Is There Anyone Who Isn't Spying On Us?
So first we learn that the NYPD is sending covert agents, not only outside New York City, not only outside New York State, but even outside the country to collect data on law-abiding citizens engaging in law-abiding activities.
Now we learn that even car rental agencies and mortgage companies are playing the pawns of Big Brother:
The Office of Foreign Asset Control’s list of “specially designated nationals” has long been used by banks and other financial institutions to block financial transactions of drug dealers and other criminals. But an executive order issued by President Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has expanded the list and its consequences in unforeseen ways. Businesses have used it to screen applicants for home and car loans, apartments and even exercise equipment, according to interviews and a report by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area to be issued today.“The way in which the list is being used goes far beyond contexts in which it has a link to national security,” said Shirin Sinnar, the report’s author. “The government is effectively conscripting private businesses into the war on terrorism but doing so without making sure that businesses don’t trample on individual rights.”
Because of course there’s always the risk that al Qaeda will fly a sub-compact — or a mortgage — into a skyscraper.
And it is of course not al Qaeda whose transactions are blocked. People with partial name matches get flagged, and the penalties for firms that “do business with terrorists” are so draconian that it makes more sense for them to simply decline the business rather than risk a run-in with the government.
Implementing a (hopefully) reliable system of keeping “suspicious” (defined how?) individuals off commercial airliners is not per se irrational. Keeping “not truly suspicious” people from renting a car or getting a home equity loan is per se irrational — as is conscripting private businesses to do to the government’s work.
Meanwhile, keep in mind that even before the War on Terror, utilities could and did gleefully turn over customer records, on the (preposterous) Supreme Court reasoning that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their phone or electric bill. One must also assume that the same reasoning would apply to pay-per-view purchases and DVD rentals.
It is still unsettled as to how private one’s library usage may be. And we were also just told that the FBI has been so slap-happy with its use of National Security Letters and FISA warrant applications, that even they can’t calculate exactly how many times they’ve broken the law.
So I ask again: Is there anyone who isn’t spying on us?
The terrorists want to destroy our way of life. They are succeeding.
Similar Posts:
- On the Constitutional Impropriety of Micro-Surveillance
- Domestic Spying Update
- Craig Isn’t the Only Flamer in Idaho
- “I, Commission”
- Pentagon: Punish Law Firms Defending Gitmo Prisoners
Filed under: Uncategorized
Real estate title insurers are facing the same type of thing. At my old job at a local agency, in addition to running the routine searches (title, probate, bankruptcy, etc.) we had to access a secret government database, consisting of secret liens against *names* of people. We would not be allowed to tell the people that their names are on a secret government list, ergo, they could not cure the title defect. So our underwriters decided that if we ever came up against one of these "Terrorist liens" that we would simply decline to do business with them.
Thanks for foiling the latest plot to use our McMansions against us.
Our domestic information-gathering apparatus grows ever more insidious.
I work in foreign exchange, one arena you'd think the OFAC is appropriate. But the consequences to an institution should it fail to screen out a risk are so great, that businesses over apply it. As Kip says, even a partial match will cause most institutions to reflexively refuse service. Companies are much more fearful of running afoul of the OFAC than running afoul of their customers in some cases.
The OFAC has no budget of it's own. It is funded entirely by the fines it levies. So it has an enormous incentive to issue citations to companies, as well as increase the scope of industries that must use it.
Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.
This is outrageous. The government has bullied private companies into carrying out its dirty work, with liability-averse private companies naturally erring on the side of caution. A couple told they would need to wait 72 hours for a loan for a treadmill because the husband's first name was Hussein? These regs are absolutely insane.
As near as I can see from a cursory examination of the list, it primarily affects Muslims and Hispanics. Thankfully, my name is too unique and too Anglo to catch the attention of screeners, but one really wonders how many people were caught up in this.