New Info-Sharing Regs Make Tracking Easier

sgtrock writes: "This one is bad. Really, really bad. According to BankTech News, the U.S. Treasury Department has proposed new regulations that essentially allow banks and the Feds to share information about any individual who ends up on a watch list. This action is based upon their interpretation of the USA Patriot Act. If this goes through, forget your right to privacy, folks. It doesn't exist! Check out the whole story. Write your Congress critters, your Senators, and the Treasury Department. Let them know just how bad an idea this is."

Re:yeah...

[ThePilgrim]

I was once a member of the Revalutionary Comunist Party of the United Kingdom of Great Britton and Northen Irland.

Is that sufficent to put me on a watch list?

Re:yeah...

[Deagol]

The problem with that argument is that the list of what constitues "terrorism" is growing very fast. Isn't there a new law that makes computer crime "terrorism"? If I port-scan some joker who is probing my own machine and some intervening ISP notices and reports me, I could (by a stretch, I admit) be put on some watch list.

What if you exhibit odd financial patterns (see my post about using cash). Could that get me pegged as suspicious?

Quakers and Amnesty International now Terrorists

[bmasel]

According to the Denver Police Dept. Rocky Mountain News [rockymountainnews.com]

"Barry Leaman-Miller, was identified as a member of the "American Friends Service Committee (criminal extremist G)." He said the Philadelphia-based Quaker group has won the Nobel Peace Prize and "acts in the best tradition of nonviolence."

Re:yeah...

[bcwebd]

this is the most idiotic answer I have ever seen on slashdot. All it would take would be any financial organization (this includes more than "banks") and any government or law enforcement agency to determine under very loose guidelines who should be watched. Given current technology and trends this could end up being most of us for some arbitrary reason or another. George Washington was a terrorist in his day. I'm not saying he was evil, just that to his government (British Empire) he fostered rebellion. This is a tremendous amount of power to hand a few people who are supposed to be representatives of the people not a ruling class with near omnipotent power. I am very conservative but we should never forgot that our government is not a ruling body but a governing one. Remember mccarthyism and the internment of japanese americans during the later part of WWII before making such inane statements.

paranoia vs. privacy

[monkeyserver.com]

These are two seperate words folks. It's interesting how ppl get so up in arms about anything that involves information about you. It's not like they are coordinating credit card reports, ATM slips, bank accounts, plane tickets, calls you make, and your electric bill, all to provide you with more directed spam.

This is being done to *protect* us from *terrorists*, you know, those guys who killed thousands of ppl about 6 months ago (you may have read about it in the newspaper).

It seems like ppl here get more up in arms than the NRA supporters (no pun intended). Ppl have to understand that some correlation will be done no matter what, regulating this and making it public is better than letting the FBI run amock with there computers and our data.

Maybe someone can explain to me what danger this puts me in, unless I am a terrorist...

This is exactly my point

[monkeyserver.com]

This is what I am talking about, how can you expect ppl to respect and listen to your opinion when you flip out whenever the topic comes up. You do have some valid points, but they are lost in your tone.

Your point is the exact same one that many NRA members quote, basically its "Once they start making these rules what's to stop them?". Well if you can't allow the government to make some rules to help everyone then you have fundamental problems with our gov't. Maybe you should try to address those, rather than this one issue.

Basically, the gov't has to do something to try to stop bad ppl. It makes things worse for the rest of us, but that's life. The point is to help educate and influence the gov't to allow laws that are usefull and fair. This bank checking thing doesn't seem that bad, allowing them to "ransack my house" would not be right. We should all oppose that, but opposing the whole issue catagorically gets us nowhere and makes your cause look infantile.

just my $.02

Re:paranoia vs. privacy

[Deagol]

It seems like ppl here get more up in arms than the NRA supporters (no pun intended). Ppl have to understand that some correlation will be done no matter what, regulating this and making it public is better than letting the FBI run amock with there computers and our data.

Speaking as one of those NRA supporters... Because it's been officially announced give us even more reason to complain. Before, we could only speculate and then be shrugged off as paranoid. Now, we can say, "see, they can watch us!"

Re:bah

[renehollan]

Er, staging a sit-in in Utah qualifies one as a terrorist, according to laws recently passed there.

Re:bah

[bcwebd]

remember the income tax laws of the 30's were supposed to be temporary. Doesn't seem so temporary now.

Brown Shirt Days are here Again

[nadie]

Best to take that brown shirt off to the dry cleaners now, you will want to make a good impression

Use cash as much as possible, folks!

[Deagol]

Every payday, I go to my credit union and take out everything but the little money I have automatically withdrawn towards a mutual fund. I then go the the post office and pony up $0.90 for each money order and mail my bills. Of course I hand-deliver some of my bills and paymemts, where the banks have local branches.

When I first started doing this, it was a little odd and inconvenient. Now, I feel a great sense of liberty. Excepting my bills, nobody knows what the hell I'm doing with my money. Cash transactions are a lot faster at stores, plus there's always money on-hand.

Ever since the "Know Your Customer" initiative a few years back, and since learning about SARs [treas.gov], I've become even more wary of financial institutions. It's gotten to the point where I'm thinking about socking away my savings (which goes now into mutual funds) into a safe. Mr. Ashcroft can look at my records all he wants and he won't see much. Losing a little bit of interest is worth it to me, in order that I may have a little more privacy in this witch-hunt government we now have to live with.

I don't like the fact that: 1) My financial history can be reviewed on a whim; and 2) My assets can be siezed almost on a whim. Look at those poor folks in South America, whose banks throttled their own money usage. I won't ever be caught in that situation.

I usually don't have that much money on-hand, so all you scare-mongers can hold back on the "what if you get mugged" thing. I pay all bills and do any essential expenditures that same day (the big grocery spree, getting car tuned, etc.).

If only I could force my employer to pay in cash. They recently began requiring direct deposit!

Re:Use cash as much as possible, folks!

[tregoweth]

You'll probably draw more attention to yourself, for atypical usage. <ashcroft> And anyone who only uses cash and money orders clearly has something to hide. Get 'im, boys! </ashcroft>

What Right to Privacy?

[Relic of the Future]

There is no right to privacy, not in the constitution at least.

It might be a good idea though, so why not write your representatives about making it an amendment. It might give all the opposition to these kinds of laws something to stand on.

Re:What Right to Privacy?

[anthony_dipierro]

The right to privacy is not mentioned directly in the constitution, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the combination of several ammendments, including the 4th ammendment, creates this right. Of course, this particular law is not about privacy, it's about free speech.

Could backfire.

[BitterOak]

Wouldn't this much snooping power simply drive people to do more of their banking offshore? This could actually increase the tax evasion problem.