An appeal for the equivalence of bank account and the money under the mattress

The banking secrecy, which has been heavily criticized in recent years and has now been largely abolished or relaxed in many countries, is essentially nothing more than a form of privacy that affects the protection of investments in a bank account. It is essentially comparable to the confidentiality you enjoy when storing cash at home.Economic privacy towards third parties – i.e. the independence that a person has in protecting their financial information from unauthorized access – applies equally, regardless of whether the money is in a safe at home or is kept in a bank account. Banking secrecy to protect this privacy threatens the bank employees in the event of violations with sensitivepunish. These penalties are designed to protect banks’ employees from the worst case scenario if they grant unauthorized access to the customer’s account information. It is comparable to the penalties that a caretaker faces if he enters tenants’ apartments without authorization and gives them private information or objectsmakes accessible.

Challenges of access to bank information and the risk of privacy breach

Since intrusion into apartments – i.e. physical access to private rooms – is much more complicated and complex than accessing a document, a computer screen or a digital database, the temptation was and is great for some people to ask banks and their employees for confidential information. The physical protection of privacy is clearhigher, which is why the penalties for bank employees are usually stricter in the case of unauthorized access than would be the case with a caretaker. If privacy is violated in private households or bank accounts, there is a risk that the state will ultimately only cause citizens to search for alternative options through tightened and more aggressive access rights to bank accounts,hide your assets outside the official system. This pressure could lead to more and more people trying to store their money in private vaults, tax havens or unregistered investments instead of leaving it with banks.

Economic disadvantages of illegal and informal money storage

However, such a development is anything but beneficial from an economic point of view. The different forms of money storage in the modern age are extremely diverse. They range from cash that is kept in a pocket or in a safe at home, to gold bars, which are now in different variants, such as gold tablets or bars with prefabricated notches to break off,are offered, up to valuable collectible objects such as diamonds, paintings or antiques. Real estate – both domestic and abroad – is also one of the investment opportunities that are often badly used or simply kept as a store of value. Escape movements in tax havens on other continents are also considered to meet tax liabilityescape and maintain privacy. But in the interest of the common good and economic stability, it makes much more sense to keep money on official accounts with banks. There it can be fed back into the economic cycle through loans, investments in bonds, stocks or other financial instruments. so that the money remains in the accounts and not inThe shadow economy is migrating, these accounts must be protected against loss and unauthorized access at least as well as other secure storage locations. The depositor protection, which protects banks from losses in bankruptcy, has improved a lot in recent years. But trust in bank accounts is a question that only arises for years, sometimes even decades,can be built. Even a single scandal or a false sentence can permanently destroy this trust.

Loss of trust through policy measures: The example of Cyprus 2013

An example of a massive loss of trust within a very short time is the procedure during the over-indebted situation in spring 2013. At that time, European politics destroyed more trust in the banking system overnight than could have been built up in many years. In the course of efforts to rehabilitate the ailing financial system, the bank accounts of the smallserve savers. It was a novelty in the history of the European Union that deposits from small investors – i.e. private individuals with comparatively small savings – should be used to save the banks. After major protests on the streets of Cyprus, the political leaders finally agreed that deposits of up to 100,000 euros would be before suchmeasures should remain protected. Nevertheless, the topic that savings of more than 100,000 euros could benefit from the renovation measures is not finally off the table in Europe. There is a risk that, within the framework of the controversial European banking union, the positions of the individual states will continue to align and the protection of assets will continue to be restrictedwill.

Hopes for protection in Switzerland and the uncertainties in Germany

The investor can hope that his savings in Switzerland will remain somewhat protected from such access. The majority of savers in Germany and Austria continue to rely on the existing banking system and do not believe that there will be a Europe-wide harmonization that could massively restrict the protection of assets. Nevertheless, the question ariseshow much privacy and confidentiality can still be guaranteed to the individual citizen in financial matters. Without traditional banking secrecy, money in an account is much more vulnerable to government intervention and surveillance than storing in a safe at home or in a private safe. It is also unclear how much security a locker will still have in the futurecan offer. Will it soon be possible for authorities to be able to inspect there without much effort? Or should banks take a comprehensive inventory of their customers in the future and report this data at international level?

Limits of protection and balance between security and freedom

In this discussion, warehouses and other private storage locations also come into focus. It is the task of politics to draw reasonable boundaries where the security of the assets is maintained without disproportionately restricting the freedom of the individual. The aim should be for funds to remain on the official accounts of banks in the interest of the common goodand not draining off because of political or economic constraints. It is important to find a balance to maintain privacy while ensuring the functionality of the financial system.

Equal treatment in the monitoring of digital and physical privacy

The saver who deposits his money with a bank must not be disadvantaged compared to people who distrust the financial system and store their assets elsewhere – be it in cash, abroad or in alternative investments. It is increasingly considered necessary to demand equal treatment: The state should be in the physical world – i.e. vaults and real estate- as well as in the digital area, i.e. with e-mails, telephone calls and bank details, proceed with the same caution. It is technically relatively easy today to monitor e-mails, listen to telephone calls or take a look at bank accounts. But a reasonable society should only agree to such attacks if it is absolutely necessary and fundamental rights are maintained. theDifferences between physical and digital privacy, which are increasingly being made in public debate, can hardly be justified if one considers the basic principles of freedom and data protection.

Technological possibilities and legal fundamental issues

The suspicion is growing that the increasing technical possibilities could promote dangerous development. The fundamental rights of the human procedural rights are often a hindrance in prosecuting lawbreakers, but they are also the basis for a modern constitutional state. These fundamental rights, such as the right to data protection and privacy, were always used by politicians, courts andsociety defended. The softening of these principles in a sub-area requires an open, fundamental discussion. It must not happen that technical innovations and financial incentives lead to the restrictions of people being restricted simply because it is supposedly easier to get information or to levy taxes. craving for money, be it atprivate individuals or in the case of states, must never be a justification for unethical behavior.

Power structures, monitoring and the role of secret services

The question is whether the increasing softening of private spheres of privacy only serves to enforce tax honesty, or whether there is a much more comprehensive goal behind it: securing power for governments and administrative bodies. Since the revelations of US whistleblower Edward Snowden, it has been evident how massively European and international intelligence services datacollect and evaluate. Not only British authorities, but also German authorities have closely cooperated with US secret services, although this should actually be prohibited by the constitution. In some cases, data from their own citizens were passed on to foreign secret services without their knowledge or consent. There is much to suggest that interest in dataAll this is to ensure power, exercise control and enforce political goals to consolidate your own position – often at the expense of people’s privacy and freedom rights.