5 ms·

My first reaction to this story was outrage, followed by skepticism. The story around Operation Choke Point (OCP) appears to have taken a year long breather (th

My first reaction to this story was outrage, followed by skepticism. The story around Operation Choke Point (OCP) appears to have taken a year long breather (the first story about porn stars losing their bank accounts was reported in May 2013 http://www.cnbc.com/id/100746445 http://www.cnbc.com/id/100746445), only to resurface with a WSJ article on the subject: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304810904579511911684102106 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230481090.... The WSJ article was penned by former governor of Oklahoma and current American Bankers Association (ABA) President, Frank Keating. The ABA is a national trade association that represents all banks (source: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/09/capital-eye-opener-september-7.html http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/09/capital-eye-opener-s...), essentially a lobbying firm for the banking industry. One wonders why the banking industry would care enough to have the President of their lobbying firm publish a piece about this in the WSJ. Surely a Republican from Oklahoma cares little and less about the financial well being of porn stars. On the same exact day the WSJ article was published (April 24, 2014), an article written by Jason Oxman, CEO of the Electronic Transactions Association (another lobbying group) was published, also lambasting OCP: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/204174-operation-choke-point-harmful-to-flow-of-commerce http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/204174... These two articles, if you can call them that, given the authorship, are the only source pieces at the root of the current media interest in OCP. It's clear (to me anyhow) that the porn stars aren't the story here, they're just the fodder to get the people in a tizzy about OCP. I'm wondering what else is in involved in Operation Choke Point that's making the banking industry and the payment processors call out the big guns. Whatever it is, I imagine large sums of money are involved.

tptacek 12y ago
Weird. I looked up Operation Choke Point and you're right, the lead-off stories are from Keating and Oxman, followed by an article in Reason, all suggesting that OCP is a scheme run by DOJ to suppress legal businesses through the banking system. Then I found a WaPo article saying that OCP was a scheme by DOJ to monitor and constrain fraudulent businesses like payday loans and prepaid cards. Before your comment, I had no inkling that any of these enforcement actions might have been orginating with DOJ at all. I figured, Chase just doesn't want to service the porn industry. But it looks like that's not actually the case! My priors indicate that the Democratic DOJ is not actually launching a shadow jihad against porn (of all things) by intervening in the bank system. That's just not a Dem issue. On the other hand, consumer financial fraud is a top-tier issue for the DOJ under any administration, liberal or conservative. Occam's razor suggests the WaPo is probably right-er than some op-ed by a banking lobbyist. Why are EFF and Reason and the largest bank lobby campaigning against OCP? Weird! Thanks for pointing this out. I flagged the story originally, but have now unflagged it.
- pmorici 12y ago
  "Why are EFF and Reason and the largest bank lobby campaigning against OCP?" Because the DOJ shouldn't be using the regulatory bureaucracy to make an end run around congress to close down businesses they don't like that are otherwise legal? What happens if they decide next that they don't like gun shops or abortion clinics or businesses that are owned by <insert discriminated group> here. If these businesses are doing something wrong then shut them down legitimately under the law or have the law changed to outlaw them but allowing some official in the DOJ to use bank regulation to for them out of business is not right.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    If that was the argument, why not make it directly? Why does the EFF frame the problem in terms of "feminist porn" while burying the lede on payday loan scams? It seems increasingly clear that nobody at DOJ gives a shit what kind of porn you watch. They're just tired of auto-billing scams.
    - pmorici 12y ago
      Are we reading the same article because I feel like they are making that argument. Payday loans maybe a bad deal but they aren't inherently scams. At any rate if these are scams then why aren't they being addressed through the courts instead of via this extrajudicial method?
hga 12y ago
Just what are you trying to say here, besides pointing out the banking industry is making a significant propaganda effort right now? Do you think the industry likes the Federal government using lawless means to force them to stop serving whomever is the target de jure? Is it axiomatic that banks dealing with large sums of money is bad??? (I kinda thought that was their business....) If this precedent is established and takes roots, where will it stop? What are your objections to their using the soap box to try put a stop to it?
- betterunix 12y ago
  Not that I want to that guy, but... "If this president is established and takes roots"
- tptacek 12y ago
  Can I for once be the origin of a crazy conspiracy theory rather than the annoying guy huffing and griping in the corner and killing everyone's fun? How about this: DOJ has launched a project that coordinates with the country's largest banks to constrain and monitor high-fraud businesses; say, porn sites, prepaid cards, and payday loans. Porn doesn't have a significant lobby. But payday loans and prepaid cards sure as hell do. Unfortunately for those lobbies, it's unseemly to write op-eds about how the DOJ and banks are collaborating to suppress the exploitation of poor people. It is, however, possible to get stories placed about the government's secret plan to create a Morality Police Force to eliminate pornography and, one assumes, any other form of expression the government disfavors.
  - hga 12y ago
    So they're now "high-fraud" businesses, vs. "fraudulent businesses" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7671113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7671113)? And this must be some new meaning of the word "constrain" I wasn't previously acquainted with. This "operation" appears to be intended to terminate these "undesirable" businesses with extreme prejudice, and without the pesky Rule of Law getting in the way.
    - 12y ago
vfclists 12y ago
Isn't the proper thing to do is for banking to be made an utility service, like gas or electricity, which banks are required by law to provide, as long as the payment is for a legitimate or non-prohibited transaction?

tptacek 12y ago

Weird. I looked up Operation Choke Point and you're right, the lead-off stories are from Keating and Oxman, followed by an article in Reason, all suggesting that OCP is a scheme run by DOJ to suppress legal businesses through the banking system. Then I found a WaPo article saying that OCP was a scheme by DOJ to monitor and constrain fraudulent businesses like payday loans and prepaid cards. Before your comment, I had no inkling that any of these enforcement actions might have been orginating with DOJ at all. I figured, Chase just doesn't want to service the porn industry. But it looks like that's not actually the case! My priors indicate that the Democratic DOJ is not actually launching a shadow jihad against porn (of all things) by intervening in the bank system. That's just not a Dem issue. On the other hand, consumer financial fraud is a top-tier issue for the DOJ under any administration, liberal or conservative. Occam's razor suggests the WaPo is probably right-er than some op-ed by a banking lobbyist. Why are EFF and Reason and the largest bank lobby campaigning against OCP? Weird! Thanks for pointing this out. I flagged the story originally, but have now unflagged it.

pmorici 12y ago
"Why are EFF and Reason and the largest bank lobby campaigning against OCP?" Because the DOJ shouldn't be using the regulatory bureaucracy to make an end run around congress to close down businesses they don't like that are otherwise legal? What happens if they decide next that they don't like gun shops or abortion clinics or businesses that are owned by <insert discriminated group> here. If these businesses are doing something wrong then shut them down legitimately under the law or have the law changed to outlaw them but allowing some official in the DOJ to use bank regulation to for them out of business is not right.
- tptacek 12y ago
  If that was the argument, why not make it directly? Why does the EFF frame the problem in terms of "feminist porn" while burying the lede on payday loan scams? It seems increasingly clear that nobody at DOJ gives a shit what kind of porn you watch. They're just tired of auto-billing scams.
  - pmorici 12y ago
    Are we reading the same article because I feel like they are making that argument. Payday loans maybe a bad deal but they aren't inherently scams. At any rate if these are scams then why aren't they being addressed through the courts instead of via this extrajudicial method?

hga 12y ago

Just what are you trying to say here, besides pointing out the banking industry is making a significant propaganda effort right now? Do you think the industry likes the Federal government using lawless means to force them to stop serving whomever is the target de jure? Is it axiomatic that banks dealing with large sums of money is bad??? (I kinda thought that was their business....) If this precedent is established and takes roots, where will it stop? What are your objections to their using the soap box to try put a stop to it?

betterunix 12y ago
Not that I want to that guy, but... "If this president is established and takes roots"
tptacek 12y ago
Can I for once be the origin of a crazy conspiracy theory rather than the annoying guy huffing and griping in the corner and killing everyone's fun? How about this: DOJ has launched a project that coordinates with the country's largest banks to constrain and monitor high-fraud businesses; say, porn sites, prepaid cards, and payday loans. Porn doesn't have a significant lobby. But payday loans and prepaid cards sure as hell do. Unfortunately for those lobbies, it's unseemly to write op-eds about how the DOJ and banks are collaborating to suppress the exploitation of poor people. It is, however, possible to get stories placed about the government's secret plan to create a Morality Police Force to eliminate pornography and, one assumes, any other form of expression the government disfavors.
- hga 12y ago
  So they're now "high-fraud" businesses, vs. "fraudulent businesses" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7671113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7671113)? And this must be some new meaning of the word "constrain" I wasn't previously acquainted with. This "operation" appears to be intended to terminate these "undesirable" businesses with extreme prejudice, and without the pesky Rule of Law getting in the way.
  - 12y ago

vfclists 12y ago

Isn't the proper thing to do is for banking to be made an utility service, like gas or electricity, which banks are required by law to provide, as long as the payment is for a legitimate or non-prohibited transaction?