The threat of privacy

[Zenaan Harkness]

It is a good thing (good for peace) that the Fed is realising that its subjects have a fundamental right to participate in the Fed's financial system.

Besides their idiotic "wanna be" mentality of chasing "app" windmills and wanting to "blockchain up" which will slow them down more than any Demonrat politician ever could.

To state the obvious, the Fed is essentially all existing brick and mortar, actual physical banks, and almost everyone on this planet has a bank account and there's no ridiculously power consuming and hopelessly inefficient blockchain in the way.

You know that's a "funny" thing about MOTUs - they have essentially the whole world at their command (literally just an executive order away), and they don't properly realise it, they think there is some greener pasture, when they already IN the greenest pasture! Owning the whole damn pasture, but nope "there must be greener pasture".

Idiots.

We saw the same stupidity dynamic in action with their focus on the hidden (underground) satanic underbelly of China, when all along "they" (i.e. the Western empire) had full possession and enjoyment of Australia, the actual greatest and wealthiest country in the world, and due to that firetrucking myopia, they allowed over 30% of our farmland to be sold down the drain to China (whilst we cannot buy a single matchbox of Chinese land!) - and the % has surely only gone up since a few years back, too!

If we had the death penalty here in Aus, Victoria's premier Daniel Andrews would be up for literal treason, and the people would bay for his blood.

Putin was flabberghasted and rightly admonished "our Western" stupidity in its endless self destructive forms when he asked "Do you realise what you have done now?" and said later the West have "made a monumental mistake" (with respect to deploying the currency sanction, not merely the threat).

Oligarchs hey .. some of them are certainly little more than glorified Frank Spencers from "Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em".



On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 05:49:41AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> It is a human right to participate in any financial system imposed / instituted upon us.
> 
> We have the right to financial agency.
> 
> Participation in our community requires that we have the right to participate in the financial system of the day.
> 
> Privacy is another fundamental human right.
> 
> Folks need to live their human rights.
> 
> Use it or lose it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 12:01:20PM -0400, John Young wrote:
> > Good stuff. Thanks.
> > 
> > Reminds that cryptography has led to the loss of privacy by tagging crypto
> > users, coders, rebels!, promoters, investors. So too cryptocurrency, the
> > Internet, anonymizers, TOR, drop boxes, secure drops, Signal, Telegram, burst
> > transmissions, privacy policies, pro-encryption advocates, comsec wizards, the
> > array of promissories one by one gobbling gullible adopters urged on by lists
> > like this and social media, MSM. financial greeders, hackers, leak sites,
> > turncoats needing pensions.
> > 
> > To be sure, "cash' the imaginaire of economists, is not the same as paper
> > money which can also be tracked by human residue, transactional spoors,
> > aggrieved victims, informers, world bank scholars under contract to finger
> > malefactors, family members eager to payback those who fucked them, dear Mary
> > tell what you know.
> > 
> > At 10:38 AM 8/3/2020, you wrote:
> > 
> > > http://www.kahnfrance.com/cmk/The%20threat%20of%20privacy%20distribution%20version.pdf
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The Threat of Privacy
> > > By Charles M. Kahn1
> > > 
> > > Like artists, we academics want to believe that if one of our works
> > > doesn’t get enough attention it’s because we’re ahead of our time.
> > > I’d like to pretend that everything I’ve written is pathbreaking, and
> > > will eventually be recognized for its true importance. But I have to admit
> > > that there are really only a couple of cases where I can say with
> > > hindsight that something I wrote has been ahead of its time.
> > > 
> > > One of them2 is a paper written with Jamie McAndrews and Will Roberds,
> > > published in 2005, and titled “Money is Privacy.” We wrote it partly
> > > as a response to Narayana Kocherlakota’s famous paper “Money is
> > > Memory,” which could be taken as arguing that cash is essentially a
> > > record‐keeping device, tracking who was a net creditor and who a net
> > > debtor to society with respect to resources provided or consumed. The
> > > implication was that if it became easy to keep credit records directly,
> > > cash could wither away.
> > > In our paper we argued instead that a key role of cash was its ability to
> > > protect the purchaser’s identity. So we predicted that, even while the
> > > reductions in costs of record keeping and increases in the speed of data
> > > transmission were expanding the usage of credit‐ and
> > > deposit‐account‐ based payments arrangements, cash would survive.
> > > Because the desire for privacy would always generate demand for cash, it
> > > would be a mistake—and ultimately futile—to attempt to abolish it. At the
> > > te time, people were attuned to many of the problems of privacy, but there
> > > had not yet been a clear recognized link between the value of privacy and
> > > the role of payments systems. (Remember, bitcoin was only released in
> > > 2009).
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 1 Keynote address at “Financial Market Infrastructure Conference II: New
> > > Thinking in a New Era” at De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam, 7‐8 June
> > > 2017.
> > > 2 The other was my dissertation, back in 1980. It was on liquidity and the
> > > pricing of illiquid assets. At that time, no one thought this was an
> > > important issue in finance: financial markets were liquid; everybody
> > > “knew” that. So the work went nowhere. Oh well.
> > 
> >