The juveniles, ages 11, 12 and 16, were caught on camera robbing a Wells Fargo bank March 14, the FBI said.
Three boys dubbed the “little rascals” for allegedly robbing a Texas bank were behind bars Thursday, the FBI said.
The juveniles, ages 11, 12 and 16, have each been charged with robbery by threat, a spokesperson for the Harris County Sheriff’s Office in Houston said in an email.
“Because they are juveniles, their names, and no additional details will be released,” the spokesperson said.
Yes criminals use cash because it’s private, but criminals also use:
Criminals use private technology because they need to hide from the police. That does not mean we need to ban or heavily restrict (current state of cash in parts of the world, such as the USA or the EU) private options and private technologies just because “criminals use them” if you accept a ban on privacy and an increase in surveillance in order to counter criminality, you will receive an omnipotent government and corporations spying on you with a mandate.
The criminals will just go even more underground. They always adapt, they always had and always will.
We must not sacrify privacy in exchange for “safety”
You are 100% right in principle, but this is a privacy basically nobody chose to have anyway, there’s a huge difference IMO between this and if they ban for instance encryption, which has huge legitimate significance for privacy, whether it’s secret love letters, or million dollar patent development. If there isn’t a legitimate reason to want privacy, the argument is void as I see it.
So is there a legitimate reason to want to be able to use large amounts of cash. Remember you can still use cash for your daily tasks if you want, and that option is even protected by law.
I was as you describe against it initially, but I fail to think of a legitimate reason.
I have never heard anyone put forward any complaint about anything it prevented them from doing. People simply don’t use cash for large amounts anymore anyway.
We just bought a house a few years ago, and everything was buttery smooth, because electronic communication signatures and payments were instant. Including transfer of large amounts, that would have been insane to do with cash.
Before answering this question we should define “a large amount” as it stands today, I, a private citizen with no criminal record, who hasn’t ever been investigated by fiscal authorities in my life, can’t spend more than €2000 in cash or else I’ll face a huge fine and I’ll be automatically considered a “money launderer” and a “financial criminal”
Now, to answer your question: personal data is digital gold, it’s only natural people don’t want their banks to track every thing they buy, your data won’t just be sold to the highest bidder. It will be sold and shared to the “1683 partners” you see on the cookie banners. Not wanting your financial and spending data to be sold and shared with thousands of (sometimes really malicious) entities. Not wanting the prostitution of your data, and, to the maximum possible extent not participating in this coercitive datamining system (you don’t really have a choice, every bank does this to some often cryptically disclosed if disclosed extent) is the legitimate reason I believe cash is a payment method that, when possible, should be used.
To clarify my position: I don’t oppose limitations on cash transactions necessarily because I want to buy something like a car with cash, buying a car still requires extensive paperwork and as such most privacy benefits from paying cash vanish instantly. I oppose the marginalization of cash because it’s leading to a bankized societiy, we are seeing it with our very eyes.
At least where I live you:
can’t get your paycheck in cash
can’t withdraw more than an undisclosed amount, else you’re suspicious and may be investigated, without your knowledge (oh, and the burden of proof is on you!)
Can’t receive many welfare benefits without a bank account
A bank account is nothing short of mandatory, yet there’s not national bank you can open an account in. School is mandatory, public schools exist.
Private banks offer many benefits such as:
Investing in fossil fuel companies.
Not ensuring a single cent of the money they should keep safe, a national fund ensures up to €100k,but if it was for the banks id let you guess.
Offering subpar and overpriced investment products with ludicrous fees to unsuspecting and financially illiterate but often hard-working people, eroding their life savings.
Seeing the above points, I tend to look with distrust at laws, regulations etc that aim at pushing people into banks. People should be able to live their entire life without opening a bank account if they want, and without being judged as criminals.
It’s not like this is impossible, there are places with way less financial crime than my country, than the USA or other countries who restrict cash who don’t marginalize cash as much, countries such as Japan or Germany.
If there wasn’t a societal unspoken obligation to have a bank account, many people would have ditched theirs a long time ago, me very much included, people are just coerced into accepting it. Not saying we should live like financial hermits, just that we should stop accepting the status quo, and that many people only use their bank account to receive their salary and withdraw it later, maybe put something away if they can afford it. That shouldn’t require your data to be mined.
That’s not quite the case, you are not automatically considered a money launderer and criminal, but considered potentially a money launderer,it will be investigated, and you have to be able to document where the money is from.
No that’s illegal without consent. And sneaky attempts of achieving consent through hidden terms or default selected options are illegal too.
Same here, but there is regulation that the mandatory basic account called “nem konto” is heavily regulated and has to be free of charge for mandatory functionality, so you can pick any bank you like and not get screwed, except our bank charges $1-2 per account for a yearly account statement which cannot be avoided. I’m not sure that is entirely legal, but maybe it is because we have other services?
Haha yes so true, it’s ridiculous to a degree that it’s almost hilarious LOL,
I understand what you mean, but that would not be the case here. Even homeless people depend on electronic transactions, and use “mobile pay” which is a free payment service where you can easily transfer money from your bank account to anyone who also has it, which everybody do. Even my father who is 86 is very happy with this functionality on his phone. This is possible in part because of “nem konto”, which means everybody has a bank account which is a requirement for the service.
Denmark is one of the countries in the world with the highest confidence in government, where we trust the government actually works for the benefit of the people. Personally I’m against our current government, because IMO they do to little on education/healthcare and social security, a typical right wing government IMO. But at least they are not batshit crazy. And at least they remain financially responsible.
I think to people in many countries this is a strange concept, but even the right wing agree that many of our social institutions represent core values for our country.