[IP] more on We all have to sacrifice, in the War on Terriers
no matter what the facts are DHS equals terrorism in the public mind.
Also will any one explain to me how paying off a large balance is a
fraud warning? djf
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [IP] We all have to sacrifice, in the War on Terriers
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:59:04 -0500
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
CC: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Randall <rvh40@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <440762F2.9080508@xxxxxxxxxx>
> What got him so upset might seem trivial to some people who have learned
> to accept small infringements on their freedom as just part of the way
> things are in this age of terror-fed paranoia. It's that "everything
> changed after 9/11" thing.
>
> But not Walter.
>
> 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.
Let's stop right here, and engage critical facilities.
We have a journalist's *paraphrase* of a *second-hand account* of an
*unsourced* legal interpretation. I think some skepticism is warranted.
Note how the sentence structure implies to the casual reader
that Homeland Security must lift the flag, and it's terrorism-related,
without actually saying that ("the money doesn't move until the threat
alert is lifted").
The reader isn't told that the Homeland Security Department is
in charge of credit-card fraud as a function completely apart from
terrorism, a fact that was not difficult to find:
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=79&content=271
Threats & Protection Financial Crimes
Credit Card Fraud/Identity Theft
"The Secret Service is the primary federal agency tasked with
investigating access device fraud and its related activities under
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1029."
I suggest a far more *likely* series of events is as follows:
1) Sending in payment far in excess of the normal monthly payment will
raise a fraud flag, purely as the private, free-market, choice of the
credit-card business.
2) Potential fraud is also reported the authorities, perhaps as a
matter of law. But I would be very surprised if they make the final
call on releasing the money.
I suspect these two facts got garbled together, and then
throw in "terror-fed paranoia" (in another sense), and we're off
knee-jerking about boiling frogs and Orwelling and wolf, wolf, wolf.
Would it be asking too much to have some facts before debating
how much the US has fallen into a Police State here?
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/