Money transfers could face anti-terrorism scrutiny

[The Northerner]

The Obama administration wants to require U.S. banks to report all electronic money transfers into and out of the country, a dramatic expansion in efforts to counter terrorist financing and money laundering.

Officials say the information would help them spot the sort of transfers that helped finance the al-Qaeda hijackers who carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They say the expanded financial data would allow anti-terrorist agencies to better understand normal money-flow patterns so they can spot abnormal activity.

Financial institutions are now required to report to the Treasury Department transactions in excess of $10,000 and others they deem suspicious. The new rule would require banks to disclose even the smallest transfers.

Treasury officials plan to post the proposed regulation on their Web site on Monday and in the Federal Register this week. The public could comment before a final rule is published and the plan takes effect, which officials say will probably not be until 2012.

The proposal is a long-delayed response to the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which specified reforms to better organize the intelligence community and to avoid a repeat of the 20S01 attacks. The law required that the Treasury secretary issue regulations requiring financial institutions to report cross-border transfers if deemed necessary to combat terrorist financing.

"By establishing a centralized database, this regulatory plan will greatly assist law enforcement in detecting and ferreting out transnational organized crime, multinational drug cartels, terrorist financing and international tax evasion," said James H. Freis Jr., director of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

But critics have called it part of a disturbing trend by government security agencies in the wake of the 2001 attacks to seek more access to personal data without adequately demonstrating its utility. Financial institutions say that they already feel burdened byanti-terrorism rules requiring them to provide data, and that they object to new ones.

"These new banking surveillance programs are testing the boundaries of privacy," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "Many consumers both in the United States and outside are likely to object."

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/26/AR2010092603941_pf.html

[Newsjock]

1. This administration is nothing at all like the previous administration

And stop saying that it is. Has "Osama" won yet?

[grasswire]

2. yeah, who are the terrorists, again?

Those who invade our privacy and attack our freedoms?

[Taitertots]

3. This has nothing to do with preventing terrorism

" in detecting and ferreting out transnational organized crime, multinational drug cartels, terrorist financing and international tax evasion,"
As such I'll put $100 up that this NEVER leads to catching anyone who was going to attack America.

They don't even bother to pretend it is just about fighting terrorism.

[smalll]

4. Isn't ferreting out organized crime, drug cartels, and tax evasion worthwhile?

Sorry, I have little to no sympathy for people whose day-to-day lifestyle requires a bunch of "international money transfers." Espcially in today's economy.

So sue me. I know it must be hard for your average international importer-exporter, especially if they live in somewhere worthwhile, like NYC or San Fran -- we all know at this point that no-one can survive in such places on less than 250K a year. :eyes:

[Taitertots]

5. Worthwhile, yes

Worth destroying the fourth amendment? Not a chance.

I'll assume you won't let the government search your house and computer just because fighting child pornography is worthwhile.

[smalll]

6. Like most Americans, I remain opposed to the government searching our homes or computers --

also, I suspect, like most Americans, I have no sympathy left in today's economy for the fortunate richie minority who find it so necessary for their livelihoods to make international money transfers on a regular basis.

Search cars? Opposed. Search sailboats? I'm in favor. The richies really don't understand what's happening today; there's no sympathy left for them. It warms the cockles of our hearts, for example, to read about the latest indignity visited upon the patrons of the airlines -- I'd love to hear next that they are taking off your shoes and shoving them where the sun don't shine just before they take those naked pics of you all for security purposes -- you might as well suffer at least a LITTLE for gallivanting around the country hither and yon with your motherfucking Macs getting overpaid to do very little of anything (I think you guys call it "consulting" these days. Or "design" of some sort or another.)

[Taitertots]

7. At what income level do you believe civil rights cease to matter?

I've got a small sailboat and I use airplanes. Do you think I don't deserve civil rights?

[smalll]

10. LOL -- I knew it. -- "I've got a small sailboat and I use airplanes" --

Do you deserve civil rights? I really don't care that much in this kind of economy.

Are you also the kind of "Democratic" richie who thinks that just because you prefer the Grateful Dead to opera, just because you wear Birkenstocks rather than wingtips, just because you named your kids Zach, Josh and Zoey rather than Chip, Biff and Muffy that somehow you're cool? Sorry, you aren't.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. And I own SEVERAL boats. Whaddaya gonna do about it, smarty?

Well, okay, I gave them to my kids.

[Taitertots]

13. You don't know anything, it is funny that you think you do

I make close to $10,000 a year.

Why don't you hallucinate up some more funny things for you to think that I am? It is really funny.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. This person has an axe the size of Cleveland to grind against... shit, everything.

Either that or (s)he's doing one hell of a put-on job.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Methinks this post is a classic, even for you.

The bitterness! The grousing! The flat-out hate, complete with lurid fantasies of forced shoe-sodomizing! (For the Hoi Palloi who FLY, no less. Whooo, you got your finger on the Merkin Elite, right there. We're all wedged into coach on a 737 to O'Hare, elbows deep in each other's sweaty underwear.)

The... the... "motherfucking Macs"!

A DU CLASSIC. :rofl: :thumbsup:

[RandomThoughts]

9. The only time doing nothing is good.

Is if you are asked to do wrong and do not agree after thought feeling, and discussing the issues.

In that nothing can not be nothing, but is something.

And in another note, most people do not know how things people do are evaluated.


A smile from poverty is worth far more then money from an unearned source that is already so much more then a person needs. That does not mean poverty is better, nor that being rich is bad, but that what you do with what you got makes more of a difference then how much you got.

Some people have given entire lives in acts of kindness, millions that are not shown in the glitz of money and even fame, although many with fame and money do such things also.


The problem is not that they do not do good, or even that they are overpaid, but that they do almost nothing compared to the people working many jobs, or that are unemployed, but still finding ways to love the people around them, and even love strangers. Those are the people that inspire me, and also the people in many stories, why is that, because those are the people also thought best by most people, even if they are the least.

It is an issue of thought on what matters that creates much of that.



That also explains to me the comment, to him that much is given, much will be expected.

[Catherina]

12. +1 n/t