Another way to get the DHS after you

[topaz]

They didn't just spy though. The money was locked down. This has happened to innocent people: Suddenly the money in your bank account is unavailable to you. You lose your job, your home, your reputation. And then after months or years you get cleared, "ok, we just thought you were a terrorist, but you're not, so you can go, here are your things back". But your life has been ruined; bills don't stop coming just because the government has your bank account on lockdown.

That is what is so wrong.

Really? Has something as disasterous as the above ever happened? You have a skill for arousing demoagoguery. Let's stick to whats on the article, ok?

I'm personally not so worried about that part of it. Once the person realizes it, it can be straightened out in not a whole lot of time. It's just the fact that the government is watching everything you do, and if you make the wrong move you're flagged as a potential threat. As soon as you become a potential threat, they can do things like tap your phone without a warrant. That's what worries me.

It's the trade off you make for security.

They got a new job?  They won money?  They earned a bonus?  They realized that they were getting way too far in debt and put an entire paycheck on your card?  They borrowed money from a friend?  And he went from a few hundred to $6000.  $6000 isn't terribly hard to come by, and thats the amount that triggered the issue for these people.

Problem is, terrorists are likely intelligent enough to siphon off funds in small amounts to try and avoid the government's all-seeing eye.

[Adron]

Really? Has something as disasterous as the above ever happened? You have a skill for arousing demoagoguery. Let's stick to whats on the article, ok?

Yup, has happened. Three swedish citizens were on the list the US presented to the UN for global lockdown of assets. Later, assets were released as they were no longer suspected of terrorism.

[Newby]

I accept some level of surveillence, of course, in key areas.

Large amounts of funding being moved, so large that it's a huge percentage larger than average, is pretty fucking key to the government. You have to think, "Why are they suddenly pushing $100K when their average payment is $10-20K?" (example)

They got a new job?  They won money?  They earned a bonus?  They realized that they were getting way too far in debt and put an entire paycheck on your card?  They borrowed money from a friend?  And he went from a few hundred to $6000.  $6000 isn't terribly hard to come by, and thats the amount that triggered the issue for these people.

A few hundred (let's say, $500) to $6000 is nearly a 1200% increase in payment. That's a huge percentage increase and certainly deserves a red flag.

[iago]

I accept some level of surveillence, of course, in key areas.

Large amounts of funding being moved, so large that it's a huge percentage larger than average, is pretty fucking key to the government. You have to think, "Why are they suddenly pushing $100K when their average payment is $10-20K?" (example)

They got a new job?  They won money?  They earned a bonus?  They realized that they were getting way too far in debt and put an entire paycheck on your card?  They borrowed money from a friend?  And he went from a few hundred to $6000.  $6000 isn't terribly hard to come by, and thats the amount that triggered the issue for these people.

A few hundred (let's say, $500) to $6000 is nearly a 1200% increase in payment. That's a huge percentage increase and certainly deserves a red flag.

They could have gotten the money in any of the ways I listed.  None of them involves anything dirty.  And a small value like $6000 isn't exactly a huge amount. 

What if their regular payment was $20, and they decided to pay $240.  $240 could come from anywhere.  But that's still a 1200% increase. 

I am more worried about how this affects you. Privacy in itself does not matter if it has no effect. You can say you are worried about privacy, but so far I think it is still all effects of loss of privacy that you are worried about.

How it affects you is important, no doubt.  But I am still worried that they are watching completely innocent actions and marking people as "potential terrorists" for doing just about nothing.  There is no way that the government should be meddling so deep, in my opinion. 

[hismajesty]

I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with the government on this. It seems to me that, based on that, your stand would be disagreeing. You're saying that an ordinary person with no record who pays off his credit card is being treated the same way as a bank robber?

I'm agreeing with the government. Whenever something out of the norm happens, such as somebody suddenly dropping large sums of money, I feel it should be investigated.

[iago]

I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with the government on this. It seems to me that, based on that, your stand would be disagreeing. You're saying that an ordinary person with no record who pays off his credit card is being treated the same way as a bank robber?

I'm agreeing with the government. Whenever something out of the norm happens, such as somebody suddenly dropping large sums of money, I feel it should be investigated.

$6000 isn't all that large.  I disagree with normal people being treated the same as bankrobbers, but that's just me.

[Arta]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060309/0756236_F.shtml

[topaz]

$6000 isn't all that large. I disagree with normal people being treated the same as bankrobbers, but that's just me.

...Wow. "but thats just me"? Good way to act position-neutral while really thinking the government is wrong to do this.