U.S. plans to let spy agencies scour Americans' finances
reuters.com
reuters.com
This is like CCTV footage or GPS records. Its either mine and just mine, or it is freely available to everyone for everyone.
A camera that overlooks a park and is freely streaming to the web is a social benefit, allowing mothers to check the park before taking children down, and so on.
A camera overlooking the same park and is only streamed to the CIA is a tool of an oppressive state.
Lets keep the free society, it has done us well for 200 years
"Financial institutions that operate in the United States are required by law to file reports of "suspicious customer activity," such as large money transfers or unusually structured bank accounts, to Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)."
I find it a little bit hyperbolic that people are calling the end of the republic at the proposal that intelligence agencies have broader access to financial records they already have access to anyway--financial records that only cover certain kinds of suspicious transactions.
thank you
So, if for example, HSBC is helping drug money launderers to move money around for years, and never flagging it as suspicious (they are regular customers) then the CIA does not get the SP.
Ah well, nothing to see here.
My apologies for the earlier rant
This is a local matter, as it is in other jurisdictions, and the US can formally complain through the established channels, treaties, and agencies which allow for sanctions to be placed on banks and jurisdictions where there is excessive money laundering activities and low oversight.
But they can also flag smaller transactions that appear to fit 'structuring' patterns. So fairly small innocent transactions can and do get erroneously flagged.
(Structuring being the practice of breaking up 'large' transactions explicitly to avoid being flagged.)
"Banks, for instance, are required to report all personal cash transactions exceeding $10,000, as well as suspected incidents of money laundering, loan fraud, computer hacking or counterfeiting."
The article mentions there are about 15 million such reports every year. Compared to the volume of financial transactions it's tiny.
The other agencies could get FinCEN data. They just had to show cause for it.
I do believe however that American citizens should have the power to audit any government official's finances at whim. Let's start with that. If they aren't doing anything wrong, nothing to fear.
We really want some kind of open source Palantir to train on government officials who propose things like this, and people who lobby for them, just to give them a taste of what it's like to be under the microscope. Somewhat reminiscent of CNET publishing the address of Eric Schmidt's house; sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
And no one will recall the exact hour: a little freedom here...a few rights there...another bit of privacy given over to our government...
In fact, many who are aware of the changes even defend them as being necessary. They still don't notice the overall direction or net effect.
Some of the comments on this thread alone speak to that.
As Mark Twain said, 'The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.'
Just a guess though.
The FBI having previous access is not a justification for giving it to every agency. Finally, having a problem with this doesn't mean you don't have a problem with the FBI having access.
You may be late to the game but some of us have been complaining about this since the first version of the Patriot Act. Just because you decided to jump in now doesn't mean the criticism of these moves is new or somehow leaving out the previous expansion of government access to previously considered private data.
What I'm objecting is the substitution of rhetoric for reasoned argument, with these post-facto pronouncements of the nation's death and suchlike. If I want emotional appeals that seek to exploit confirmation bias I can just turn on talk radio or listen to commercials for gold and rifle ammo.
There are quite a few people that have completely lost faith in the government, especially as it expands its powers by exploiting fear in the masses, to handle newly acquired power with the responsibility we would expect them to have. We've already learned the federal government does not give up power, so when it takes steps in this direction it's worrying to some of us. There is no way to reverse this now, this will be acceptable policy for the foreseeable future.
Next the limits to what gets flagged will be lowered. Eventually the banks wont be trusted to flag anything, and all transactions will be filtered by the government for later analysis.
I don't blame anyone for calling that outlook one of a conspiracy theorist, or an unhealthy cynic.
but this is simply not true, and when it does so people ignore it to the point of obtuseness. two recent examples are a (slight) relaxation of TSA rules about carry-on items, and the decison to try an Al-Qaeda member in criminal court in Ny instead of just sending him to Guantanamo. Today in particular, the administrationis urging the Supreme Court o limit the government's power to say who can or can't call themselves married. These exmples may not matter to you, but they seem to matter quite a lot to various other people. Your arguments rests on a false premise, one which assumes things will inevitably get worse.
You could be arguing that withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a great time to rewire and substantially narrow, or even repeal, the AUMF, and great time to review the Patriot act in the light of over a decade's experience. I would lolve to see these laws narrowed or repealed. Instead you prefer to sit on your hands and prognosticate about things automatically getting worse.
That is, I don't know what "reasoned argument" you need other than the very real and constant accretion of power by the federal government. Power, I might add, that frequently comes at the expense of our rights and privacy. From the Patriot Act to the ugliness it empowered (NSLs, etc.) to the broadening of power referenced in the subject article and everything in between; there is a constant, undeniable power creep. Now, you may need "reasoned argument" to help you establish whether you believe this is justified, etc. But, you cannot deny the existence of an ever-broadening government power.
Perhaps you found my wording too rhetorical for your taste. I can certainly live with that. But, if it is substance you seek, that substance can be found in the article itself along with the countless other instances of the government accruing more power. My comment was merely commentary on this substance.
Still, we may disagree on where all of this is taking us. You say that it's hyperbole to speak of the nation's dismantling. I would argue that the nation is already fundamentally differerent and that its demise, on principal, is not only imminent, but nearly complete. It is the sum total of changes like this one that makes it so.
Because, irrespective of the opinion you reach through reasoned argument as to the "neccessity" of the changes, the changes themselves represent the morphing of our nation into something entirely different; in other words, its dismantling piece by piece.
When you're finished with the part that explains what they're really doing, be sure to also read the last few paragraphs which discuss the potential for abuse, past civil rights violations, and the fact that they invariably end up with data on innocent citizens, which they have increasing latitide in retaining and managing.
You should also considering comparing that with other 'privileges' certain government agencies have and their record of abusing those privileges.
Or you can be intentionally obtuse about it.
Including, apparently, the author of the article:
"Banks, for instance, are required to report all personal cash transactions exceeding $10,000, as well as suspected incidents of money laundering, loan fraud, computer hacking or counterfeiting"
Did you actually read the article?
And, it appears that the author sourced that nasty lie from the federal government (FinCEN) itself:
http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/materials/e...
Edit: BTW, while you're burrowing down into irrelevant minutiae to make who-knows-what point, why not see my questions above regarding your material misread of the actual article. That, and my points regarding your glossing over of the actual problems with this issue.
Ok, so you were talking about cash vs non-cash, instead of solely threshhold amounts, as initially appeared to be the case. We get that. But, it doesn't matter. Again, you are missing the point about EXPANDED GOVERNMENT CAPABILITIES, irrespective of whether this one point about threshholds is about cash vs. non-cash. The article itself is about far more than just what's reportable. It is about things like broader access for sifting data, which also catches up innocent citizens, and under liberal retention policies.
You seem to be getting stuck. This is why you need to re-read the article instead of demanding that others do the same. And this is why you have failed to respond to my previous post, which clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about.
You're just angry and making meaningless, half-baked points. Why are you so pissed anyway?
And, do I need to drop f-bombs to help you understand the article/discussion here?
Or maybe you should start over from the top:
Step 1: Read the article (for comprehension this time)... Step 2: Form a relevant conclusion...
If you read my comment, that was exactly my point. Your focus on this issue alone is misplaced.
And as long as we're disagreeing, I will clarify and say that I am not suggesting that the nation will be inevitably dismantled. I am stating very clearly that it is being dismantled even as we type, and has been undergoing this process for some time. It started with the Patriot Act, near as I can tell.
Again, that was my point and you are helping me to make it. You appear to be waiting on that "grand moment of dismantling", complete with announcement and marching band. However, the band is playing right now, but many simply don't hear it.
Edit: And by the time they do hear it, it will be too late. They'll just look around perplexed and say, "Well, that's odd. When did that happen?"
I think it's not coincidental that the rate of 18 to 24-year-olds who are interested in moving abroad has skyrocketed from 12% in 2007 to 40% in 2011 (http://www.americawave.com/2011/10/05/somewhatseriously-inte...) but the number of them planning to relocate has collapsed (http://www.americawave.com/2011/10/06/yes-plan-to-relocate-b...). I think the reason is simple: young people are tired of the constant bad news but they don't have any money to move abroad.
Interestingly, when they talk to me about this, they're usually not looking for greener pastures: they aren't assuming the world is better somewhere else or that they can escape what's going on. Maybe that puts 'em back in the adventure category instead of moving for political reasons? (That being said, the demographics between actual expats and would-be expats could be radically different).
Note for the curious: I moved abroad for adventure, not political reasons. Five countries and counting.
TL;DR: Young people in the US are waking up from all of the bad news and wondering what it would be like to live somewhere else, but they think they don't have the money to leave the US.
That, and I LOVE Australia! Well, maybe not the higher prices but that's the subject of another post.
This. A thousand times this. You nailed it. People here don't give a damn about freedom. They don't care if it keeps getting taken away, because their lives aren't affected directly. When it starts, though, they'll get up in arms about it.
It's no use, though. The government isn't going to change unless people do something right now. Waiting until a government actively takes rights away from you to protest is irresponsible, to say the least.
Part of this problem stems from the horrendously broken public school system. Kids are not taught to think for themselves, rather, herd mentality is not only the norm, but it is encouraged! Why do you think so many people vote consistently Democratic or consistently Republican rather than independently? Why do you think half of the country still believes that there's a (supposedly "loving") giant bearded man in the sky deciding whether people should suffer eternally or be on cloud nine?
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."
People do care about freedom. There are a lot of folks who love the 2nd amendment. They just need to care more for the other amendments instead of just the 2nd amendment.
Part of this problem stems from the horrendously broken public school system. Kids are not taught to think for themselves, rather, herd mentality is not only the norm, but it is encouraged! Why do you think so many people vote consistently Democratic or consistently Republican rather than independently? Why do you think half of the country still believes that there's a (supposedly "loving") giant bearded man in the sky deciding whether people should suffer eternally or be on cloud nine?
Why do you think you have critical thinking skills?
Well, he's the exception of course!
The frogs are slowly being boiled to death. There won't be time to get up in arms about it as they won't have voice nor guns to fight this opression. Unfortunately is too late to do anything about it. Brace yourself because from here the ride is downhill only.
I mean, how can the self appointed leader of the free world use the word "liberal" as an insult? Freedom fries = fine, liberal = evil??????????
"It’s time to Investigate all Activities from The GOP and Tea Party and Wealthy ,Because They are The Real Terrorist Americans Citizens,For That Reason they are scare to the drones.The History from the wealthy in this country is not Very clean ,For That Reason The FBI has to Investigate This People.They Want Shut Down The Federal Government."
These people are the problem. There needs to be an IQ and political education test before people can register to vote.
Sound crazy? Yes. Extreme? Yes? Will it work? Maybe; probably not. Is it worth a shot? At the rate things are going, I'd say definitely.
By the way, expect a posting about this on rms' blog way before anybody else heard about it.
EDIT: Found another politically uneducated comment:
"You need to replace every mention of CIA with obama. HE is the one behind this crime and HE is the one 'in direct contradiction to their oath and the 4th Amendment.'"
My goodness.
EDIT: Interesting that people seem to think the only choice is blue or red. Ever heard of the Libertarian Party?
"@sjfella, seriously man, do you think Romney with his neo-con Bush advisers would have done any better with respect to maintaining of civil liberties while still hunting down terrorists? IMO, it would have been much worse under a Romney administration, we probably would have never even heard of this and they would still be doing it. The right and the neo-cons are the ones that want to throw out all our values just to fight the ‘war on terror’, hence things like the Patriot Act and Gitmo."
Would you care to expand upon this argument? What sort of test would you require, and how would such policy effect American democracy?
Why shouldn't the same go for voting? Education is paramount for a good democracy. If the national education system doesn't work, even fixing it is futile because there are already so many indoctrinated and uneducated voters in the population. The best option is to weed out the uneducated ones from the educated ones.
The political education test would be similar to a test you take for naturalization: it quizzes you on the party system, how the nation was founded, what the Bill of Rights specifies, et al.
Right now the only qualification to vote is citizenship. That needs to be changed.
Cutting people out of the system will only result in second class citizens. We need to raise people up, not push them down.
The problem is you can educate stupid people but it won't make them not stupid. By definition 50% of people are left of the mean on the IQ spectrum. By HN standards probably 80% of all people are hopeless.
When you make "being educated" a prerequisite for voting you necessarily create an underclass. You prevent people who are "undereducated", as defined by those who are "educated" (see the problem there?), from participating in society. That is, you strip them of citizenship. They are not represented.
I don't know if that's good or bad. Many argue that democracy is inherently flawed because of people's general unintelligence. I think this argument has much merit. But you can't solve the flaw within democracy itself. Which means maybe there is another, better system of governance out there, and democracy isn't the be-all and end-all we've been raised to think of it as.
Democracy isn't a good thing in and of itself, basically, so maybe we should re-evaluate.
It'd be great if elections could be fought on something more substantial than a candidate's haircut or who most people would rather drink a beer with.
I don't think that general lack of intelligence is responsible for people creating or publishing polls about drinking beer with candidates.
People get fed this tripe.
And even on HN it's hard to have political discussions. Every political thread will have some great, insightful, thoughtful, comments, and a bunch of tedious partisan bickering.
If you have one group deciding what sort of person deserves self determination, you aren't striking that balance anymore.
The essence of democracy is that you don't need a detailed understanding of the history, voter mechanics or text of a particular law to express a valid preference for or against a candidate that has something to say that concerns you, however imperfect your understanding of that candidate's intentions and their likely consequences may be. If you can't grasp that, bar yourself from the ballot box.
(and that's without discussing the obvious electoral advantages to an incumbent that might accrue from influence over setting "voter tests". Sure, you have to pass a bar to be allowed to work for somebody, or study somewhere, or borrow money - that's all for the testers' benefit)
IMO there needs to be more variety of political thought in the national landscape.
I do not support disenfranchising the mentally disabled. If they are politically studied enough that they can make an intelligent decision about how to vote for somebody, then of course they should be able to vote.
Why should there be a different standard for them than for anybody else? A disability doesn't mean that discrimination is an absolute certainty.
You do not get to define how well "studied" someone has to be to participate in voting. Anything you find acceptable is highly politicized and guarantees voter disenfranchisement for a number of groups of people.
If course in the OP's world, some of these people would be able to vote, others not, just like non-disabled people.
Your thinking is where the discrimination is. You have assumed such people are not equal.
As long as there are some safeguards in place the mentally disabled should be allowed to vote, or make the attempt. If you sat there for a few days and saw who came out to vote, you may rather wish they too weren't having an influence on helping to elect the next government or opposition parties.
On the other hand, a test like LSAT that proves you can figure out logical fallacies would mean the stupidest of the stupid don't get to affect my life.
Unfortunately, the election of these representatives is very much a popularity contest, with each of the major news networks rooting for their own candidate and trying to indoctrinate as many people as possible to love their candidate and hate the opposition.
I can't see an IQ test ever being implemented. Absolutely no politician alive would want to be associated with such a measure, and the uneducated of the country would riot in fear of their rights being taken away from them.
It sounds kinda crazy, but I always thought an excellent solution would be to have a computer make political decisions. Many aspects of politics are essentially large number problems that go ignored by politicians in favor of qualitative information. We're really at the dawn of the computer age right now, and there's no reason to believe there isn't going to be a computer capable of making political decisions in the future. I can't imagine it ever taking off on Earth though; such a system would likely start as being the decision maker of some independent colony on another planet, of which it would become the standard political system for other worlds.
Besides, I think the whole idea of an IQ test is ridiculous. The test itself is unreliable, and even if its not, a person with low IQ might still make a good politician. The fact that (s)he gets elected itself shows you a certain amount of inventiveness, even if its through voter fraud.
Which makes me believe that finally, protests will always have to be a part of any free society. There will always be times when the political class becomes so stupid/deattached from reality that the intelligentsia need to show them that they will not cooperate. Its unfortunate, but that does seem to be the case for now
The difficulty is - "Who gets to write the test?" Whomever controls the test has all the power. Furthermore, if inappropriate metrics for intelligence are used, you select for the wrong voters.
Our imperfect system works, even if it doesn't always work well. If you take the time to reason with people who are "the problem", things will improve. I bet you'll learn something too.
This explains it:
The Federal Bureau of Investigation already has full access to the database. However, intelligence agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, currently have to make case-by-case requests for information to FinCEN.
It doesn't make it right, but it follow some well known roads in how database systems over people get created.