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.

  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    1·
    3 days ago

    If you’re arrested, you have various established rights, like being innocent until proven guilty, jury of your peers, need for the circumstances of your arrest to have been legal, need to charge you with a crime and let you see a lawyer to continue holding you, etc. Debanking, afaik, is more of just something government agencies do at their discretion. Sometimes it’s even done without any overt process at all, financial institutions are simply given vague warnings implying they should cut certain people or organizations off, and they proactively comply.

    To give the example of civil forfeiture, there your money is assumed to be criminal until you prove in court that it is not, a reversal of the standard and infamously easy for corrupt cops to abuse.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      1·
      3 days ago

      Debanking, afaik, is more of just something government agencies do at their discretion

      Can you provide an example of that happening?

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          2 days ago

          I haven’t seen a single example. You’ve hand-waved things that you think maybe sometimes do happen, but no examples of it actually happening.

          • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            1·
            2 days ago

            The sanctions on ICC judges are a very specific and well known example. I’m not writing a researched essay in the comments here though so I’m reluctant to dig into the details if that’s not something you’re going to do yourself. If you want more examples and a more in-depth take on this issue, here is an article on the subject that I broadly agree with.

              • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                1·
                2 days ago

                Yes, and the failure of possible legal protections really illustrates the vulnerability I’m talking about here. This stuff took effect by default, had to be countered by a lawsuit, which hasn’t worked so far. It should be really clear why further moves away from cash and any semblance of financial privacy and autonomy are dangerous invitations to more abuse.

                • merc@sh.itjust.works
                  1·
                  2 days ago

                  Are you even more worried about the failure of possible legal protections when the government decides to use the navy to sink fishing boats and come back to kill the survivors?

                  There’s a limit to what you can do when the house and senate refuse to impeach a president who is obviously breaking the law constantly, and when the justice department sees itself as the president’s lawyer.

                  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    1·
                    2 days ago

                    I am also worried about that.

                    There’s a limit to what you can do when the house and senate refuse to impeach a president who is obviously breaking the law constantly, and when the justice department sees itself as the president’s lawyer.

                    We can acknowledge that additional power granted to the executive branch of the US government cannot be said to be safe, and that limitations on its power must be more blunt in order to be reliable. Use of money that lacks buttons for them to cut people off is potentially one such blunt limitation. I also find the way people have been protesting pretty inspiring, I think it helps.