What is Digg?175 Comments
- amdi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This is utterly disgusting.
And we have no one else to blame but ourselves. The whole ignorant lot of us. Just like sheep, allowing ourselves to be led any which way they please. Who are they you ask?
THEY are the nastiest, most despicle, rotten, vile creatures on this planet known as career politicians. It's no coincidence that a large number of them are lawyers by training. Consider this: only 1 senator voted against the Patriot Act. That's only 1 senator who voted on principle. Come to think of it, they exhibit herd like behavior themselves.
The only thing different from 1776 is leadership. The greatness of the founding fathers can truly be appreciated in seeing the current bunch of nimwits and self serving scum that run our country.
How remarkable that in 1776, they were able to set in motion a system, that by design, has managed to survive the baser instincts of man.
Will it last? Or will those who follow finally manage to chip away enough to bring down what was once a magnificent tower?
What do I care? It's nice and warm in the middle of the herd. And I'll probably be dead and gone by the time the herd reaches the cliff. So no biggie. Maybe I should just enjoy the ride.
However, I'm sure glad a bunch of people in 1776 throught differently. - stalky14, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"i don't understand this argument: "if you aren't doing anythign wrong, why worry"."
It's funny. The people who say that are typically the ones who were so
anti-communist back when there was a communist bloc and it was one
of the reasons they hated such societies. IOW, not having to make that
excuse with regard to America is what made them so proud to be Americans!
The reason you should worry if you're not doing anything wrong is that these
wide government nets cast by government bureaucracy (something Bush
enthusiasts are supposed to be against, BTW) almost always end up screwing
up and catching innocent people. See "German Democratic Republic, The".
'nuff said. - tmj3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"CAN WE GO ONE THREAD WITHOUT SOMEONE SAYING THIS??? WE GET IT!!!"
Judging from the imminent renewal of these BS laws, I'd say that we don't. - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4How can so many people screw up this quote?
This ' "Anyone willing to forsake liberty for short-term security deserves neither."- Benjamin Franklin' isn't even close to what it really is.
This is like the quote of the year. So many people using it, so few who know the real quote:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Please use the real quote people. It holds vastly different meaning from some of the versions that people pull out of their asses. - vonskippy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You call this journalism?
First off, there's no proof this happened what so ever - show me the paper trail, I might believe it.
Second, there's no proof that this happens on a regular basis, even for that merchant account (i.e. credit card vendor) or the guy in question, or the guy's bank.
Third, assuming it happened, there is no hard evidence that the reason stated is the real reason.
Finally, I move alot of money around all the time (more then the amount in the article). I'm a freelance engineer and routinely move money from my business to personal accounts and back again to cover my operating expenses (i.e. I personally loan my business operating capital to cover AP while waiting for AR to catch up). NEVER (lets says that again - NEVER) have I had any problems with Homeland security. Since I deal in electronics that could (in the very loose since of the word) be used for nefarious projects, I would assume if they're flagging such activity, mine would be near the top of the list.
Bottom line - it's ***** until they show proof. - zeeta6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4soon there would...."High numbers of diggs Triggers Homeland Security"
- dalaeth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4To everyone asking about the source, Bob Kerr is a long-time columnist for the Providence Journal (http://www.projo.com) which is the largest newspaper in Rhode Island.
His original article can be found here:
http://www.projo.com/news/bobkerr/projo_20060224_frico24.1d2c026b.html
Though you'll have to sign up to see it. Mr. Kerr's phone number and email are located at the bottom of the article. If you doubt it, drop him a line. - mgrasso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This story is so ridiculous. Think about how many people are paying off credit cars using home equity or playing the balance transfer game. DoHS would have to employ thousands just to manage it all.
- TripinVA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3bclinton:
I would rather die free, at the hands of a terrorist (more likely I'll be hit by lightning or killed by invisible pink unicorns, btw), than live under the tyranny of government. - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@dingletec:
"Losing privacy is not the same as losing freedom... No rights have been lost, unless you consider privacy a right, which it is not. I learned this perspective from my wife's grandfather, who has lived through wars since WW1. We lost convenience after 9/11, not rights. It's less convenient to travel, more restrictions on what we can carry on the plane, etc. We have not lost rights.
-- We actually do have a right protecting us from unjustified search and seizure. It is called the Fourth Amendment.
" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
In otherwords there has to be EVIDENCE or a reasonable suspicion that one is involved in illegal activities to justify an invasion of your privacy, and it has to be approved by a judge.
"We live in a very free and open society. Anyone has the right to travel anywhere, without restriction. How do we protect ourselves from terrorists who are living within this country?"
-- It is not possible without turning this country into a police state. IMHO it is clearly not worth that sacrifice.
I think everything the government is doing needs to be questioned, which is why our government is set up the way it is... Checks and balances. Noone is above the law, but of course laws can be changed to fit the circumstances."
--Like locking up all the Japanese Americans during WW2? - carwash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How in the world did they spend over 6 grand at JCPenney!?
- lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Banks have a lot more to do with homeland security than they previously did.
I used to work at a bank and before the PATRIOT Act we just had to watch transactions for people trying to launder money. The PATRIOT Act forced all kinds of new regulation on us concerning customer identification and expanded the money laundering practices we had to watch for to suspicious activity.
To make a long story short, if a teller is suspicous about something you are doing, he or she is required by law to file a report that makes it back to the FBI or DHS (I can't remember which one it is now).
As for the withdrawls/deposits being flagged as refered to above, there are two specific $ tiers that require a teller to file a report, checks don't count, it is only cash. I cannot say what they are, but I am sure you could find that sort of information on Google or something.
I'm not saying all this to scare you away from banks/credit unions (they have to follow the same rules on this), I just think it is pretty crappy that the banks essentially are spying on people for the government and there are consequences to the banks and the bank employees for revealing the terms and conditions of the spying to their own customers. - Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You people hopefully realize that this is SOP for large monetary transfers. The only change here being that Homeland Security gets the call as well as the IRS.
- thearchitect, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I knew someone who bought some supplies for set design at Home Depot. When he got home he had 5 cop cars at his house. Some of the materials he bought triggered one of the "Alerts". Big brother is definately watching you and the terrorist have already won.
- flatiron32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Too bad this is a column and not a story. It would be nice to see a reporter do a followup and determine what exactly happened. How often have you heard a story from your parents or grandparents that did not sound quite right? Or how often have you been mislead by people on the phone in a call center? There are no hard facts to this story, it is just a story.
- snarkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3
"2) if you aren't doing anything wrong, why be worried."
Because this is a republic. We have a constitution and a large body of settled law that delineates the power that we the people have granted to the government. We have not granted the government (who serves at our pleasure) the power to go snooping around willy nilly through our lives.
The government is our employee. How many bosses let their employees go snooping around in their inboxes our desk drawers? - m.sandstorm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I haven't read the article yet but this sounds similar to when you move too much money in or out of a bank account, about 10k. The Federal Gov't can question why this was done to determine if you're laundering (sp) money or not. I'm sure the amount has to be really high for it to catch their attention. Some amount that most people don't pay...most non-rich people anyway.
- Malakin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Yet again I'm happy to not be an American and not live in the US. No offense to any Americans, just your government...
- hordak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3>Also, ""Anyone willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither" - Benjamin Franklin I think...I probably botched the quote a bit, but you get the idea."... CAN WE GO ONE THREAD WITHOUT SOMEONE SAYING THIS??? WE GET IT!!!
No, because this is first time I've seen it, and I'm here mostly every day. Who knows how many others have not read it?
Nothing more here. Move along... :) - Prontech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4All I can say is SCARY SCARY SCARY ... The Bush administration as done more to turn back civil liberty than any other administation in history. They are so secretive and lie so much it's pathetic. Come on America ... take back our country and vote some good common sense people in to office.
- tmj3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I feel safer knowing that my anti-terrorism tax dollars are being used to root out these evil-doers. Who knows what people would be capable of if they weren't saddled with credit card debt?
- clownguyx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4A good quote never dies! :-)
- canUdiggit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For all of those who think this is about the Bush administration, the Bank Secrecy Act, not the Bank Privacy Act as incorrectly stated in the story, was in fact passed in 1970!!!! Yes this has been going on for over 30 years. It was updated after 9/11 as criminals use different tactics than they did in 1970.
What really happend to this guy in the story? He had to wait a few days before the payment was cleared. OH MY LORD!!! What a horror!!
If he really was trying to get out of debt, why was he so concerned that his available credit didn't change right away? Probably because he was trying to go right back out and rack up some debt.
Oh, and the $6,522 is NOT HIS MONEY. He borrowed that from the credit card and was paying it back. They need to make sure that his check clears before he starts spending again.
Lastly, the BSA's primary focus is anti-money laundering, not invading privacy. If this guy tried to spend $6500 at the same time as making a bogus payment, they bank could have been in trouble.
You can put your tin foil hats back on now people and find another conspiracy to bust. - hometoast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2how in the world does this even make sense?
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ everfalling: Goering was not the Nazi minister of propaganda. that was Joseph Goebbels. Goering was the head of the Luftwaffe and next in line to succede Hitler.
And a big fat drug addict. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I paid nearly 6,000 on my car loan last month just to whack it off my accounts list. No review by Homeland Security yet...
- plnegative1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2patriot act aka the im the government using terrorism as an excuse to steal your privacy act
- thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Some of you have some poor reading comprehension. It wasn't the act of spending the money that set off this alleged alert, it was the act of paying it off all in one lump sum.
The government encourages us to live in massive debt. They aren't going to flag you for spending $5 grand on your laptop or whatever else. Supposedly they flag large payments like that for something to do with terrorism... but maybe, just maybe, it's because someone who isn't in debt isn't a slave to others. Who knows. Either way, as far as I'm concerned, it's not their damned business. - lysdexic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Losing privacy is not the same as losing freedom... No rights have been lost, unless you consider privacy a right, which it is not."
Yes, actually it is. The constitution is a document which grants the government rights, not the people. The 10th ammendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or **to the people**.
This means that the people have every other right imaginable so long as they don't break a written law. Further, the government is specifically restricted from invading privacy by the 4th ammendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I really wouldn't worry about Homeland Security, folks. It's a puppet regime set up by the Bush Administration to hire his buddies.
If anyone recently saw the latest ABC Primetime special regarding online predators, their sting actuall busted an agent who worked for Homeland Security, so you can all feel safe that our country is being guarded by The United Arab Emerates and Child Molesters.
Way to go, Bush. - mgrasso, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3*****! I just paid off over $20,000 in credit card debt. No problems. I think this dude's credit card company made this up to cover up their mistake.
- fgb00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I bet the credit card companies started this rumor. ;-)
- fluxist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A few points from someone who works in all this:
The article is a ***** story from an old man who was lied to by a call center drone.
A $6000 payment may cause them to hold your check until it clears but it won't trigger a Suspicious Activity Report (unless you pay in postal money orders or something). And even if it did they don't freeze your account when a SAR is triggered, obviously, since they want that fact to remain unknown to the account holder.
And its not the Bank Privacy Act, its the Bank SECRECY Act (BSA) which is Anti-Money Laundering legislation. Google BSA if you want the details.
A CTR (CURRENCY Transaction Report) is only filed on cash deposits or withdrawals at or above $10,000 (not 3k nor 5k). - diggerphelps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"A penny saved is a penny earned." -- Ben Franklin
- bigfuzzyjesus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4First of all Bush was a better choice than Kerry hands down. Its not that making sure we aren't terrorists isn't wrong. Its the way they go around doing this. I'm really not that angry about the actual reviewing of your transactions, it's the whole principle of the thing. If they can look through our bank accounts cause we spent some money can they get a search warrant to our house because we bought a gun? Plus I cant believe we can be $8,226,015,057,365 in debt and still pay people to look at our ***** bank accounts to make sure a blue collar citizen isn't a member of the Al Queda.
Ridiculous. - mongocrush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yep pretty soon we are going to have to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights (It's the one about bearing arms for personal defense and to protect ourself from a government gone crazy) and take back our so called "Free State".
Whoops now the FBI is gonna flag me for this - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@evilbadger : Does anyone else not understand the connection between a credit card payment and terrorism?
Here's how it works: Steve, a construction worker, has lots of debt. Maybe he's going through a rough time and can't pay his bills. He's got creditors on his ass....if they take his car, he's really screwed.
Osama, a terrorist, has lots of money from his ties to the oil industry. But he really wants blueprints to that dam Steve's working on. Money changes hands. Osama gets his blueprints, and Steve pays off his debt. Everyone's happy.
Now you DO understand the connection between credit card payments and terrorism. - bradford, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Something is fundamentally flawed when a government views its own citizens as a security threat.
- nuxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1flak9:
yay! I'll be sure to get together a welcome wagon to greet you with a basket full of weed, beer, and of course Tim Horton's Coffee and Donuts!!
Canada Kicks ASS!! - everfalling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1'http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/02/28/cartoon-inside.jpg'
oh well that's kinda in bad taste isn't it? :/ - tdkme, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3yeah and so once again bush and his smarter than everyone else bullies get more stuff through and no one questions it. If you are not with them, you are against them thinking...... Just makes you wonder how many other things are hidden in the new law....
- Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
Why is this impacting everyone? Is it because the Administration does not want to be sued for being discriminating against Muslim Americans of Arab descent and thus must include everyone no matter how ridiculous it is?
Homeland Security should not be bothering Joe Average and looking at his credit card activity. If you are an immigrant or recently naturalized American citizen named Farook al Shabab and you have suspicious financial activity, then yes, they should investigate. If you are named Shamus McDuffy, travel to Ireland often, buy guns frequently at American gun shows, ship a lot of packages to Ireland, and make financial contributions to Sinn Fein, then Homeland Security should be investigating. Why? Because in both cases, you are a terrorist. Most likely.
Some Texan paying down his credit card debt is not a terrorist unless he packed a white hood in his suitcase. - flak9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thats it....final straw, I am moving to Canada tomorrow!
- dupswapdrop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is the same thing they tired to put on me once.
I payed off my card and the next month they charged me a $200 finance fee on a zero balance
they didn't take it off until I told them I was going to sue them over it.
never did tell me what the charge was for. - snowballs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1fgb00 at 01:50 PM, I'll bet you're right. Why would credit card companies want people to pay off their debt? The more people owe, i.e. the higher the balance - the more interest the credit card companies make...
I'm with the skeptics on this one - there's about 26 things wrong with this statement:
"as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center"
How many layers of management are in a credit card call center exactly?
But the real reason that I don't buy this is because if this is so, how does it work when people do debt consolidation - which probably averages far more than 6 grand. $6500 is not unusually large. In the +$20,000 range perhaps, but not 6,500. Besides, I don't think that terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up worry about credit card debt.
Bah, I say.
By the way, I heard that Benjamin Franklin had this same problem with his credit card company. - TripinVA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Consider this: only 1 senator voted against the Patriot Act.
And I support Russ Feingold to this day. - chewbaccapits, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"In otherwords there has to be EVIDENCE or a reasonable suspicion that one is involved in illegal activities to justify an invasion of your privacy, and it has to be approved by a judge."
Alberto Gonzales Defends Warrantless Wiretapping
In Washington, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday and defended the Bush administration’s decision to carry out warrant-less domestic eavesdropping. Gonzales insisted the program was legal and necessary and that mostly only Americans calling associates of Al Qaeda have been affected. But Republican and Democratic Senators raised numerous concerns over the surveillance. When asked why the president never went to Congress, Gonzales said "The short answer is that we didn't think we needed to, quite frankly." Republican Senator Lindsey Graham responded by saying "In all honesty, Mr. Attorney General the argument that you're making is very dangerous." This is Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy: "The president and the Justice Department have a constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. They do not write the laws. They do not pass the laws. They do not have unchecked powers to decide what laws to follow. And they certainly don't have the power to decide what laws to ignore. They cannot violate the laws and the rights of ordinary Americans. Mr. Attorney General, in America, our America, nobody is above the law, not even the president of the United States."
Source:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/07/1457254&mode=thread&tid=25 - Geniustwin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This type of nonsense is all your fault. Yes you, the one that voted for him, helped keep him in office. No, not you.
You.
You know who I'm talking about. - FatHed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I am more afraid of my rights being taken away by people who have made it impossible to speak against gays more than by anything the Patriot Act would do." by greg544
Your afraid of losing your rights, but want to take the rights of other AMERICANS away. I'm not even gay, but at least I understand that they are a minority in America, which by default means they should be protected against the majority that simply wants to take away rights. Even if you are Christan, how can you justify degrading other people to the point of sub-human?
To all u people that think the patriot act doesn't cause us to lose any rights, you are fools, every law makes someone lose a right. Also, just because our senators and representatives vote yes on it, doesn't mean the majority of americans want it. Take income tax for instance, congress passed the 16th admendmant without the help of the public, if you ask everyone in america, I'm sure lots of them want their money back. Now, that might not be in the best interest of the country. It wouldn't change their spending anyway, since they can't balance a budget.
Bush isn't fighting terrorism, hell, other than attacking 2 countries, we are either the same or worse off than we were before 9-11-2001. If they want to stop planes from being hijacked, make a law that says the cockpit cannot be accessible from the passenger cabin. I don't care how much the airline industry would complain, as far as I care, the public owns those corps, since we have been providing corp welfare to them for way to long. Kerry wouldn't have done a better job either. We as americans need to stop re-electing all the same idiots, or we need to stop wondering why nothing gets better here. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The problem with 1984 wasn't that the government saw everything. It was that everything was illegal. I don't care how much data they have on me, so long as they're not blackmailing me.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 172 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 