[jaiqua]

This is scary, now the FBI can scrutinise your financial details without a court order. This whole Patriot Act is getting a little tiresome I think.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/07/1742238

[eklipse]

It also expands the definition of 'financial information' to include car dealerships, jewelry stores, insurance companies

...yeah, because if there's one thing we know about the archetypical terrorist, it's that they frequent frickin' jewelry stores.

Y'know, so they can maintain their secular lifestyles of lavish excess. Their jihad-oriented faith demands bling-bling.

This way, they can crush the infidel Western capitalists in style.

[jaiqua]

lol, priceless
I wonder how many more niceties Bush has for us under the guise of 'Freedom'?

[SimeyTheLimey]

...yeah, because if there's one thing we know about the archetypical terrorist, it's that they frequent frickin' jewelry stores.

Y'know, so they can maintain their secular lifestyles of lavish excess. Their jihad-oriented faith demands bling-bling.

One of the ways al-Queda moves money around to finance its operations is by diamond smuggling. Diamonds are small, valuable, easy to hide, and freely convertable to cash the world over.

[andi*pandi]

which is why they'd go to Day's Jewelers to get/sell their stash.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
which is why they'd go to Day's Jewelers to get/sell their stash.

Same argument as to why gun control laws don't work...criminals still go black market for illegal goods.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
which is why they'd go to Day's Jewelers to get/sell their stash.

Because I presume Day's Jewelers is a legitimate store. If a person walked in off the street and wanted to sell a significant value in diamonds for cash, don't you think they'd get suspicious? I'd assume what the FBI is worried about is the illegal trade or front stores where you can do those kinds of transactions no questions asked.

I don't know the details. I have nothing to do with law enforcement. It was just that the quote from the article above was stupid and lacked thought. Terrorists don't wear diamonds because they are pretty. They use them because they are fairly liquid wealth that is very easy to move around, and very hard to trace.

[andi*pandi]

simey, my point was that if terrorists are going to use blackmarket places to sell their goods, not Days Jewelers or other hometown stores, then why is the government collecting data from them?

It creeps me out. It makes me want to buy things with cash, and guard my social security number with possessive zeal.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
simey, my point was that if terrorists are going to use blackmarket places to sell their goods, not Days Jewelers or other hometown stores, then why is the government collecting data from them?

It creeps me out. It makes me want to buy things with cash, and guard my social security number with possessive zeal.

First, you should gaurd your SS#!

Second, if their going to go to the blackmarket is a reason not to have the regulations, you'd have to apply the same logic to gun control legislation.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
simey, my point was that if terrorists are going to use blackmarket places to sell their goods, not Days Jewelers or other hometown stores, then why is the government collecting data from them?

It creeps me out. It makes me want to buy things with cash, and guard my social security number with possessive zeal.

By my very brief glance at the bill in that link, they could. But they would still have to have some reason. Do you really think that the feds have the time and money to look into your affairs? Is there some reason why you feel so paranoid about this?

The government can already access the bank records of anyone they have probable cause to think is committing crimes. In fact, it doesn't even take that. Under current banking laws, any cash transaction over $10,000 is reported to the government. That law has been there for decades. It's designed to prevent and deter money laundering. So if you want the government to look at you, by all means only use cash.

All this act is recognizing is that groups like al-Queda have adapted to our current ability to track formal banking transactions by using other means -- in this case, diamonds. Laws have to react to changes in reality.

I'm afraid with your social security number, it's already too late. It was never meant to be a universal ID number, but that is what it has become. But it isn't the government you have to worry about that. The government already knows your SSN -- they gave it to you. You have a lot more to worry about with private identity theft than the FBI.

[jaiqua]

it's the fact that they can, and probably can do what they would like in regards to this bill. So for the sake of anti-terrorism, we are seeing civil rights being taken away, or abused. It just seems like on the back of terrorism, we are seeing sweeping legislation, and more Government power being pushed through. It's all well and good to say how it is to monitor terrorists flow of money; but i'm quite sure it'll be used for other tasks too.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
By my very brief glance at the bill in that link, they could. But they would still have to have some reason. Do you really think that the feds have the time and money to look into your affairs? Is there some reason why you feel so paranoid about this?

Ah, but that's that old saw: "If you have nothing to hide, then surely you won't mind us taking a look...?". Not cool.

And, of course, the US government has recently been poking it's collective nose into all sorts of people's business, innocent or no.

I think andi*pandi has every reason to be concerned about this type of thing, and if one isn't concerned, then one deserves what one gets. Plus, anything with a name like "The Patriot Act" gets me updandered by default.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Ah, but that's that old saw: "If you have nothing to hide, then surely you won't mind us taking a look...?". Not cool.

No, it's simpler than that. If you have nothing to hide, and stand out on no way from millions of other people just like you, why would you even think that "they" would look? What possible reason would they have to look?

The other thing is simply that just because information pertains to an individual does not mean it is in any way private information. There is a lot that is about us all that is perfectly public. For example, if a person takes photographs of you on a public street, that is not any kind of invasion of privacy, even if you are deeply offended or embarrassed. Your face in a public place is always public.

Other information falls somewhere in between public and private. There is information that is really nobody's business in a social sense, but you wouldn't expect the holder of the information to take any extraordinary steps to protect it, and you really would have no legal recourse if that information were released to a third party. I'd say that most commercial transactions that we engage in would be like that. If a store disclosed publicly that you shop there, do you really think you have a right against the store?

That's pretty much what is involved here, and why constitutionally, Congress is able to authorize the authorities to require private parties to disclose it without requiring a warrant. Like a lot of these "your civil liberties are being taken away" stories, the civil liberty isn't in fact real in any constitutional sense, and no rights are in fact being eroded.

[jaiqua]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, it's simpler than that. If you have nothing to hide, and stand out on no way from millions of other people just like you, why would you even think that "they" would look? What possible reason would they have to look?

The other thing is simply that just because information pertains to an individual does not mean it is in any way private information. There is a lot that is about us all that is perfectly public. For example, if a person takes photographs of you on a public street, that is not any kind of invasion of privacy, even if you are deeply offended or embarrassed. Your face in a public place is always public.

Other information falls somewhere in between public and private. There is information that is really nobody's business in a social sense, but you wouldn't expect the holder of the information to take any extraordinary steps to protect it, and you really would have no legal recourse if that information were released to a third party. I'd say that most commercial transactions that we engage in would be like that. If a store disclosed publicly that you shop there, do you really think you have a right against the store?

That's pretty much what is involved here, and why constitutionally, Congress is able to authorize the authorities to require private parties to disclose it without requiring a warrant. Like a lot of these "your civil liberties are being taken away" stories, the civil liberty isn't in fact real in any constitutional sense, and no rights are in fact being eroded.

You might not have anything to hide, but this is a new step, and it definitely isn't a comfortable one, and I don't want there to be a possibility of such a thign being allowed. Might not affect me, I'll never know, but it does affect many a person. I'm sure just like those who wish to fly to the States, and have an Arabic name, and are now more prone to being investigated; the same will happen to those Arabs in the States. this is just another step in a Big Brother Government, and what we don't know, is where it'll end.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by jaiqua:
You might not have anything to hide, but this is a new step, and it definitely isn't a comfortable one, and I don't want there to be a possibility of such a thign being allowed. Might not affect me, I'll never know, but it does affect many a person. I'm sure just like those who wish to fly to the States, and have an Arabic name, and are now more prone to being investigated; the same will happen to those Arabs in the States. this is just another step in a Big Brother Government, and what we don't know, is where it'll end.

I have a neice and nephew with Arabic names (their father is Jordanian). Neither have been investigated to anybody's knowledge.

Sometimes paranoia is simply unjustified.