By Bernd Fiten
“Do you prefer paying in cash to protect your privacy?”
That was the question I used to open a LinkedIn post three weeks ago. What I didn’t expect was the significant impact it would have: it went viral globally and triggered a lot of discussion among my followers and far beyond.
What exactly was that post about? It concerned a case in the Netherlands where a cinema visitor wanted to pay for his ticket in cash, while the cinema maintained a “pin-only” (card-only) policy. The visitor (not coincidentally a privacy activist) disagreed. Because he couldn’t pay in cash, he was unable to keep his visit anonymous. Now, I have never been to that specific cinema myself, and the chances of surveillance cameras hanging there are, of course, quite high. Let’s set that aside for a moment, because the activist had a fundamental point. And he was right.
Mandatory digital payments mean there is always a trail of your visit. Is that a problem? Perhaps not for everyone, but consider the visitor who tells those at home they have to work late, while they are actually at the cinema (alone or with company, I’ll leave that in the middle). In that case, a digital footprint on a bank statement is rather inconvenient.
The visitor went further, however: he argued that one could infer political or sexual preferences from someone’s choice of film. In the EU, the processing of such “sensitive personal data” is, in principle, prohibited. While I understand his point, I don’t entirely agree from a legal perspective. Data processing only concerns sensitive data if the cinema actually intends to process it for that purpose. Furthermore, can you truly infer someone’s orientation from a ticket to a film like Call Me By Your Name? That seems a bit far-fetched to me.
But that isn’t the core issue. Privacy isn’t about whether you have “something to hide”; it’s about the freedom of choice to share certain information or not. This is why the visitor filed a complaint with the Dutch Data Protection Authority (AP), but they dismissed it. The court subsequently ruled against the visitor as well.
The case eventually reached the Dutch Council of State. There, the visitor argued that the court should have tested the policy against Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a private life). The Council of State did not initially reach that assessment, because they first looked at compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation. The AP had asked the cinema to justify its “pin-only” policy. The cinema cited safety: card-only payments would make them less attractive to robbers and relieve volunteers of the burden of handling cash. While the lower court accepted this, the Council of State has now ruled that there was no evidence this policy significantly increased safety. The mere assertion that cash is more prone to theft is not enough to refuse its use.
What the lawsuit wasn’t about, but what stood out in the comments: for businesses, cash is a “hassle”. You need change, you have to physically go to the bank to deposit it, and bank branches and ATMs are closing more frequently. Perhaps that was the real motivation behind the policy.
Interestingly, this case would have unfolded differently in Belgium. Belgian law dictates that merchants must accept cash when a customer is physically present, though there are exceptions (such as refusing a €500 note for a soda). Since 2022, merchants must also offer at least one digital payment method, ensuring the final choice remains with the customer.
The Belgian model shows that innovation and tradition can easily go hand in hand. By making both cash and digital payments mandatory, we protect consumer choice without blocking progress. Ultimately, this debate is about more than just coins or bank cards; it is about who controls our daily lives. Whether we choose cash for privacy or digital for convenience, the decision belongs to the citizen. After all, a society where you can no longer go to the movies anonymously is a script we would rather see stay on the silver screen.
