all Im thinking of is how payment processors have been acting as legislators lately to outlaw porn.
This thread is a dumpster fire. Can someone explain to me why i should be concerned about the tracking of payments that as an average person will not happen outside of buying huge stuff like a car? While no one is forced to answer me i would like you to refrain from vague statements like “this is attacking your privacy”, because i am interested in how. If you think its obvious feel free to ignore.
I think the biggest point that i could see being a problem is the crypto stuff because i once made a anonymous donation via monero (that because i was concerned but the target needed privacy). It was about 30€ or something. Would that be illegal under the new guidelines? And if so, why would i care, since it is supposed to be anonymous.
Well I’m not in the EU, but in my situation I live in a shithole in the US called Tennessee. I have cancer that can be removed, but I don’t have the quarter of a million for the surgery. It’s been impossible to get a surgeon to even look at me, 2 years looking and still no surgeons will even let me in their office.
I need medications but the med I need the most is $8000 a month, it suppresses my autoimmune system and alows me to heal. My cancer is vary rare, it’s called a neuroendocrine tumor, it’s caused by extreme stress, this is because I’m a natural born empath, but saying that out loud usually gets a knife in my back from anyone near me carrying dark energy.
But to get to the point, I can get some meds occasionally for cheap, as long as they’re sold for cash, but if that gos away then I definitely will die much faster. Seems on par for the life I’ve lived, care about everyone, then have everyone try to kill me.
So, because the US can’t get its shit together and you can’t get medical help for neither cancer nor psychological issues, the EU - with pretty good universal healthcare - should allow cash payments without limit?
Hey bud I’m glad narcissism, is working out for you. I really hope you’re old so it don’t catch up.
Anonymity is important for various reasons. You can’t predict everything bad a government will try to do to stifle freedom that a person may want to avoid. Off the top of my head, I could see someone trying to pay for an abortion or something like that in a southern state where it’s illegal, for health reasons to save their own life.
I think this is actually a very good example, thank you.
People from europe sometimes come a long as assholes (“wE aRe NoT iN tHe ShItTy UsA”) while ignoring that political stability is not guaranteed. Neither is democracy. Sitting here germany i look very nervously at the many countries shifting to the right and getting more authoritarian.
I pray to all gods that the times we live in wont be very interesting for historians to come…
To me the problem is that you wouldn’t be able to buy a car anonymously anymore, while it leaves the really rich pretty much untouched.
Art is a well known angle for money laundering or giving someone a huge sum of money pretty much without any regulation. Contracts for construction or even consulting are another way.
I don’t have access to this kind of playground - chances are, you neither. But the people supposedly targeted by this kind of law (corrupt politicians, organised crime, …), do have access to these things and are therefore not impacted.
nothing to hide nothing to fear, huh?
And i thought at least after Snowden we learnt this is bs…
Clickbait headline. The underlying article lists much more reasonable restrictions:
- Anonymous cash payments over €3,000 will be banned in commercial transactions
- Cash payments over €10,000 will even be completely banned in business transactions
- Anonymous payments in cryptocurrencies to wallets operated by providers will be prohibited
So non-commercial transations are fine, as are crypto transactions to non-custodial wallets.
Commercial transactions -
Aaah, the kind of transaction that most transactions are?
Operated by providers
Aah, so any business which accept crypto must KYC every one of their customers. This makes accepting crypto especially burdensome, which is half the point of this legislation in the first place.
So non-commercial transations are fine, as are crypto transactions to non-custodial wallets.
Unless you’re using the wallet to buy or sell something. You know, the thing people use money for.
Why does the government need to have every transaction reported to them? Crime is bad because it causes harm. If harm is being caused, that means a person or entity is causing that harm. That means there is evidence. Follow that.
Police have more surveillance and crime-detecting tools than at any point in human history. Nearly every category of crime, particularly violent crime, is on a decades-long downtrend. We all travel with GPS monitors in our pockets. We all use credit cards instead of cash. We all are recorded by CCTV 90% of the places we go. We don’t need to give them more financial surveillance because ‘crime’.
Wtfff
This doesn’t seem that much worse than American rules that have already been in place for a long, long time.
As it is, large payments or withdrawals must be reported to federal agencies, anything over $10k. This applies to cash transactions as well and the forms the IRS requires you to fill in a $10k+ cash transaction can be found here.
The biggest difference would be the impact on cash transactions and crypto transactions in the EU.
I’m pro-privacy, but a lot more crypto facilitates crime than not, so I don’t really know why people would be shocked that governments would attack crypto specifically here (literally almost all ransomware uses crypto). Looks like way more of a crackdown on crypto than cash, but maybe that’s just me. (On top of the fact that a lot of crypto isn’t privacy-oriented. Looking at you, Bitcoin)
Related: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/venmo-paypal-zelle-must-report-600-transactions-irs-rcna11260
Two years ago USA put in rules for commercial digital transfers over $600 to be reported. Just pointing out that the EU’s rules don’t seem particularly draconian when weighed against already existing rules elsewhere.
