Big Brothers Nose is getting larger....and into more places

E

Eghad

New member
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/blog/2006/03/warning_financial_responsibili.html

They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.

Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union and me. And he went on the Internet to see what he could learn. He learned about changes in something called the Bank Privacy Act.

"The more I'm on, the scarier it gets," he said. "It's scary how easily someone in Homeland Security can get permission to spy."

Eventually, his and his wife's money was freed up. The Soehnges were apparently found not to be promoting global terrorism under the guise of paying a credit-card bill. They never did learn how a large credit card payment can pose a security threat.
 
Read this a couple of days ago.

Scary stuff. What's scarier is how many of us, especially self-styled "Civil Libertarians", ASS-ume that anyone who has a run-in with a Police Agency must be guilty of something or "not telling the whole story".

People forget that it's humans who enforce all these laws; humans who determine the targets of investigation, names on No-Fly Lists, IRS Audits, Wiretaps without Warrant, and the like. Too many of those "humans" are bored and unproductive bureaucrats, trying to build a track record for promotion, an Agency Raison D'Etre or an argument for increased funding...we are little more than a statistic to them.
Rich
 
hey, if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be worried. :rolleyes: :barf:

i guess "the right of the people" is going the way of "shall not be infringed"
 
Funny when I recently did the same thing no one paid attention to me. Im bummed
Click to expand...
Yup, we're probably not getting "the whole story". After all, if W.A. wasn't targeted, by definition, everyone else is in the clear.

Homeland may require such reporting from Credit Card companies, but they're not going to act on the info; they're probably just monitoring the the growth of debt in the country because the Commerce Dept is short handed. :rolleyes:
Rich
 
I agree with Rich, there has to be more to the story. I made an $8,000 credit card payment in Oct and a $9000 car payment the same month and nothing happened to me.......except I became debt free.
 
Here's another one:

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/070306borrowedmoney.htm

“The $650 was pending one day and then showed funded the next. All seemed fine. However, I continued to check the status on-line for the next 5 days.

“On the 6th day I found the extra $650 payment CANCELLED.”

Upon calling the credit card company, Booth was told that Homeland Security would not allow her to make two payments from two different sources in the same day.
Click to expand...
 
I made an $8,000 credit card payment in Oct and a $9000 car payment the same month and nothing happened to me
Click to expand...
Well, there's your proof: Two anonymous internet posters claim that they were not hassled. Nothing to see here people; there is no Big Brother in modern day America.

Then again, is there?
Section 351 et. seq. Bank Secrecy Act amendments and related improvements.

Bottom Line: Expansion of Bank Secrecy Act in connection with bank records.

These sections generally amend the law in ways that will permit increased government access to information from banks that relates to terrorism. At the same time, institutions and their directors, officers, employees, and agents are protected from liability for such reporting of suspicious banking activities. Similar provisions also apply to securities brokers and dealers regulated by the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Likewise, the Fair Credit Reporting Act is amended to allow consumer reporting agencies to provide consumer reports to government agencies for counterterrorism purposes.

The provisions also require financial institutions to develop anti-money laundering programs.
Click to expand...
http://www.cdt.org/security/011031summary.shtml

Anyone remember the War on Drugs? That's when it was required that Banks notify .gov of all cash withdrawals and transfers of $10K or more.

Move along now. ;)
Rich
 
Special Measures for Certain Jurisdictions, Financial Institutions, International Transactions, and Accounts
(31 U.S.C. 5318A; Act section 311)
Effective Date: Determined by future regulation

Treasury has broad regulatory authority to require financial institutions to perform additional recordkeeping and reporting with respect to particular financial institutions operating outside the United States, institutions in particular jurisdictions, types of accounts, and types of transactions, if Treasury determines that such institutions, jurisdictions, accounts, or transactions are of "primary money laundering concern."6 Treasury must consult with the Federal Reserve Board and other agencies as appropriate in determining whether to impose specific measures. The measures may be imposed by regulation or by order; however, any measure other than a regulation must expire within 120 days.

In general, the types of measures contemplated by this provision are maintenance of records and filing of reports with information about transactions, participants in transactions, and beneficial owners of funds involved in transactions..
Click to expand...
http://www.frbsf.org/banking/letters/2001/011204.html
Rich
 
I have not found BB intruding upon anything that bothers me. I pay somewhat large credit card bills each month when they come in.
Frankly, I do not care if Homeland Security knows it or not.

I think many are paranoid.

Jerry
 
Dear WildauthorizationisonethingAlaska-
And, on that note, we can conveniently discount any news story that we weren't personally present at thru every detail, should such story not fit with our views of a comfortable reality.

It's like, well, like a guy who might want to sell guns on the internet. Let's say he offers great deals; let's say he's honest and forthright. Still, the Undying Skeptic might question whether he's really just lying and scamming; the Undying Skeptic might even look at reports from third parties of their dealing and attribute those to sock puppets and shills.

Skepticism is a good thing. Undying Skepticism, in the end, leaves us pretty ignorant of an entire world of information (and great gun deals) all around us; we choose to remain safely cocooned in our tiny Happy Space.

News reports must be balanced by independent research and experience, I agree. I've given you the research and you, the Undying Skeptic, dismiss it as "Well that's just the governmental authority to pick into the minutia of my life. But where's the proof that they're actually doing it?". The True Skeptic and even the Logical Man, OTOH, would ask Occam's question: "If they aren't engaging in the practice, why did they require a law to authorize such actions in the first place?" Things that make you go, "Hmmm". ;)

Nope, nothing to see here, people. Government is Good. More Government is More Better. They're fighting Terrorists, you know. I'm certain of it because Jack Bauer kills a few more every week. :D
Rich
 
Um RicH I think you misunderstood the tenor of my post, I recognize the authority to do an act, what I am more concerned with is the actual act itself and hopefully one of our students here will find that for us :)

If it exists, go to A, if not, Go to B. My skepticism is more towards the authority do do it rather than it being done, since I kn ow someone it has been done to (with no basis therefor)

WildeaschhasdifferentapproachesthereafterAlaska

PS who is Jack Bauer :)

PPS you know how I feel about news reports...I discount all of them :)
 
Sounds like the "color of law" at work here. Since others have made large credit card payments, myself included, and not been "flagged" I would have to assume that there is another variable in this equation.

Knowing computer software algorithms, which are undoubtably used to "flag" alleged terrorist activity I can only imagine what that variable may be.

if((X==Y && X==Z || P<Q && R|X) || (P>Q && R^Y/Z) || ...) Anyway you get the point. Perhaps he bought to much gas and soda at the local convenience store with the same 24 hour period.

Or maybe it was overzealous business, which IMO is synonomous with government anyway.


Regardless:
But the experience has been a reminder that a small piece of privacy has been surrendered.
Click to expand...
So how many small pieces of privacy does that make so far? Enough to make a difference yet?
 
Well, the guy may have bought a cache of .50 cals at JC Penneys that that $6K, to distribute to domestic terrorist training camps and if he pays them off, they lose their right to re-possess them, and that worries Dept. Homeland Security. Well, either that, or a lot of pairs of Lee jeans, the preferred pants of terrorists. Whew - we dodged a bullet there. Rich is correct. This whole thing makes me sick. We don't realize what we're giving up by letting this camel's nose in under the tent of privacy.
 
This kind of thing is nothing new. I remeber when I learned (a long time ago) that if you take out more than a certain amount out of YOUR bank account that the police are notified. I don't remeber what the amount is or if it is just here in CA.
Just plain wrong!
 
WildAlaska said:
PPS you know how I feel about news reports...I discount all of them.
Click to expand...
Foul. Two debating demerits for that. ;)

You discount only the news reports that you choose to discount while referencing others, such as the Chicago Sun Times, to make your point. Remember posting this link a couple of replies back: http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn051.html

Could it be possible that certain Bureaucrats AND certain businesses are BOTH using Patriot to trample individual rights? I think so.
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top