this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
187 points (94.7% liked)

Privacy

48607 readers
371 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For example: in Canada, the bank accounts of those who protested were literally frozen (for simply speaking out or being critical) and talks of potential CBDCs (aka. used to deduct funds from one's account as a fine) whilst considering on abolishing cash altogether.

The alternative (for now at least) may be Crypto (online) until they consider that "illegal" in the future penalizing those who are using it, framing that as money laundering or tax evasion, whilst pushing their propaganda of "tap & go is safe & convenient".

The answers are divided between:

  • "Cash is King" (it allows anonymous or "private" transactions between you and the merchant)
  • "Contactless" (convenient, but your purchases & transactions are monitored by the state)

Cash is apparently the last bastion of "anonymous" transactions where it doesn't appear on one's statement and one gets to keep their money without the state deducting it from their account since a nation's central bank has monopoly over CBDCs and one's funds.

That's not even the end of it: them trying to make BTC or equivalent illegal by making CBDCs the default replacing gold overnight, it would mean all those bills you have are worthless. At this point, the only payment method is CBDCs that are linked to one's digital ID.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 69 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

It is not the anonymity that is important.

It is not having to ask someone permission to spend money like with a debit card, credit card, and even fucking crypto need institutional permission to have access to your power to spend yo money.

anonymity ain't shit.

[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 10 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

Not even just permission, especially given most of these systems are made to operate on your phone rather than through a physical card.

Oops, your phone died? Sorry, no groceries for you! Did your internet connection stop working on your phone? Sooooooooooorry, you're not gonna be able to pay your bus fare.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Xirup@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

As Metallica said, sad but true. Ok, you have all your money in your bank account, but those are literally just 0 and 1s, our economy depends literally in non tangible numbers, and that's it. And you cannot pay unless the bank explicitly allow it, so your "money' isn't your money now.

[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 12 points 3 weeks ago

fuck Metallica

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tirateimas@lemmy.pt 37 points 3 weeks ago

Definitely, cash is critical

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

In the event of a disaster where the power grid and/or data communication goes down, how the fuck you gonna buy groceries, or anything else for that matter? 🤔

[–] War5oldier@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

That's where cash serves a purpose, as a payment method during that kind of scenario.

[–] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not sure how card payments work in the US, but here the terminals have offline-mode where the purchases are just stored locally until it comes online again.

If there's a total blackout, having cash maybe be better (but absolutely no guarantee they're usable at the grocery store)...but there's a whole lot of other much more pressing issues in that case.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lucullus@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

In most cases this problem is already there, even with cash. One time the local supermarkets lost the connection to their backbone system due to a cyber attack. They did not sell a thing, not even for cash, as their registers were dependend on that connection.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (10 children)

There's this:

https://thecashtracker.com/

If you get your cash out of an ATM, the machine could (I don't know if it does, but I suspect at least some do) scan every serial number of every bill it gives you. To counter that, you'd need to "launder" it though some other person, the more times and the farther away the better, until it gets spent back into the system, where it can be, once again scanned.

If you get your cash out of an ATM, and then turn around and stick it in a bill receiver at some self-checkout machine, that could possibly be tracked. I don't think this is hypothetical, I just didn't find any evidence in a quick search, but the site above shows it happens somehow.

Yes, cash is much better than a card that tracks every purchase, but it's not completely anonymous, either. And, it takes effort to ensure it's anonymous. It's not a given.

Hmmm. Since defacing a bill isn't a crime, marking out the serial number of every bill you receive would break the chain, except that you'd be one of the very few doing it. That would need to become widespread for it to have any real impact. Oh, but probably the machine would reject a bill with a marked-out serial number.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Even if the bill was scanned when you withdrew it at the ATM and again when you spent it, there’s no way to know if the bill changed hands in the meantime through unrecorded transactions.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The hypothetical tracker doesn't need to know 100%.

The kind of data analytics that would be used to track serial numbers to determine the parties involved works perfectly fine with probabilistic/incomplete information. The goal isn't to create evidence for a courtroom, it's to build a graph of the people that you interact with so further intelligence collection could be planned.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hesh@quokk.au 7 points 3 weeks ago

Coins dont have serial numbers. Time to pay for everything in quarters.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 19 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

The only private alternative to cash that im aware of is monero. Nothing else is as private as cash.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 weeks ago

Yes. Once cash is gone a huge aspect of privacy goes with it.

I am afraid it will happen in my lifetime.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Cash is not 100% anonymous though. Vendors see you, cameras record you, you may even have to sign and present id for some transactions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lutra@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Why is this a question?

"Should people be allowed to keep their rights?" -- this is usually intended to spark discussion, but discussing from this pov helps those who want bad things more than those who dont.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 weeks ago

Cash is king. Always use cash when possible. I do, and I love it...

[–] FreddiesLantern@leminal.space 8 points 3 weeks ago

They want to keep track of everything so people pay their taxes…I mean a certain portion of the population that is.

[–] toebert@piefed.social 8 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Even with cash we're at the mercy of a country, if they fuck up their economy and hyperinflate it, money is gone anyway.

The only way forward is to carry around stuff that has intrinsic universal value. The currency of the future is potatoes, start stocking up.

[–] tehn00bi@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 404found@lemmy.zip 8 points 3 weeks ago

I don't see the benefit for the average person to get rid of cash. If it's digital it's trackable, can be hacked and more easily controlled by other parties. Also it allows for banks to charge more service fees.

[–] nile_istic@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

I know we're meant to be discussing this from a privacy perspective, but my first thought whenever the topic of eliminating cash comes up is that, at least where I am in the US, it's tantamount to euthanizing the homeless. The vast majority of unhoused folks I know (which is a lot, including myself for a terrible but thankfully short period of my life) get most of their necessities (particularly food) by buying them with cash they've earned through various means, rather than charities, food banks, soup kitchens, etc. And only a very small percentage of them has any sort of bank account and/or a device to manage digital currency.

But also privacy, yes. Cash is king.

[–] BillMangionee@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

Monero XMR is the last bastion of "anonymous" transactions. The issue is actually obtaining it privately.

They're going to tax/fine you however they want. This is already reality. Its no different from having a bank account or making transfers via Paypal or Zelle. Our currency is already heavily digitized and centralized by governments. Transitioning to CBDCs would just be making the back-end more robust, which I'm personally in favor for. The technology for this has been worked on for about a decade now.

[–] mustard57@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

A CBDC would give the government more control over your money. They have a lot of control now, but there is at least a middle man that the government has to compel to comply. With a CBDC, the government would be able to allow/disallow any transaction. Right now, they would have to convince Paypal or Zelle to invalidate a transaction. The on/off ramps to Monero and Bitcoin are the only locations with which the government can exert their power over those currencies. While Bitcoin is not private, it can be a good tool for privacy if used correctly. Cash, however, is still the most private. So I'll just keep slipping quarters in the keyboard to pay for my online purchases.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

For example: in Canada, the bank accounts of those who protested were literally frozen (for simply speaking out or being critical)

Yeah... try using that lie on people who live in Ottawa, see how it goes.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago (13 children)

Whether those particular protesters were in the right seems less significant than the general threat of debanking being used by a government as a weapon to disrupt the logistics of protests. This is obviously not limited to disruptive right wing protesters with questionable grievances. Take for example the way the US has used sanction powers to disrupt the daily finances of ICC judges.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

US recently introduced the bright idea of banknote serial numbers blacklists. Great incentive to hold greenbacks!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] datendefekt@feddit.org 5 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Cash is not anonymous. The serial numbers are being used for tracking.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

If I get cash in change from a vendor who doesn’t know my identity, and spend it at another vendor who doesn’t know my identity, what is there to tie the serial numbers to?

[–] limonfiesta@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Nothing, they're blowing it out of proportion.

However, if you put them into a banking machine or deposit in your bank, then serial tracking can become something you should at least be aware of.

[–] datendefekt@feddit.org 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Some of your bills in your pocket may come from the vendor A, some may come from an ATM. So the bank knows some of the bills you got.

Vendor B might go shopping somewhere, or deposit his cash in a bank. Or put it in a sorting machine that scans the serial numbers.

You pay B with some bills from A and some bills from the ATM. And now the bank can connect all three dots. The transactions aren't completely transparent, but aren't truly anonymous anymore.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

At best, B’s bank knows that B had some bills that once passed through your hands. But they have no way of knowing if you actually spent the money at B’s or if there were other transactions in between.

[–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RabbitBBQ@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Cash in the United States is not as private as it seems. Eventually the bills will be scanned at various points through the financial system and the serial numbers are logged by these authorities. It may take some time to collect the data versus being able to view a blockchain, but cash isn't as anonymous as it appears. And with a vastly decreasing amount of cash in circulation, it makes it a lot easier for the Govt to track its usage. It's still the best option even considering cryptocurrencies.

Another reason for the decline in cash is that as the U.S. debt increases, the economy will have to inflate along with it, and it's much easier to manage increasing inflation in an economy without physical currency. If things get really bad and conditions exist that would cause a bank run, well, good luck doing that if you can't have cash. Run off with a copy of the database or something.

[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You are wrong about debt leading to inflation, that's monetarism and has been thoroughly debunked.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

More and more companies by me are asking people to use cash and offering a discount for doing so.

Credit card fees are a big expense for small businesses.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] monovergent@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

For sure, even if it's not perfect. Ready-to-use without electricity or internet, no payment processor shenanigans, and not nearly as comprehensive a system of tracking even if you account for serial numbers.

[–] winkly@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

Who needs cash when you have bottle caps

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] MoonMelon@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I feel (maybe hope) that countries doing this would face significant challenges with currency substitution and private currencies. Ultimately if I want to buy something and my neighbor wants to sell me that thing the government becomes the, "Is there someone you forgot to ask?" meme.

It'd be metal af if I bought something from my neighbor and paid him in Yuan, lol.

all those bills you have are worthless.

That's the tricky thing is technically the government doesn't actually control what is worth stuff, its all just vibes. By undermining faith in their currency the government could actually lose a bit of control, not gain it. This was actually a huge fucking problem early in US history.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 4 points 3 weeks ago

Im not cool with a cashless society that is not much more egalitarian.

load more comments
view more: next ›