[IP] more on We all have to sacrifice, in the War on Terriers]]]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [IP] more on We all have to sacrifice, in the War on Terriers]]
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 20:38:22 -0500
From: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
To: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [IP] more on We all have to sacrifice, in the War on Terriers]
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:45:10 -0800
From: Ross Stapleton-Gray <ross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Koenig <ark@xxxxxxx>
References: <44077E9F.1000602@xxxxxxxxxx>
At 03:24 PM 3/2/2006, Andrew Koenig <ark@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.
>
>This is something new? Shortly before I got married in 1998, my wife-to-be
>and I bought wedding rings. I forget why, but we had to pay for each ring
>in a separate transaction...
But there's a huge difference between credit lenders' anti-fraud processes,
and government-compelled reporting/transaction interdiction. Yes, the
credit card companies have long applied heuristics to attempt to block
fraudulent use (my last tripping of that was in driving the household goods
cross country from DC to SF in 2001... gassing up in 3 or more Western
states in a day seemed to set Visa off). Presumably one could either shop
among providers for the features one liked, or negotiate with the provider
for how you'd like to be treated ("I'd like the Spend-Like-a-Sailor
NoChecks service, please"); a role for government there would be to
establish certain guarantees, e.g., "Upon presentation of sufficient ID [so
spelled out], any customer shall not be barred from withdrawing all funds
within one business day," or "...borrow to the established credit limit,"
etc., to prevent abuse in lending/savings ("We said you'd have credit, but
we won't really give you credit unless you pay us more...").
When government digs deeper and deeper into every financial transaction
(and this also started a long time ago, with FinCen, and the reporting of
large cash transactions... IIRC, it was related to drug transactions/money
laundering, the War Before the War on Terror), that's another issue
entirely.
The argument that, "Well, any transaction could be related to Terror, and
wherever we set the bar, the Terrorists will learn it and 'smurf' even
smaller transactions, so we ought to monitor smaller transactions, so...,"
is little different from those being thrown around for expansion of
wiretaps, etc., and poses far greater risk to the Republic than the actions
of "Terrorists," who have far smaller budgets, and little means to hurt us
if we don't magnify their power through our own fear.
Ross
----
Ross Stapleton-Gray, Ph.D.
Stapleton-Gray & Associates, Inc.
http://www.stapleton-gray.com
http://www.sortingdoor.com
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as dave@xxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
-------------------------------------
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/