6 ms·

Note that this is a corporation not releasing funds, not the government so the constitution doesn’t apply. In this case it would be the terms of service which l

by orbz 4y ago

Note that this is a corporation not releasing funds, not the government so the constitution doesn’t apply. In this case it would be the terms of service which likely calls out this as a possibility.

josephcsible 4y ago
> Note that this is a corporation not releasing funds, not the government so the constitution doesn’t apply. You'd be right if corporations decided to do that on their own, but the anti-money-laundering law says that corporations have to do that.
Y_Y 4y ago
But the constitution applies to the law and the law applies to the company. They can't do whatever they want just because they aren't the government.
- from 4y ago
  The government (FBI, HSI, DEA, Treasury) wants to do all of this but can't because of the great constitutional liberties we have in this country. So they decided to outsource all this enforcement to financial institutions (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/21.11#k https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/21.11#k). And when financial institutions in the past weren't as arbitrary and capricious in enforcing the vague government's vague rules as the government liked they fined them hundreds of millions of dollars. So now everyone is like Paypal and apparently this is supposed to be a good thing. Read enforcement actions by the government. There will be a financial institution with tens or hundreds of thousands of customers and the government will use them failing to find three suspicious customers as a basis for enormous fines (https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement_action/2021-12-16/CBOT_Enf_Action_121621_508%20_FINAL.pdf https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement_actio... is a good example). Another thing you'll find if you read enforcement actions is that the government barely even cares what was illegal or not - they fine institutions for not reporting "suspicious" activity (without themselves investigating whether it was legal or not).
  - csomar 4y ago
    I think what comes to people as a surprise is that the government, by default, considers any activity that it, the government, is not doing to be suspicious. The government, as entity, functions to extend its reach and not to serve citizens. This is by design. The government could care less if you lost access to your money if it means they have more control over the financial system. The tiniest gain of control is worth it for the bureaucracy even if it means locking hundreds of thousands of people out of their savings.
than3 4y ago
Unfortunately that is often the case. The question that naturally comes to my mind is, shouldn't corporations who are acting on behalf of government be bound by the same rules as government.

by orbz 4y ago

josephcsible 4y ago

> Note that this is a corporation not releasing funds, not the government so the constitution doesn’t apply. You'd be right if corporations decided to do that on their own, but the anti-money-laundering law says that corporations have to do that.

Y_Y 4y ago

But the constitution applies to the law and the law applies to the company. They can't do whatever they want just because they aren't the government.

from 4y ago
The government (FBI, HSI, DEA, Treasury) wants to do all of this but can't because of the great constitutional liberties we have in this country. So they decided to outsource all this enforcement to financial institutions (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/21.11#k https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/21.11#k). And when financial institutions in the past weren't as arbitrary and capricious in enforcing the vague government's vague rules as the government liked they fined them hundreds of millions of dollars. So now everyone is like Paypal and apparently this is supposed to be a good thing. Read enforcement actions by the government. There will be a financial institution with tens or hundreds of thousands of customers and the government will use them failing to find three suspicious customers as a basis for enormous fines (https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement_action/2021-12-16/CBOT_Enf_Action_121621_508%20_FINAL.pdf https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement_actio... is a good example). Another thing you'll find if you read enforcement actions is that the government barely even cares what was illegal or not - they fine institutions for not reporting "suspicious" activity (without themselves investigating whether it was legal or not).
- csomar 4y ago
  I think what comes to people as a surprise is that the government, by default, considers any activity that it, the government, is not doing to be suspicious. The government, as entity, functions to extend its reach and not to serve citizens. This is by design. The government could care less if you lost access to your money if it means they have more control over the financial system. The tiniest gain of control is worth it for the bureaucracy even if it means locking hundreds of thousands of people out of their savings.

than3 4y ago

Unfortunately that is often the case. The question that naturally comes to my mind is, shouldn't corporations who are acting on behalf of government be bound by the same rules as government.