in, or in fact most of the time where I live, is a signal!

pineapple

nuatha wrote: »

I disagree with your assessment of the real risks - what goes hand in hand with the move to cashless is every transaction being traceable and those records being permanently stored and available for manipulation. Given the history of profiling, it is only a matter of time before some authority decides that transaction data is a key to resolving some perceived threat to national security and you have a substantial number of innocents occupying state resources while the actual threat continues unobserved.

Agreed. All those who wave their smart phones etc about for every payment and accuse us cash folks of being luddites or technophobes are inadvertently leading us into a world of trouble imo. It doesn't need a grand conspiracy, but there is huge potential for mission creep. That said, even though I haven't a religious bone in my body, I do wonder sometimes if there is something in that Revelations bit about not being able to buy or sell without 'the mark of the beast'.
Technology is advancing at such a pace it could actually happen. Whether it's cards, phones, iris scans, chipping or something we haven't yet thought of. For those of us who remember the 50s and 60s (coughs) the world today is practically unrecognisable.

nuatha

thriftwizard wrote: »

Nuatha, I have & do use a smart phone. What I don't have, at many of the places we trade in, or in fact most of the time where I live, is a signal!

You don't necessarily need a mobile signal to process micropayment transactions.
You do need a secure "wallet" system on your phones which is either pre-deposited with real currency or has a guaranteed credit limit. The transaction itself can be carried out using any of the near field communication technologies including Bluetooth and Wifi. When access to a mobile signal is next available the "wallet" updates the transactions with the bank/payment system. Its not even new tech, I was involved in trialling this tech about 10 years ago, though the "wallet" system was far from secure in that system.

Incidentally I am not advocating cashless, nor promoting smartphones - the disenfranchisement comment was a possible attitude that could be expressed by the powers that be

thriftwizard

You don't necessarily need a mobile signal to process micropayment transactions.
You do need a secure "wallet" system on your phones which is either pre-deposited with real currency or has a guaranteed credit limit. The transaction itself can be carried out using any of the near field communication technologies including Bluetooth and Wifi. When access to a mobile signal is next available the "wallet" updates the transactions with the bank/payment system. Its not even new tech, I was involved in trialling this tech about 10 years ago, though the "wallet" system was far from secure in that system.

The problem I can see with that, as a seller, is that without a confirmation of the transaction having taken place, how would I know that the buyer has funds available? They go off with the goods, and six days later when I reconnect, I won't get a "You must be joking!" from the bank? Is there some kind of protection for sellers against this eventuality?

ETA: think I see; the buyer is the one with the pre-loaded credit/balance? Can't see a lot of our customers accepting "money" on their mobiles, they'd worry that it was very vulnerable to theft of the device.

nuatha

thriftwizard wrote: »

The problem I can see with that, as a seller, is that without a confirmation of the transaction having taken place, how would I know that the buyer has funds available? They go off with the goods, and six days later when I reconnect, I won't get a "You must be joking!" from the bank? Is there some kind of protection for sellers against this eventuality?

ETA: think I see; the buyer is the one with the pre-loaded credit/balance? Can't see a lot of our customers accepting "money" on their mobiles, they'd worry that it was very vulnerable to theft of the device.

The system I was involved with trialling had limits on both the buyer and the seller. So a maximum sales amount as the seller's wallet can only hold so much credit. But the buyer transaction is guaranteed by the system any flaw in the credit approval does not become the vendor's issue. I don't know if Google Pay or Apple Pay have plans for anything similar or are completely reliant on being in range of a signal. The technology is there, the will to implement it is another matter entirely.

As to customers carrying a digital wallet, this would be tied to the account rather than the phone and would almost certainly require either an additional PIN or fingerprint recognition as part of the process. I suspect adoption would be a lot quicker than you might think (think how quickly chip and pin was adopted, which until very recently didn't actually give any indication of the amount being charged).

moneyistooshorttomention

Frugalsod wrote: »

This was on Zero Hedge a couple of days ago, but still relevant. I will admit to doing #2 a lot.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-26/three-strategies-make-your-life-easier-times-get-harder

That article makes a lot of sense to me. I probably major on the 3rd item there - ie carefully calculated "What's the odds on that then?" way of thinking re whether to invest a little bit of money here/do that there/etc.

I used to use the relative security of a Civil Service job to my advantage whenever I could - eg getting a better deal on the mortgage I took out when I bought starter house. Also the knowledge of how long I could absolutely guarantee I would have my job for even on worst case analysis (ie so long for a consultation period, followed by so long for a notice period). Things have changed now and I'm now none-too-sure whether I could "trade on" that fact as I used to financially.

But the basic gist of that idea still makes sense to me - ie the "What assets do I have personally compared to some? - be it possessions/knowledge/etc?"

Even in retirement - it sometimes helps to mention some of the previous jobs I have and people instantly realise "This one is a law-abider/is likely to do things 'properly' or she wouldn't have had jobs like that" and I'll get trusted that bit more than some would as regards paying bills, etc.

ivyleaf

COOLTRIKERCHICK wrote: »

Would we have to put a debit card in the Christmas pudding then???:rotfl:

Now there's a thought! The banks would have to devise a new type that didn't melt in the oven

GreyQueen

I got stuck behind a poseur in a supermarket paying by phone (took 6 attempts to get it right). He was also wearing those ridiculous Vibr@m fiver-finger bootees and had a man-bun. Probably thought he was very very cool and at the cutting edge of modernity. What I thought of him was not favourable, and was the majority opinion, if the expressions of other shoppers were anything to go by.

Having come from a background of debt and welfare advice, I have glanced over many a bank statement. If you don't pay cash, your life is laid bare to even a 20 second perusal; where you shop, where you entertain yourself, and how much you spend. Servicing at a Ford dealership - prolly driving a Ford. You have no privacy.

Ask yourself this; would you be happy to provide, 24/7/365, the State with a minute-by-minute diary of where you were, what you did and what you bought? And, by cross-referencing others' records, who you did it with? And by the State, I mean anyone will either official access or unofficial access (i.e. hackers)? Because that's the level of disclosure you're giving away by using electronic means of payment for every damned thing.

These records won't be yours, they will exist electronically in the hands of powerful (mostly transnational) businesses and will have to be barfed-up the the State on request. Even DWP and local government's accredited fraud investigators can demand your banking records. Your bank can't refuse to give them up, and they won't ever tell you they did so. And if anyone accuses you of committing fraud, and you are in receipt of public funds, you will have to be investigated - no exceptions.

You might say well, that's fine, I'm honest, what have I got to fear? I know honest people who've been given the 3rd degree by the Police in incredibly aggressive multi-hour questioning sessions in the police station because of connections as distant as having drunk in the same very large and busy chain pub as a murder victim. Or having had a long-gone ex commit an armed robbery with an accomplice who somewhat resembled them. Or having driven a white van within a few miles of a robbery involving a white van.

If you think guilt-by-association through proximity, or even suspected proximity, it bad enough, imagine the fun which could be had by cross-checking banking records with card or phone transaction records. Just say there was proof that you and a person of interest to the State had been in the same place at the same time?

All those people mentioned above have been left incredibly shaken and declare they will never trust the Police again. They also feel the constant need to record where they were and who they were with, in case they have to alibi themselves in future.

If you don't even have paper copies of your important documents like bank statements, they can be edited electronically at the other end without your knowledge and consent. Who knows what that data could be used for? I refuse to have electronic bank statements and have and file paper, to be cross-referenced with the paper printouts which prove I paid my utility bills. Going to be awfully hard to challenge a future situation where X company says you didn't pay Y bill and have marked your credit history up, or are taking you for a CCJ.

IMO, people aren't nearly scared enough of living in a surveillance society with every aspect of their lives is under the control of powerful interests. Slave-owners of old could only have dreamed of such levels of control. Orwell must be spinning in his grave.

thriftwizard

If you don't even have paper copies of your important documents like bank statements, they can be edited electronically at the other end without your knowledge and consent. Who knows what that data could be used for?

I think all people see is the convenience... a bit like the scientists investigating creativity, they're only seeing the upside, not realising that for every positive, there's an equal & opposite negative that others will see, and use against them.

DS1 is currently in a situation where he needs to prove his address. To his horror he's being asked to pay for a paper copy of a bank statement, as he normally has them electronically, to save him lugging them from flat to flat every time the 6 month lease is up. It's the thin end of the wedge!