Topic: LMAO: Lagarde says Euro CBDC seeks to 'ensure high standars of privacy'. - page 2. (Read 494 times)

in the US
"bank secrecy act" does not mean your funds are secret and private.. the bank secrecy act is not the act that gives you privacy rights.
you cannot quote you have financial privacy rights by claiming ant law/act. the bank secrecy act is not what it seems

you have no privacy rights i regards to fiat, never have
you NEVER had privacy when it comes to bank accounts

bank notes and balance are not your property. they are patented and owned by the bank and its their product to take out of circulation or licence/permit usage of to people under their terms
modern money has NEVER meant privacy as a human right or property ownership.
its at most a presumed lack of exposing transparently to the public as a privilege which the act gives the banks.
...
thats why bitcoin was invented to be different

as for thinking that government(politicians(ministers, senators,congress men)) are watching your every payment. this is not true

banks/payment facilitators/custodians watch and flag suspicious stuff, but that does not mean they are watching everyone with human eyes. they only look with bank employee eyes at the suspicious stuff, and if highly suspicious they send that to regulators.

yes the banks/payment facilitators/custodians keep your data for 6+ years and sell your data and can be hacked.

so understand that your main fears are with banks/payment facilitators(custodians) and their regulator parents. not really the government

i know that my fiat transactions are not seen by my UK prime minister or his deputies(ministers/mps)
my transactions are stored at the bank/custodian level where only if i do something suspicious would some bank appointed 'sherriff' see my spending habits

regulators are not politicians. regulator CEO's are ex bankers.
when a CEO is a banker and not a politician then it means the regulators are parent of the bank cartel not the child of a government cartel. they simply wear a government sheriffs badge but work for the bank

note this is to clarify the reality of how money works and how the different layers are set out, as oppose to the tin foil "gov spies on us" mantra

here in the UK
the UK treasury is owned by HM(his majesty) meaning the king
the UK bank of england is owned by HM treasury(again the king)

the king does not want to day-to-day manage the public. so allows a management company(government) to run the day-to day
every 4-5 years the management contract gets renewed and he king allows the public to vote on who is the CEO of the public management company(PM) by voting in their local management team. where the majority translates to the CEO of the management company being aligned to a certain party

the management company(government) dont want to day-to-day manage finance enforcement/oversight. so they delegate/outsource that to a different management group (regulators) which are usually ex-bank bosses

---

in the US

many people think citizens own the government and the government are just a service company to the people where the people have shares on the management company(government).

senators and congressmen are voted in as a management company whos members(citizens) of the company(government) are the public
(citizens are customers of a business that allow members to vote on regional sales reps every 4 years to manage the business and set rules on how the company allows its members to use the company)
(citizens pay a membership fee(tax) to then be offered services and products of the business)

government dont want to run the day-today of finance. so they delegate that to a board of trustees of a trust(fed reserve) whos beneficiary is the US treasury.

the fed reserve* prints money and shares it out to commercial banks. and its the commercial banks that day-to-day manage ithe finances of the members(citizens)

*in the US the president nominates attorneys and economists to be the board members(trustees) of the fed reserve and they are then voted in by senators to report activity to congressmen

the fed reserve is not a company in the normal sense. but a "trust" where the board are the trustees and the US treasury is the beneficiary. meaning the fed res is owned by no one and the treasury reaps the benefits while being day to day managed by attorneys and economists. not politicians

the us treasury is a agent(child/subsidiary/contractor) of the government who have another(child/subsidiary/contractor) agent called the US mint that print money. bank notes are patents/products of the us mint->treasury->government

the US mint distribute out the money to commercial banks(businesses) run by private bank managers, not politicians
who are supervised by ex bankers promoted in to supervisory roles(regulators)

---

and now you see why FIAT around the world is so screwed up

When a big centralized organization promises it's users "high standards of privacy" this means two things:
1.Nothing. It's a lie and a false promise.
2. The big centralized organization might do the best it can to protect the user's data, but at some point, the the hackers will find a way to break its defense systems and steal the data. This always happens to the centralized systems. Sooner or later.
Lagarde promising high levels of privacy but no anonymity is a complete nonsense. You can't have privacy without anonymity.
The Euro CBDC won't solve the economic problems of the European Union...

I believe many people/users of CBDC won't suspect anything during the first implementation. Everyone will be astonished in how "covenient", "fast", and "frictionless" CBDC usages are until one day the first iterations of censorship start to happen.

Will I be using CBDC? I will be using CBDC because everyone may never have a choice, BUT I will always have my Bitcoin if I need censorship-resistant, hard-money.

It is not even possible… CBDC’s are all about controlling people. If you don’t comply, they will seize your money easily. Right now you can avoid this situation if you keep some physical FIAT around but they are trying hard to destroy this option.

Maybe she doesn’t mean your privacy but privacy of those who watch your transactions… You will never be able to tell who is watching. Yep, absolute privacy fo the gov agents.

Well, rather a supra-national currency, as the EU is not a nation. The only thing I hope is that they don't lie to my face saying that the currency will respect privacy.


You are confusing me with your fellow signature campaigners. I don't advocate that. I am defending my right to go to the ATM and withdraw €1,000, and, yes, the bank will know that I have withdrawn €1,000, but then spend it without KYC on whatever I want. That's not going to happen with CBDCs. And yes, for some things I ask for an invoice, which has my details on it, and even if I pay with cash it has KYC, but for many other things I do not. That's what I want, for there to be a small space where they don't have control over me.

Do you live in Germany? I understand that you are quite fond of using cash over there.

Well, right to be Private/Anonymous has to be guaranteed to the free/innocent citizens... the Public Policy objectives should be based on them rather than the rights depending on the objectives. Large chunk of the rights could only be taken away from criminals or people who deserve to be in jail.

This is why decentralized cryptocurrency like Bitcoin is better alternative and should be further developed to automatically or via consensus unmask the identity of dangerous criminals on its system. If it's impossible to do so, you can simply blacklist or tag crime money with proper proof-based labelling of the crime it's involved in. This can be easily implemented in the current Bitcoin system and it's one of the best ways to tackle the issue of crime money without violating the privacy rights of the innocent.

Well, you see, neither Venezuela, Cuba, China and Russia are going to use the Euro CDBC, but Denmark might (they don't have the euro) and Belgium will for sure.
So when talking about what this means for the average Joe using there we shouldn't start with the things the NK government is doing to its citizens, because if we talk about those countries all the major banks there are owned already by the government so, what would be the difference?

And if your government is that powerful, what stops them from just getting the bank data, and then proceeding to fine, raid your house and jail you?
Isn't there a government that needs to be changed and not the way a CDBC would be issued and used as no matter what you try to do they can impose everything on you, like swapping your ID card every time when you make a purchase with cash?

The point is that banks are not as powerful as governments.
We do not pay taxes to them. They cannot put you in jail.

We don't need to give even more powers to governments

It depends where you live. Try to change Maduro or Cuba government... Latin America is not as far from that as most people think.
And China and Russia...

The government in my country is already too much powerful and it interferes a lot in people's life.

And what do you expect from a national currency, seriously?

This whole privacy thing gets overblown so easily, you want total privacy as in nobody knowing what you're doing with your money, nobody knows where you're money is going, good, then just one day later the narrative change, what the hell we can't track the government spending either, the gubbermint is doing something fishy!!

You have to draw a line somewhere and understand that there is no way this total privacy would work in any environment, you go to a bank you present the ID because without the ID check everyone could come and claim he's you, you run your business there is your name there, you sell a car, you sign for insurance, you buy a pizza the guys know your address. So here, the government and not a bank will know what you have purchased, so instead of two guys there will be only one, and that one will stay as in every single instance there will be someone who knows where your money is going.

It's quite ironic when we have a scam accusation in this subboard forum everyone asks for proof, proof you have sent the money, proof of the bet, proof of the tx, document everything, when it's about privacy, no recordings,s no tracking, no nothing, how dare you, infidel!


But, but, banks, money laundering, HSBC, ABN AMRO, fractional reserve, all that stuff...
Anyhow, wouldn't it be easier to change the government? I mean, I don't think you can accuse the danish government of leveling people's houses with tanks searching for a stolen bicycle!

Anyhow, as I said, quite funny.
I want to know where the money from FTX went!!!! The government shouldn't be able to trace any transaction, we need bulletproof privacy!!!

The majority of the population doesn't really suspect what else is there when the government tries to experiment on them.
This is only happening in the US but different countries already hurry to digitize thier own currency thinking this will give convenience.

How are they going to ensure compliance with anti-money laundering rules and combat the financing of terrorism if there is privacy?
If they also want transparency then lets all just use the blockchain for everyone to see each account.

NONE! How can you trust a centralized entity who says that they will give you your privacy. The cabal behind Central Banks WILL LIE to you, and make everyone believe that CBDC is good for society, and WILL LIE to you and convince everyone that Bitcoin censorship-resistance = "bad".

BUT CBDC should be encouraged by the community because it will make Bitcoin self-sovereignty and censorship-resistance more valuable.

Fees. I think that 10% of the fees VISA/Mastercard is charging (from one country's shops) can easily support a country's CBDC.
But, really, politicians (and head of a Central Bank is imho more a politician than an economist) won't know nor tell the entire story.

On privacy and so on, the thing is that it highly depends on how the CBDC is implemented. And there's a good chance even the bankers may not know all its "features". Just my 2 satoshi.

your thinking that CBDC is a one level system where "government" /business has your life history.

i have seen a few CBDC and the main ones that are linking to the EU/asia m-bridge. are systems where there are 3 levels of "wallets" where the bottom level.. your $100- $500 spend amounts are non KYC.

which is the same as a virtual visacard/giftcard service offering.

there is no much information about how these eu/asia CDBC set about selling the data of the mid-top wallets. so im going to presume they definitely will. but i know the technology exists that could stop them unless you give consent. and laws could stop it too.. EG you have to use a "cashback/points/interest" account to give consent to sell data for those rewards.

---

that said, even in the non kyc wallet. just having a bland number as your account address. obviously retailers that receive digital cash from it, can buy records of even blank ID associated with a sale on their side that did have a name on their retailer delivery service..  thus give that bland number account a name indirectly

but thats where signed messages can show easy proof of accepting terms. where a good government would require a user to consent or reject a businesses ability to buy your data
which is what people should lobby for governments to include features of in a CBDC

It is different indeed. I'm with bitmover on this.

Although I see that both you and he are focusing on the difference between current bank payment systems, such as transfers and cards, and CBDCs. But that is not the crux of the matter. The heart of the matter is the difference between cash and CBDCs.

Big Data is big business today. If I go and spend €500 in a clinic and then €100 on medicines in a pharmacy, I keep privacy if I pay in cash. Paying with cards or CBDCs, don't be surprised if your health or life insurance is more expensive.

The European Central Bank have promised to give high standard of privacy in one hand and with the other hand, they would collect this privilege with anti-money laundering rules. I am very glad that Christine Lagarde acknowledged that privacy is one of the cardinal consideration of the public when it comes to digital money. Although they might be able to convince some persons in the Eurozone that the digital euro promotes privacy but they wouldn't be able to deceive everybody. The only currency that can guarantee to a large extent the privacy of its users is Bitcoin and these anti-Bitcoin forces knows the truth.  

you might want to  check CBDC including chinas e-yuan

you will be surpirsed even in china they are using payment services like alipay, tencent, and half a dozen others.. if you think that congressmen, senators or ministers sit at computers watching product purchases.. you have been reading the wrong blogs

anyway

But this is a completely different scenario.

Nowadays, central bank creates the money and we put that money in a private company, which the government cannot see what happens anymore unless court order (like you said).

With CBDC governments will have free access to our money and statements. Banks will have reduced usage and we will be easier to be spied by the government.


Governments can sell our data as well.

Who do you prefer to spy your life? The government, or private companies?

I prefer private companies, because they cannot fine me, and they can't break into my house as well.

its not really different than fiat banks accounts today

central bank creates them money. splits it into accounts with commercial banks and its the COMMERCIAL banks that monitor its customers and keep customer records private from outsiders unless there is a court order

yep CBDC will still use commercial payment providers to facilitate the low level customer base.day to day stuff

and yes the commercial banks can sell your data to other companies for a customer incentive like coupons, points ,interest or "cashback on purchases"

Nothing new under the sun. Completely expected when comes to the CBDCs.

The only question I have if whether our financial information will only be available for government surveillance or there would be some relationship between the government and companies (so the latter can continue to profit off our payment habits, etc).

Either way, it is a quite a distopic situation if you ask me and another reason to keep some satoshis in our power. The future looks darker every year that passes.

The bad thing about this is that I am sure that the majority of the population will believe it. The digital euro, with which they are going to control all payments and be able to put an expiry date on it or block it if they feel like it, they have started to sell it as something that is convenient for the population, of course.

Digital euro: a common European project

On the subject of privacy, I'm laughing my head off:


So, no privacy.

They want us to believe that with the digital Euro there will be privacy because they won't publish every transaction we make with our name and surname on a website accessible to everyone. And no, obviously they are not going to do that so that your neighbour or a thief knows what you spend your money on, but they are going to know 24/7 what you spend every penny on.

Who are they kidding? I don't even know why I ask myself that question, because it's obvious: the majority of the population who will welcome it as something positive and a modernisation.

What is the advantage in terms of convenience over paying by card? None. A lot to lose and nothing to gain.