Have you ever noticed that when you pay for something using a debit or credit card, it somehow doesn’t seem like you’re spending ‘real’ money? It’s somehow a lot harder to hand over a wad of banknotes or even a handful of change than it is to slot your card into the machine, or even wave it over the contactless scanner.

That feeling that somehow electronic money isn’t as concrete as hard cash is something we’re having to reconcile, since we are becoming an increasingly cashless society. It is certainly a lot more convenient to carry around a way of accessing the money in your bank account than it is to carry around sufficient cash for whatever you may need. Most banks now charge for the privilege of this convenience through a monthly or annual current account fee (which may also include certain benefits such as travel insurance). 

But while going cashless is undoubtedly a choice that anyone can make, there are some who stop to ask what a cashless society would mean in terms of the information that our purchases could tell anyone who cared to find out. We are all aware of the notion of a ‘surveillance state’ and the presence of CCTV in our streets is now simply accepted as part of daily life – a necessary form of surveillance if we want to be kept safe from the criminal elements of society. 

Passing cash between a buyer and seller leaves no trace (other than an anonymous till entry), but electronic payments between bank accounts do leave a definite paper trail that could allow the government or police to trace sales and purchases made in person or online. Is that a bad thing? Well, many people would argue that the only people who would not want their transactions to be monitored are those who are up to no good – and surely it is a good thing that the government or police could keep track of how they were spending their money?

But it wouldn’t just be the government or police who would have access to that information, it would be the banks themselves. Banks are commercial, private enterprises and if knowledge is power then they would swiftly become very powerful indeed. This type of micro-surveillance on an individual could be viewed as highly invasive; multiply that by all the bank accounts in the country and it could swiftly become Orwellian.

A cashless society would also mean, of course, that we would all have to have bank accounts and there are plenty of people who would not like the power that this may give to banks: the banks would have complete control over our finances. They could theoretically charge whatever they liked for providing accounts; if the banks crashed like they have in Greece (or like certain banks nearly did in the UK, but for the intervention of the government and taxpayer money) then where would the money go? What about people who couldn’t take out a bank account – homeless people, or refugees, for instance?

The Bank of England currently sets interest rates – but the banks have the power to set their own rates on their own accounts. They could choose to set minimal, zero or even negative interest rates to stimulate spending. Why keep your money in an account if to do so will reduce what you own?

Surveillance of an individual by private detectives can often include looking through bank statements – cash withdrawals by a cheating spouse are common, as it cannot be proved who the cash was spent on. If cash withdrawals become a thing of the past, bank statements will be far more telling. Micro-surveillance of an individual’s accounts or of their office or home (including surveillance footage of their desktop activities) can also prove enlightening of their activities.

There are ways of using electronic money without involving the banks, though. For now, at least, you can use Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. These are neutral forms of currency in that no-one but the owners of the currency owns or controls them. They are a way of paying anyone across the globe person-to-person, with no third party involvement. Several businesses now regularly trade using Bitcoin and there are billions of dollars’ worth of Bitcoin out there already. 

There is a natural distrust of cryptocurrencies because of the fact that they are completely digital – no physical money exists. But in a cashless society, the same could be said of money held by the banks. This idea that money is not really cash anymore will require a change in the way we think as a society. But for those whose distrust of banks or need for secrecy overwhelms their need for a standard form of currency, Bitcoin or even the barter system may offer a viable alternative.