Obama wants to monitor 100% of money transfers in and out of US

[Bluebear]

I expect such overreach from Republicans, but from a Democrat? Shouldn't someone have to prove the real world value first before implementing such an enormous program in this phony war against terror, or whatever they want to call it now. Since the GOP didn't push this they will surely be up in arms but they will be correct. What a horrible move and another breach of personal privacy.

...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."

"This regulation is outrageous," said Peter Djinis, a lawyer who advises financial institutions on complying with financial rules and a former FinCEN executive assistant director for regulatory policy. "Consider me old-fashioned, but I believe you need to show some evidence of criminality before you are granted unfettered access to the private financial affairs of every individual and company that dares to conduct financial transactions overseas."

http://www.americablog.com/2010/09/obama-wants-to-monitor-100-of-money.html

[TexasObserver]

1. All to track CITIZENS, not terrorists. Think Elliott Spitzer.

Same with most of the things they're already doing. It's not about catching bad guys. It's about knowing everything that everyone who is a citizen is doing.

[Cronus Protagonist]

2. Gosh, 'cos I send so much money out of the country....

Actually, no, I don't send a dime to anyone, which is the case for 99 percent of the population. But if the feds want to monitor the multinational corps and wealthy ne'erdowells that do send cash around the world, more power to 'em. And I hope they grab some of it for taxes.

[EFerrari]

4. Whenever we get a law like this, it's not applied to multinationals.

It's applied to some woman in Chicago that raises a few thousand dollars for homeless people in Somalia.

[dflprincess]

8. Exactly

I seriously doubt that transfers to "off shore" bank accounts by corporate CEOs or members of Congress will be monitored.

[NoNothing]

6. If you only care about civil liberties that affect you personally

Then you do not actually care about civil liberties at all.

[Statistical]

13. +1 I doubt it personally affects me but I find this unsettling.

I haven't (or at least I can't remember) every transfering money overseas but laws like this rub me the wrong way.

1) Huge cost. Another domestic spying agency
2) Govt agencies scope only gets bigger. First it is international, then it is all funds, then it is those rebels who use a significant amount of cash
3) I took cash to Mexico when I went on a cruise. Would I have to declare that under this track all money in and out of country scheme?
4) Who pays? At a time when vital services are being cut to trip the deficit where is the billions for this magically come from.

[speppin]

15. WELL Said. Thank you.

[bobbolink]

16. That is so basic, but "progressives" today can't seem to grasp that concept.

But thank you for expressing it... there is always the hope it might seep in.

[Lucian]

22. +1 Agreed.

:thumbsup:

[SammyWinstonJack]

30. +1000

[newthinking]

32. Right on! If only that were short enough for a bumper sticker +1000!

[Panaconda]

33. Perfectly stated

K&R

[Bluebear]

37. He doesn't, actually.

Good call.

[L0oniX]

14. I'm sure Wal-Mart sends enough money over seas for you.

[Cronus Protagonist]

17. Why?

I've never been to Walmart.

[howaboutme]

34. America traded our economy for Wal-Mart and Chinese markets

but that's another story.

I'm old enough to have watched silly uninformed Americans who were too short sighted to think beyond their nose, and Dancing with the Stars, as they waltzed into Wal-Mart to push US business to China. The politicians including Democrats could have stopped it, but they didn't, by demanding trade equality. They just cashed their many lobbyist checks.

Our country is threatened by multi-national corporations without an ounce of allegiance to the USA or to "we the people", and who have allegiance only to worldwide markets and profit. How could it be that "We the People" is mentioned throughout the US Constitution but there is not one mention of the so called "Corporation", yet corporations have somehow been permitted to become the force behind Congress and government policy.

It is corporatization that is the biggest threat to the USA. Meanwhile the elite and our 2 Parties create menial divisiveness with issues that mean nothing relative to the destruction of our economy USA so we take our eye off the real ball.

[VMI Dem]

3. If its legitimate, what do people have to worry about?

[NoNothing]

5. Right! If you're not doing anything wrong,

then you have nothing to hide!

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

7. After all the activists that have been wrongfully arrested and harrassed

and raided, do you really have to ask? It's an invasion of privacy and it's open to political abuse by your government.

[dflprincess]

9. I think (hope) you forgot the sarcasm icon n/t

[VMI Dem]

11. Has it ever occurred to you to question the motives of those who do so?

:shrug:

[L0oniX]

12. How ya doing agent Mike?

[jonnyblitz]

23. !!!

:rofl:

[Lucian]

24. That's not the point at all.

Why does the government need to get into our personal business even more?

[L0oniX]

10. I guess this includes all the money sent to Mexico from you know who?

[AlabamaLibrul]

18. I buy a fair amount of photographic accessories from China / Hong Kong. I'm sure I'll have to follow

this, but the multinationals won't.

Thanks!

[old mark]

19. Amaszing that some people seem OK with this - government surveillance of citizens

is covered in the Constitution - they have already taken considerable parts of that old document away via Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, now they are looking for more. I'm very afraid the current Democrats are responsible for a lot of this, and that makes me very angry.


mark

[whatchamacallit]

20. They're keeping tabs because they need your money

The financial system is in far worse shape then they let on. It's wobbling on a tightrope over a giant chasm of debt and derivative obligations. They want all those accounts accessible when the fall comes.

[JaneQPublic]

21. Dang, they'll get me for sure.

For ordering hand-loomed sweaters from County Donegal, Ireland.

[Lucian]

25. I thought Bush-era policies would've been over when Obama took charge.

I thought wrong.

[speppin]

27. So did I.

[WinkyDink]

36. They are. Now they're "new and improved."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. But..but..they're doing it to "protect" our freedoms.

Kinda like a burglar steals your jewels to "protect" them from other burglars.

[speppin]

28. LOL

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. First I am not shocked

second... if you require countries like Mexico to impose currency controls... and didn't I say a few years ago that this was coming?

Next I know I will have a limit on how much money I can move into and out of my accounts... I am not kidding.

Now on a practical level, they already do such on any transfer on or above 10K.

[yella_dawg]

31. Every transaction of which they disaprove = MINE!

The Treasury has a desperate need of quick bucks.

[WinkyDink]

35. Add it to the list.

[kenny blankenship]

38. You're keeping a list? Are you sure you're authorized to keep any lists?

Keeping lists is a suspicious activity and will be reported. We keep lists on people who keep lists. People who write stuff down about what happened in the past are the likeliest to want to change the future. I'm just saying you fit a profile.