New Federal Patriot Act Turns Retailers into Spies against Customers

Reasonable is a subjective word. The U.S. Constitution does not have any provisions for subjective terms. The only place where one can find where the Founding Fathers thought "reasonable" might fit is in the 10th Amendment which granted the sovereign STATES the right to determine what those instances might be. "Reasonable" is not granted to the federal government.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment requires "due process of law," which raises the subjective question of what process is "due." The Eighth Amendment prohibits "excessive bail" and "excessive fines." The Constitution is full of subjective words, which is one thing that keeps lawyers in business.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Me, too.

Buried in the more than 300 pages of the new law is a provision that "any person engaged in a trade or business" has to file a government report if a customer spends $10,000 or more in cash. The threshold is cumulative and applies to multiple purchases if they're somehow related -- three $4,000 pieces of furniture, for example, might trigger a filing.

The $10,000 threshold, established by the Bank (Anti-)Secrecy Act of 1970, has never been raised. Adjusted for inflation, the $10,000 minimum of nearly 32 years ago was equivalent to an approximate $45,000 minimum in 2000.

Last year, when legislooters were pushing HR 3886 (International "Know Your Customer") the Congressional Budget Office had to prepare an analysis of the bill's compliance costs, as that bill represented yet another unfunded mandate (a vital component of a fascist system). The estimated increased-cost imposition, for banks and financial institutions alone, was guessed to fall below the annual threshold allowed by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but, according to the CBO, "because compliance costs would depend directly on specific standards...established by the Secretary of the Treasury, CBO [could not] make that determination with confidence." (So much for the notion of representative government and a system of checks and balances, right? (Non-elected secretary of treasury=king?))

Given that the CBO figure of increased costs, for US banks and financial institutions alone (or, in actuality, the customers thereof) was in the neighborhood of $109 million per year, can you even begin to imagine what the figures will be for virtually all retail business in the US? (Now, there's an effective shot in the arm for an ailing economy. </sarcasm>)

Lest we forget:

In 1998, the total cost of combating money laundering in the US was more than $10 billion for the public and private sectors combined. Despite the additional filings of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), required as of 1996 and averaging about 10,000 per month, 1998 saw only 932 money-laundering convictions, representing a cost of more than $10 million per conviction. [Source]

Close enough, for government work?

ROFLMAO, indeed.
{"I get these--ooh-ooh--suspicions"}

The real object of despotism is revenue.—Thomas Paine

But....but.....but.....doncha wanna feel secure?

Yes, I do, which is why I find voyeurism to be so repulsive--no matter how it's packaged, or who's getting their jollies.

I'm fairly certain that the victims of 9/11 would have appreciated a little security, too. Tens of thousands of peaceful Americans were targeted for death, two and half months ago, while their government was apparently too obsessed with such bullsh*t as monitoring and scrutinizing their financial transactions to notice a genuine threat in the making--right under its own nose--and offer any defense against it. (And now, the result of that deadly failure is being used to promote more of the same??? F'ing sick.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.