4 ms·

There are a lot of things that are great weapons against organized crime, human traffickers, and terrorist groups that are unacceptable as law enforcement techn

There are a lot of things that are great weapons against organized crime, human traffickers, and terrorist groups that are unacceptable as law enforcement techniques. The fact that something is a good weapon against crime is not sufficient justification. It also needs to be shown that such weapons are not unduly harmful to law-abiding citizens. Honestly, it's not something I'd thought about much before all the recent government crackdowns on money transmitters. But when I stop to take a look at it, it seems to me that the freedom to exchange money without government interference is close to a fundamental human right. When I look at it carefully, it seems very very strange that we've accepted that governments have the right to minutely examine what we do with the fruits of our labors. I get that it's a good tool to stop crime, but so is listening to every phone call. So is recording every move every person makes in public. We're starting to see resistance to movement in those directions, why should our economic actions be subject to the same level of scrutiny? I'm not ready to throw out the whole shebang, but I've started to think there should be some firm limits.

vecinu 13y ago
I don't agree with you. This should be a simple A/B test in my opinion. Inspect every single monetary transaction. Measure the results. Do not inspect every monetary transaction. Measure the results. Has money laundering and crime increase or decreased? If it has increased, inspect every monetary transaction, assuming all other variables stay constant.
- btilly 13y ago
  The statistics behind A/B testing only works if things are uncorrelated and independent. If criminals do know know whether they are A or B, then the existence of the A group can deter crime in the B group. Given the increased scrutiny on A, you're likely to catch more crimes there. That doesn't mean that B doesn't have uncaught crimes though. Thus your test is fundamentally messed up both coming and going.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  > assuming all other variables stay constant. This is where you fail. Let's suppose that monitoring all monetary transactions actually does reduce crime. But the apparatus for doing so legitimizes similar actions by oppressive governments, which use it to suppress democracy activists rather than terrorists, and in so doing use the tools we built which they would not have had the funds or local knowledge to build themselves. And if you don't care about those people, imagine what happens if our own government should ever turn malicious, or fall under foreign control, and have this ability to prevent our citizens from funding a resistance. Then there is the danger of all this data falling into the wrong hands. Requiring it to be collected creates a secret which in the aggregate amounts to a national security threat. If you know who is paying whom for what and in what amount, you can commit industrial espionage on a massive scale. You know where strategic weaknesses are because you know which company doesn't purchase reinforcing materials for its products, you know how much capital an important defense contractor has in reserve before it goes into financial straits that impair its ability to operate effectively, you know who isn't insured against specific risks and could be bankrupted if they were contrived to occur, etc. This is effectively the same trouble as mandating lawful intercept backdoors. The damage you cause by creating immensely powerful surveillance tools that inevitably fall into the wrong hands by far outweighs the cost of requiring law enforcement to use the more traditional methods of catching criminals.
  - genwin 13y ago
    Good thoughts. Our own government couldn't be trusted with this today. The US has a recent history of thwarting and toppling democracy, ignoring our Constitution while supporting oppressive governments.
- bdcravens 13y ago
  There's a number of interests outside that potentially usurp efficacy of crime reduction. The cost of 100% monitoring, or moral/ethical interests (I deserve some degree of privacy)
msellout 13y ago
It seems natural that methods of exchanging money are constrained by methods of property preservation. Neither money nor property exist without government. Sure, you can say that bottle caps and a fence might do the trick, but those don't have the same force.
- defen 13y ago
  Money is simply what everyone agrees is money. It can certainly exist without government. It would probably not be a fiat currency, but rather something like gold or silver.
sliverstorm 13y ago
'Anti-money laundering' isn't the government tracking your every purchase in a big 'ol database. This is you withdrawing $20,000 from the bank and the government making note of it. The only time they actually interfere is when they believe crime is going on, which is how things always go. Are you saying they should be blinded so that they don't accidentally accost people who are not engaged in crime?
- genwin 13y ago
  And when do they believe crime is going on? When you're driving with cash, no more evidence and no conviction needed to confiscate that cash, says the law. Search for: Eighth Circuit Appeals Court ruling says police may seize cash from motorists even in the absence of any evidence that a crime has been committed. > should [they] be blinded so that they don't accidentally accost people who are not engaged in crime? Given the law above, yes. So they don't intentionally accost people to get their cash.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    That seems like "solving" the wrong problem. How is preventing the government from tracing very large transactions going to do anything to stop them from conducting random searches of your car and seizing cash you had on-hand?
    - genwin 13y ago
      It prevents the gov't from conducting nonrandom searches of your car to seize your cash they know you just withdrew.
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        Ok, I would really like some evidence that the government is tracking your withdraws and dispatching police cruisers to pull you over and confiscate the money.
        13y ago

vecinu 13y ago

I don't agree with you. This should be a simple A/B test in my opinion. Inspect every single monetary transaction. Measure the results. Do not inspect every monetary transaction. Measure the results. Has money laundering and crime increase or decreased? If it has increased, inspect every monetary transaction, assuming all other variables stay constant.

btilly 13y ago
The statistics behind A/B testing only works if things are uncorrelated and independent. If criminals do know know whether they are A or B, then the existence of the A group can deter crime in the B group. Given the increased scrutiny on A, you're likely to catch more crimes there. That doesn't mean that B doesn't have uncaught crimes though. Thus your test is fundamentally messed up both coming and going.
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
> assuming all other variables stay constant. This is where you fail. Let's suppose that monitoring all monetary transactions actually does reduce crime. But the apparatus for doing so legitimizes similar actions by oppressive governments, which use it to suppress democracy activists rather than terrorists, and in so doing use the tools we built which they would not have had the funds or local knowledge to build themselves. And if you don't care about those people, imagine what happens if our own government should ever turn malicious, or fall under foreign control, and have this ability to prevent our citizens from funding a resistance. Then there is the danger of all this data falling into the wrong hands. Requiring it to be collected creates a secret which in the aggregate amounts to a national security threat. If you know who is paying whom for what and in what amount, you can commit industrial espionage on a massive scale. You know where strategic weaknesses are because you know which company doesn't purchase reinforcing materials for its products, you know how much capital an important defense contractor has in reserve before it goes into financial straits that impair its ability to operate effectively, you know who isn't insured against specific risks and could be bankrupted if they were contrived to occur, etc. This is effectively the same trouble as mandating lawful intercept backdoors. The damage you cause by creating immensely powerful surveillance tools that inevitably fall into the wrong hands by far outweighs the cost of requiring law enforcement to use the more traditional methods of catching criminals.
- genwin 13y ago
  Good thoughts. Our own government couldn't be trusted with this today. The US has a recent history of thwarting and toppling democracy, ignoring our Constitution while supporting oppressive governments.
bdcravens 13y ago
There's a number of interests outside that potentially usurp efficacy of crime reduction. The cost of 100% monitoring, or moral/ethical interests (I deserve some degree of privacy)

msellout 13y ago

It seems natural that methods of exchanging money are constrained by methods of property preservation. Neither money nor property exist without government. Sure, you can say that bottle caps and a fence might do the trick, but those don't have the same force.

defen 13y ago
Money is simply what everyone agrees is money. It can certainly exist without government. It would probably not be a fiat currency, but rather something like gold or silver.

sliverstorm 13y ago

'Anti-money laundering' isn't the government tracking your every purchase in a big 'ol database. This is you withdrawing $20,000 from the bank and the government making note of it. The only time they actually interfere is when they believe crime is going on, which is how things always go. Are you saying they should be blinded so that they don't accidentally accost people who are not engaged in crime?

genwin 13y ago
And when do they believe crime is going on? When you're driving with cash, no more evidence and no conviction needed to confiscate that cash, says the law. Search for: Eighth Circuit Appeals Court ruling says police may seize cash from motorists even in the absence of any evidence that a crime has been committed. > should [they] be blinded so that they don't accidentally accost people who are not engaged in crime? Given the law above, yes. So they don't intentionally accost people to get their cash.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  That seems like "solving" the wrong problem. How is preventing the government from tracing very large transactions going to do anything to stop them from conducting random searches of your car and seizing cash you had on-hand?
  - genwin 13y ago
    It prevents the gov't from conducting nonrandom searches of your car to seize your cash they know you just withdrew.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      Ok, I would really like some evidence that the government is tracking your withdraws and dispatching police cruisers to pull you over and confiscate the money.
      - 13y ago