Remix.run Logo
embedding-shape 5 hours ago

And once you've gotten rid of Google and Apple, your telecom company tracks you, your CC payments help track you and even cameras in public do.

It's hard to not want to throw your hands in the air screaming "whatever" when almost everything you use in public is somehow used to track you either as you move around, or in the future.

dualvariable 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is one of those things that can't ever be solved with individual solutions but needs to be solved through legislation and standards, and ideally a fundamental right to privacy (and a fundamental redefinition of what privacy means when it comes to corporate surveillance of individuals).

whamlastxmas 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I disagree. Government leaders will never give up their pipeline of knowing everything about everyone.

The real solution is technology, and popularization of something similar to Freenet, and hardware with an OS that is powerful enough for most people use their phones today, and as easy to use as Android or iOS.

Cell providers will still track and permanently store and sell your location information, and any conversation over SMS or non-E2E platforms will also still permanently stored, but at minimum you can have private conversations when you really want and your online activity (outside of banking etc) can be private.

Things will both get harder and easier with AI. Harder because soon the government will have AI track every single person on the planet, and an LLM will be reading every text, email, and online post you make to make sure you're not a threat to national security or some excuse around CSAM (which I'm not advocating for, obv). On the flipside, as we move away from things like browsers, and can have local LLM models do most of our web browsing for us and present it however we want (free of ads, tracking, annoying styling, cookie banners), it will be easier to not have friction for changing browsers and operating systems etc to protect your privacy.

throwway120385 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I guess we'll just sit on our hands and do nothing, then.

foresto 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Government leaders will never give up their pipeline of knowing everything about everyone.

Then let us hire different leaders into government. Public servants, not overlords.

HenryBemis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

If you have noticed, every independent candidate almost never gets elected. Vast majority of those who say they will "change the country to the better" either never get elected or are ousted early on. And those who stay change their tune.

I fear that only blackmail-able people with the potential to win elections, get the support, so that they are beholden to someone who ultimately gives them the job (e.g. funding their campaign) and has to return the favor x10 when elected, so promises go out the window and new reality sets in.

mothballed 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Someone tried to create an entirely new country with minimal governance by dumping sand on a submerged reef until it became an island[]. Even then it was quickly co-opted by the nearing statist powers (Tonga) with the blessing of western powers.

So it's not just that the primary process will crush anyone who will seriously roll back government powers. They won't even let anyone peacefully create an entirely new fucking island to try and get away from the tyrants and do it while leaving everyone else alone and not messing with the powers that be.

[] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva

anonymars 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Isn't that the libertarian paradox in a nutshell, the entire reason why "government" exists? Because in reality, the alternative is "might makes right" and a larger, stronger group will band together and steamroll the smaller and uncoordinated individuals?

mothballed an hour ago | parent [-]

Government is might makes right, just with a nice name slapped on it. Minerva was minarchist, not anarchist, but for whatever reason they chose not to defend their country by force. Somaliland and the remains of Rojava come to mind as present-day ~minarchist governments that defended their territory by force and ~succeeded. The point being is these kind of changes won't be allowed by election or peacefully. The primaries stop the election process and the militaries stop the peaceful separation process.

America did have a period of relatively small government intervention at the beginning, but that took a war with Britain. It also had some periods of it during the pre-founding (some of 1600s Pennsylvania and Rhode Island while Britain was occupied elsewhere). Pennsylvania (before it was a state) in particular was basically straight up anarchist for I want to say, about 20 years.

simplyluke an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> your CC payments help track

Not only that. Them and the point-of-sale vendors (aptly shortened PoS), sell that data. They tend to attempt to do this anonymized. How successful they are in anonymizing that is very much so up for debate.

The websites (and even their retail locations) you buy from send your purchase data to meta and other advertisers directly via APIs so they can better track their marketing conversion rates. You can browse their APIs [1][2] to see what kind of data they like to get, but it tends to be every piece of identification they have on you. Rewards programs make this a much richer data set. You don't need to be a user of Google/Meta for them to build a marketing profile based on this. Google links your physical conversion from ads based on your maps data. Facebook does the same if you give them your location data. Many retailers attempt to use the bluetooth/wifi signals from your phone to track the same data even if you pay in cash [3].

There's no legal framework preventing this outside of the EU and California.

1: https://developers.facebook.com/documentation/ads-commerce/c... 2: https://developers.google.com/google-ads/api/docs/conversion... 3: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/14/opinion/bluet...

asdff 16 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At least you can shut your cellphone off and pay in cash.

everdrive 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nonetheless I'll still try to maintain what privacy I can.

asdefghyk an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

RE .... company tracks you ..... [ somewhat off topis ]

Did you know ... in many countries government tracks car number plates and the data is stored for many years.

drnick1 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> And once you've gotten rid of Google and Apple, your telecom company tracks you, your CC payments help track you and even cameras in public do.

Maybe, but what happens without the mod described is that Google and Apple track you in addition to the telecom company. That, of course, assumes that you carry a cell phone tied to your identity. Some people refuse to carry cell phones altogether because of the privacy implications, or use them mostly in airplane mode with an anonymous SIM for backup.

zekyl314 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Exactly, and more and more places are removing cash as a payment option :(

razakel 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Cash handling isn't free, and for smaller businesses might actually end up being more expensive than accepting electronic payments.

bigfishrunning 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If your margins are so razor thin that the cost of handling cash is significant, you need to raise your prices. Cash is legal tender -- not accepting it for in-person transactions is really shitty (maybe shouldn't be allowed?)

9x39 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> you need to raise your prices.

And if the competitor doesn't? Ouch.

I think there should be a "digital equivalency act" or something to hamper full digital capture, but my feelings aside, there's a few powers that dislike cash:

Free people like cash, but businesses with low-skill/low-trust workers dislike cash because despite the CC fees, there is less theft, less overhead with cash reconciliation, cameras to watch cash with, less safes to manage, less cash pickup services.

The IRS hates it because there is a cash industry (as there should be, imo, but I'm injecting too much opinion already) that doesn't report earnings. I personally know barbers, housecleaners, handymen that admit to reporting no or few earnings, and synthesize a living off cash and benefits. If you stop paying taxes, this actually works pretty well compared to a low-end tax-paying job. My housecleaner takes overseas vacations (like, thrifty ones in hostels) 2-3 times a year this way.

Banks (arguably the IRS again, deputizing them with KYC) squint at you when you deposit or withdraw significant cash - ask any weed industry participants. Untrackable currency is a natural catch-all for people they don't want to bank with, so it's just friction and headache naturally.

leothecool 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can't even get coins counted for free at retail banks anymore. Cash handling is too expensive even for the place that ostensibly provides cash handling services to the general public.

speed_spread 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Just make all your prices round up to the nearest dollar bill after tax. Eliminate coins at the source.

razakel 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Legal tender" only means it must be accepted to settle a debt.

rdiddly 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Walking out of the store with groceries generates a debt, no?

phainopepla2 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I believe that's more likely to generate a criminal charge

dotancohen 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Then how about paying after ordering and eating a meal?

pixl97 an hour ago | parent [-]

Depends.

If there was a posted notice that no cash is accepted it's unlikely you'll get a criminal charge, but you can get civilly sued. Most places will just accept the cash then put up a picture saying "If this asshole shows up again, trespass him"

fragmede 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can't go into a store with a gun and demand the cash out of the register if there is no cash.

skrtskrt 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The actual cost is shrinkage from general human accounting mistakes and all the extra time it takes to manage.

I worked at the gym in college and we sold like one item a day and it was still a whole bunch of work and pain to keep up on the cash counts correct.

I definitely believe that all businesses should take cash as much as is reasonable, but logistically it is understandable why some choose not to

bigfishrunning 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You shouldn't do that anyway; also, you can't skim a credit card I'm not using/carrying. There are crime arguments on both sides.

whamlastxmas 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not about "just raise prices", it's about some industries (e.g. upstart restaurants) that already have massive failure rates and have hyper competition. Even airlines don't make money on flights, and instead only on selling credits cards or other perks.

If your operating costs are some percentage higher for accepting cash versus the coffee shop across the street that doesn't, you're more likely to fail.

bigfishrunning 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If everyone has to accept cash, then everyone has the same costs and the point is moot. At any rate, courts are required to accept legal tender, and I think that requirement ought to extend to businesses as well.

angoragoats an hour ago | parent [-]

> At any rate, courts are required to accept legal tender

Assuming you’re talking about the US here: there is no such requirement, at least not at the federal level. Individual states may have their own laws, but see for example this notice [0] from a Texas federal court that they will no longer accept cash as of May 21, 2021.

[0] https://www.txnb.uscourts.gov/news/notice-court-will-no-long...

underlipton 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The real problem for those businesses is way upstream of payment processing costs, namely in the cost of business loans, the general poverty of the American consumer, and (for brick-and-mortars) zoning. The latter is a matter of getting municipalities to relax restrictions put in place mid-century literally to support segregation, and the former two are a matter of forcing the wealthy to eat the costs of their poor decisions from the last few decades, rather than continuing to allow them to socialize related losses through avenues like scandalously low labor pay vis a vis productivity and various investment/asset market scams (which, through housing and passive retirement investment, they've roped in Boomers and older Gen-Xers).

If you wish to make an apple pie shop from scratch, you must first invent an economy that isn't hamstrung by legacy obligations from ventures that people who are long-dead somehow were allowed to finance with your paycheck. (Somewhere, a middle-aged nepo-baby is clutching her pearls at the thought, and I just think we should cherish, rather than shy from, the opportunity to throw her and her siblings under the bus.)