×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

240 comments

But ... FREEDOM! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356373)

Can't the free market handle this? Do we really need yet more restrictive government regulations? What are they afraid of? Could untraceable cryptocurrencies somehow encourage people who don't have a lot of money to avoid taxes, similar to what our betters do right now with offshore tax havens?

Re:But ... FREEDOM! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356411)

"Sen. Joe Manchin (D) of West Virginia"

The D should say it all.

Re:But ... FREEDOM! (5, Insightful)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 2 months ago | (#46356469)

A "D" means that the candidate openly opposes the free market.

An "R" would indicates that the candidate openly opposes the free market, but pretends not to.

Re:But ... FREEDOM! (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 months ago | (#46356759)

God damned right. (though I feel there are a few rare exceptions on both sides) Moral of the story, don't vote along party lines.

Re:But ... FREEDOM! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356821)

The "free market" is an idiom that never existed in the "real world" however.

Re:But ... FREEDOM! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46357091)

Spoken like a true (R).

Re: But ... FREEDOM! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356477)

...and yet it doesn't, because labels never capture the spectrum of values and qualities an individual holds. When you label anyone, even with a label they provided you, you are wrong about that person.

Re:But ... FREEDOM! (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 2 months ago | (#46356457)

Ask Adam Smith how the free market Handles everything.

Re:But ... FREEDOM! (2)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 2 months ago | (#46356941)

Ask Adam Smith how the free market Handles everything.

The "Invisible Hand" right? The not so invisible hand that's been giving us the finger?

Re:But ... FREEDOM! (3, Informative)

thaylin (555395) | about 2 months ago | (#46357025)

No, he would also say that there are flaws, such as monopolies, that would also have to be watched and prevented.

Re:But ... FREEDOM! (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 months ago | (#46356479)

This has nothing to do with freedom, taxes, or even money. It is all about getting his name in the paper, and his constituants seeing hime "doing something!"

Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous (3, Insightful)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 2 months ago | (#46356387)

A ban on cryptocurrencies that are both unregulated AND anonymous would not apply to Bitcoin.

Re:Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous (2)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 months ago | (#46356419)

It _is_ anonymous. Until somebody decides to trace back the transaction chain and actually finds weak/strong evidence of a connection to a person.

Re:Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 months ago | (#46356559)

It _is_ anonymous. Until somebody decides to trace back the transaction chain and actually finds weak/strong evidence of a connection to a person.

This is like "A book is a secret until someone reads it." It is trivially easy to trace back an exchange. Unlike, for example, cash.

Re:Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous (2)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 months ago | (#46356661)

Ok, here is a better analogy: Bitcoin is anonymous like IP addresses are anonymous.

Re:Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 months ago | (#46357039)

This is like "A book is a secret until someone reads it." It is trivially easy to trace back an exchange. Unlike, for example, cash.

If you go to an exchange like Mt.Gox, possibly. But what if I just offer to do some sort of service for you, anything I could do over an open wifi and have you deposit BTC directly into my wallet? Assuming I use a single purpose deposit address and don't mix it with identifiable BTC there's no name attached to that account. And bitcoin to bitcoin transactions are anonymous. If I just transfer something to a different account, nobody can prove whether I just exchanged bitcoins with goods and services from somebody else (possibly in real life) or if I just transferred it to another shell account of mine. Yes, if you use bitcoin almost like a traditional bank account where you have one that all your money flows in and out of that'll quickly be attached to your name and the anonymity is over. But if you want to keep a truly anonymous supply of money, you can - with some effort - do it.

Re:Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous (4, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | about 2 months ago | (#46356593)

Then using a credit card is anonymous too. Until someone decides to trace back the transaction, and subpoena VISA for evidence of a connection to a person. There is no real technical difference between a VISA card number, and a Bitcoin wallet id - just that generally, VISA requires you to tell them who you are when you create an account. But that's not a technical feature of the payment system, just of the rules VISA happens to place around it.

Bitcoin is pseudonymous - all transactions are tied to a publicly-visible unique identifier. If it was anonymous (like cash is) then transactions would be tied to nothing identifiable.

Re:Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous (2)

fulldecent (598482) | about 2 months ago | (#46356717)

>> just that generally, VISA requires you to tell them who you are when you create an account

And of course anyone who has had their credit card copied (they don't even steal them nowadays) you will know that a merchant will process transactions even without having your name.

http://privacylog.blogspot.com... [blogspot.com]

Re:Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46357207)

Isn't that part of every transaction, where one traces the whole block chain? Yes, some places might make it easier by handling part of it... but after Mt. Gox and other items, do you trust someone who might be running a Windows 98 box to handle your money?

BitCoin is definitely not anonymous. You can play games with wallets where you buy/sell wallets with coins in them (as a way to launder them), but BitCoins tell exactly where they have been since they were mined.

Well, unless the party with 51%+ of BitCoin's mining decides to pull a stunt and start doing things by their rules... but we all know that will never happen... right?

American Money (1)

denisbergeron (197036) | about 2 months ago | (#46356391)

Have some cryptic pictures on it, like the eye in a pyramid and some cryptic reference to schizoid imaginary people and can be use anonymously.

Did it will be banned ?

Re:American Money (4, Funny)

Narcocide (102829) | about 2 months ago | (#46356431)

God, lets hope so. Only then can my long term goal of transitioning the US economy to Disney Dollars come to fruition.

Re:American Money (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 months ago | (#46356807)

Don't worry, Disney is working on that themselves ... the copyright extension was just the groundwork.

Now that they own Pixar and Marvel and who knows what else, they're proceeding as planned.

Soon, you may get your wish.

Re:American Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356777)

Here 'crypto' means 'cyrptography', not merely cryptic.

And 'did it will be banned' is a tense we don't have in English -- we don't have a future imperfect like that.

"Will it be banned?" is as close as we can get.

Re:American Money (1)

denisbergeron (197036) | about 2 months ago | (#46357051)

When you put logic and grammar in a joke, that begin to fall on the right part of your brain and that's wrong for the left side.

Cause they are beta (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356401)

Fuck Beta

Ban the USD (5, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 months ago | (#46356423)

He should really work on banning the USD. It's used for commission of trillions of dollars worth of crimes every year and there's no real means of enforcement for [bona fide] money laundering operations [trust.org].

I wonder if his office knows that bitcoin isn't really anonymous?

Re:Ban the USD (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 months ago | (#46356677)

On the plus side, we could 'regulate' Mt. Gox's little 'accidentally disappearing into the night with ~$350 million unaccounted for' misunderstanding with the same seriousness that we employed to show HSBC that (blue collar) Crime Does Not Pay (~0.001%, and no pesky criminal charges) for about $3,500. A Small Price To Pay For Rule Of Law!

Re:Ban the USD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356715)

Fuck beta

Makes you wonder... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356433)

..how much he lost?

Re:Makes you wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356793)

He hoped to get in on it with cheap Bitcoins, but the market didn't dive far enough due to MtGox, so he's looking for a way to get cheap Bitcoins after all.

fukin noob (1)

Bramlet Abercrombie (1435537) | about 2 months ago | (#46356435)

Probably bought at $1000 and sold at $500 and now wants to spare us all from the horrors of crypto.

Re:fukin noob (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356541)

He probably didn't. But one of his 'campaign contributors' probably did.

Unfortunately by the same logic we should ban the USD also. As cash is pretty anonymous. Pretty much the only time it is tracked is when it hits some scanner somewhere in a bank. Other than that it moves around quite a bit.

http://www.wheresgeorge.com/wrapper.php?page=top10bills_d0

Re:fukin noob (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46357023)

"He probably didn't. But one of his 'campaign contributors' probably did."

That would be the bank, JP Morgan - a rather vocal opponent of Bitcoin.

Well, we're at the fighting stage I guess (4, Insightful)

LF11 (18760) | about 2 months ago | (#46356441)

Ignore/Laugh/Fight/Win

Bitcoin isn't anonymous, though, and it is quite regulated. Bitcoin is arguably the least anonymous form of value transaction we have (every transaction is publicly and permanently recorded), and if you think it is unregulated try running an exchange anywhere in the Western world.

Personally, I think the first significant threat to bitcoin will be a cryptocurrency that really is anonymous.

Something to keep in mind: they can make Bitcoin flatly illegal, but development and usage will simply go underground and continue to grow outside the U.S./Russia/China. U.S. regulations delay adoption but do not prevent it.

Re:Well, we're at the fighting stage I guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46357203)

>Personally, I think the first significant threat to bitcoin will be a cryptocurrency that really is anonymous.
That's because you're an idiot. The most significant threat to bitcoin, is bitcoin. People are starting to realize that it is nothing more than yet another stock market. One that is unregulated and easy to push around. Anyone using bitcoin as a currency (value store) is stupid and deserves to lose their savings. It's pretty much only useful as a short term medium of exchange.

when in rome.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356447)

do visit the pontiff as extreme unction is still a 'viable' buyable 'product' (they take btc) like regulating even our media atmostfear

Slashdot only allows....

5 pointed palm exploding heart technique (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 2 months ago | (#46356449)

Once the coal-black West Virginian kiss of death has been administered,

bitcoin is finished.

Muhuhahahahahaaa!

has the good senator a plan to pay for water (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356493)

for his constituents http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=w%20va%20water%20crisis&sm=3

OT - Probably confirmation bias, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356507)

Anyone else notice Democrats are the default case in journalism? I noticed a while back that whenever a politician is mentioned and their party isn't explicitly mentioned they are always Democrat, the only exceptions I've noticed are for extremely well known Republicans like a Newt Gingrich.

Did they outsource the article writing ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356509)

to India? "for heavily regulation of" - really?

Can anyone say money laundering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356519)

Really what else is this service for but money laundering and a get rich scheme for investors? No tracking of transactions is obviously a dream come true for organized crime.
Yes, the other problem with this is that the US would have a hard time regulated such a non traceable service that works Worldwide. The US has already lost the game of controlling money and if big business starts using BitCoin the US loses any ability to regulate.

Re:Can anyone say money laundering? (1)

carlhaagen (1021273) | about 2 months ago | (#46356953)

You're suffering a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bitcoin protocol. The entire currency as it stands at any point in time is contained within the blockchain. Every single minting of a coinbase, and every single transaction ever made; from where, to where, at what point, how much etc. Also, AML already demands exchanges to able to supply identification for each account that ever does a BTCfiat exchange.

Fucken nigger (1)

TempleOS (3394245) | about 2 months ago | (#46356525)

At the tone the time will be... Doubt drowsy exult examiner nostrils penalty fro masses besprinkling servitude windings directing merry vaunt flies refreshing Whereas sharers corresponded lowliness fain gainsay silver corrupted due secondary estimated reply commend securely endeavours abhor where

Cousins to BTC are ok. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356537)

Does that mean cousins to BTC are not allowed too?

Here we go again.... (1)

beheaderaswp (549877) | about 2 months ago | (#46356549)

I'm not a fan of crypto-currency. At the same time I'm not a fan of government involvement in regulating it.

Let the people who use it work it out. Caveat Emptor.

And the rest of the world... (2)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 2 months ago | (#46356555)

WV Senator Calls For Ban On All Unregulated Cryptocurrencies

And the rest of the world calls for a ban on incest.

Alright, alright, I jest. But seriously, what do they call a girl in West Virginia who can outrun her brothers?

A virgin. :p

relevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356579)

http://imgur.com/db0Ru7h

Gee, color me surprised (4, Funny)

carlhaagen (1021273) | about 2 months ago | (#46356585)

A banking goon wants cryptographic currency - a technological currency the banks cannot gain any control of - to be banned. How about that. What's next? A system for banning competition in business?

Re:Gee, color me surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46357193)

You think the banks can't gain control of bitcoin?

Excuse me while I go laugh my head off.

too bothered to regulate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356589)

Let's ban it instead of actually trying to regulate it.

Playgrounds need regulation to ensure they're save, but that's too much effort, ban unregulated playgrounds.

Holy shit, this trick works for everything!

This government job is a lot easier than I thought! "Honey! I think we can get that vacation after all!"

Re:too bothered to regulate (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 months ago | (#46356675)

Yeah, that worked for Alcohol and Drugs, so why not money?

Re:too bothered to regulate (1)

ProzacPatient (915544) | about 2 months ago | (#46356907)

The BATFEB; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and Bitcoin? I wonder how many letters the ATF will eventually accumulate when everything is said and done.

Ban it as a first option.. (2)

sqorbit (3387991) | about 2 months ago | (#46356603)

Can someone please explain to me why a ban is the first option for some lawmakers who don't understand a certain advancement, technology or social issue. State governments seem to use the "ban it first, ask questions later" philosophy on anything they don't fully comprehend. If this keeps up we will soon start banning theoretical physics.

Re:Ban it as a first option.. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356835)

Can someone please explain to me why a ban is the first option for some lawmakers who don't understand a certain advancement, technology or social issue. State governments seem to use the "ban it first, ask questions later" philosophy on anything they don't fully comprehend. If this keeps up we will soon start banning theoretical physics.

The authoritarian leadership style [wikipedia.org] demands control and compliance. Doesn't matter whether you have an (R) or a (D) behind their name, a badge and a gun, or just a fancy title and a nice office. If you see your job as controlling the unruly masses for their own good, then anything that is beyond your control must be a threat - not only to your own power but to the citizenry itself. Anything beyond your comprehension is, by definition, beyond your control, and by extension, also a threat.

Also, re: theoretical physics, stop giving them ideas.

Re:Ban it as a first option.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46357059)

Because they'll always get the majority vote while the thing they want to ban is in the extreme minority, see the 21 new laws against zoophilia in the past 2 decades.

Stop calling it a currency (1)

The123king (2395060) | about 2 months ago | (#46356619)

It's about as close to a currency as gold and silver are. All bitcoin is is a commodity that can be traded for good and services, or a real regulated and respected currency

And like that WOW is shut down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356623)

Sorry WOW gold is illegal. No video games are allowed to have gold, money or anything tradable.

Re:And like that WOW is shut down. (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 months ago | (#46356841)

Possibly.... but only if the trade also involved the transfer of any kind of commodity that was not actually controlled by the game.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA (1)

fastgriz (1052034) | about 2 months ago | (#46356653)

He should call for a ban on illegal file sharing too.... oh... wait.. What an impotent petty little tyrant.

Is he Christian? (0, Troll)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 months ago | (#46356667)

Anyone who is Christian and believes what's in Revelations, should be against regulating money. That whole number of the beast thing should be at the front of their minds when the topic of currency regulation comes up.

Bitcoin and others have come about because a need has been recognized. What is the need? A stable currency that can't be as easily manipulated at the whim of the issuing agency? Yeah, that's probably the need they're addressing.

So if government legislators and politicians are concerned about the US Dollar, they should address the problems of the US Dollar instead of attacking the competition.

Re:Is he Christian? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46357011)

Anyone who is Christian and believes what's in Revelations, should be against regulating money.

And the rest of us will continue to believe Christians are idiots who are choosing voluntary stupidity.

Nobody gives a fuck what you think your god told you, because it's got nothing at all to do with reality.

Reconcile your religion with physical reality, or fuck off and shut up.

Re:Is he Christian? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46357173)

To answer the question in your title, no. Hes is not a Christian. There are no Christians in the US Senate, with the possible exception of Rand Paul (his father is DEFINITELY a Christian).

Anyone who is Christian and believes what's in Revelations, should be against regulating money. That whole number of the beast thing should be at the front of their minds when the topic of currency regulation comes up.

Bingo. Hence my statement that there are almost no Christians in the US Senate.

Re:Is he Christian? (0)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 2 months ago | (#46357199)

>Anyone who is Christian and believes what's in Revelations, should be against regulating money.

Does it really matter what people who are deeply delusional believe, as long as they can be kept from power? We shouldn't ever determine our actions based on the ravings of superstitious yahoos.

pffft (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356703)

Instead of trying to ban it, they should instead just be having a chuckle at the goofs who invested in it like it was a real thing. Bitcoins barely hurt any of the real financial institutions, mucking with this category of thing seems like it would be troublesome and pointless territory, and anyway people who are willing to experiment with this sort of thing should be permitted (not encouraged) in case they actually come up with a good idea the real monetary systems can use.

Re:pffft (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 months ago | (#46357001)

The argument goes, although I don't necessarily agree with it's validity, that given the frequency with which you seem to regularly hear about any single specific "unregulated currency" being used as a money laundering system by criminals, that said specific currency is problematic by association.... What I take from this is that as long as any single unregulated medium of exchange does not become too ubiquitously used or popular, illegal activity is diluted across all of them, and falls under the radar of public consciousness. This might be perceived as important because the more they hear about it, the more they may also think about ways to have done it without getting caught, which may tempt people to try something similar.

Normally... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 months ago | (#46356705)

I'd usually ask what the hell is in the water down there for them to be pumping out (and electing, no less) such fine specimens of humanity; but seeing as this is West Virginia, and the locals get to ask the same question, often, would that be in poor taste?

Ban all law makers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356767)

How about a ban on politicians, think of all the problems we could solve

Re:Ban all law makers! (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 2 months ago | (#46356853)

What problems does bitcoin solve that cash, credit cards and checks (cheques) don't solve? Why do we need it?

Re:Ban all law makers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356933)

Watch the video on http://www.bitpay.com for the sales pitch

Re:Ban all law makers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356959)

They changed their site, seems the video is gone. I remember them talking about being freed from transaction fees, being able to buy subscription services without having to provide your full name & address (they don't need to know who you are), and a bunch of other things that I can't remember.

Re:Ban all law makers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46357253)

>Why do we need it?
For making purchases from black market merchants via the Internet. This is a very valuable function, and will be until a better means to pay underground merchants comes along, or governments stop being authoritarian. I wouldn't bet on the latter ever happening, but a new cryptocurrency will probably eventually displace and devalue Bitcoin.

Might as well ban the barter system too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356851)

The way I see it, Bitcoin is the baseball card of the new generation. If I've got a card worth as much as an exotic sports car, and the current owner of that car wants my card, we can trade. However, if I've got Bitcoin, and the owner wants Bitcoin... there's a problem?

Spare time (1)

trawg (308495) | about 2 months ago | (#46356863)

American Senators sure have a lot of time to spend on impossible tasks and tilting at windmills, instead of learning about technology and displaying adaptability.

If he wants to look good for banning some scary technology thing, maybe he should start with something easier - like getting porn off the Internet.

Re:Spare time (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 2 months ago | (#46357305)

You don't have to learn when you have power, you can instead bend others to your will.

Our biggest problem is entrenched power wielded by people who don't want to learn or progress.

Why? Where is the public interest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356879)

Why ban it? Just ignore it.

How is the public interest served by spending any energy on worrying about bitcoin.

Sounds like a good idea to me (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 months ago | (#46356895)

Largely because I'm tired of hearing about it, moreover tired of hearing justifications for it based upon people who have no understanding of money outside of what some Austrian-economics kook told them.

Re:Sounds like a good idea to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46357125)

Because banning it will surely make you hear less of it? I mean, it has worked so well for other banned things in the past...

A Ban. Yeah. (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 2 months ago | (#46356935)

Because that's going to work. Perhaps they should ban all foreign currencies while they're at it.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46356939)

Remember the Senator that set out to ban salt in restaurant cooking?

Douche

Why not just set a preemptive ban, then? (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 months ago | (#46356949)

"Any industry that is unregulated, good, or service, and might provide profits a useful function or benefit for some group of the population, is hereby banned."

Unneccesary (1)

asylumx (881307) | about 2 months ago | (#46356965)

I don't see why the government should worry about these cryptocurrencies. As long as they don't back the currency, then the whole market for that currency is "enter at your own risk" and people who decide to use it are (or should be) doing so fully aware of that fact. Regarding it being anonymous, isn't USD cash also anonymous? What's the difference? In fact, probably bitcoin is less anonymous than cash.

I don't personally like bitcoin and I have no desire nor reason to try to use it, but there's no good reason it should be illegal.

Report all user intpus to DHS! (1)

Baldrson (78598) | about 2 months ago | (#46357013)

The only way we're truly going to get a handle on this crime problem and protect the American people from themselves is to mandate installation of ROM-based drivers to report all keyboard presses, mouse events and screen gestures to the Department of Homeland Security's central analysis system where they can use Big Data Mining techniques to forewarn our protectors of imminent dangers to the public good.

This may, of course, require modifications to CPU hardware architecture to override any attempts to subvert the reporting drivers, but no measures are too great to protect the public good.

Bizarre Shadowy Paper-Based Payment System (1)

bigmattana (646048) | about 2 months ago | (#46357019)

How the media (and politicians) would perceive cash if it were invented today:
http://ledracapital.com/blog/2... [ledracapital.com]

It is truly amazing how when new technology comes along that gives the government greater control in visibility into our private lives that so many people just go along with they idea that we couldn't function as a society if government didn't have these new-found powers. In this case it is it is the prevalence of electronic cash transfers and credit card payments that has made people forget the government still caught criminals before 1980 these existed, and even before the mid 20th century when checking accounts became prevalent. Now if you are using cash for more than than tiny purchases you must be a criminal, and the government must know ever detail of every financial transaction to fight terrorism for the children.

Yeah, this will work just as well (1)

wiredog (43288) | about 2 months ago | (#46357245)

As banning online gambling did. And we all know how well that worked.

It worked pretty damn well, actually.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...