Read the fucking article. They're not being given full access to the financial records of every citizen. They're being given access to a database of suspicious activity reports filed by the banks.
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...