Why Is Avoiding Government Surveillance A Crime?
Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic says we should shift from looking at creepy Dennis Hastert's case -- being accused of the crime of "structuring," meaning withdrawing less than $10K at a time to avoid government scrutiny -- and look at this another way:
Imagine that a documentary filmmaker like Laura Poitras, whose films are critical of government surveillance, is buying a used video camera for $12,000. Vaguely knowing that a report to the federal government is generated for withdrawals of $10,000 or more, she thinks to herself, "What with my films criticizing NSA surveillance, I don't want to invite any extra scrutiny--out of an abundance of caution, or maybe even paranoia, I'm gonna take out $9,000 today and $3,000 tomorrow. The last thing I need is to give someone a pretext to hassle me."*That would be illegal, even though in this hypothetical she has committed no crime and is motivated, like many people, by a simple aversion to being monitored.
...Think of applying the same logic in another context.
What if the government installed surveillance cameras on various streets in a municipality and then made it a crime to walk along a route that skirted those cameras?
Of course, Hastert may also have committed more serious offenses. The current charges could be motivated by a desire to prosecute him for sex crimes. But that dodges the issue.
...If the state can decide that specific, legal behavior will trigger scrutiny by federal law enforcement and that any attempt to avoid that scrutiny is illegal, even if no other crime is proved, everyone's privacy and freedom from unjust arrest is undermined.
via @Overlawyered
Here's the fun part. Banks are required to report all transactions over $10,000. In theory, transactions of less than that are not reported. So how does the government know that you're doing that? There's only one possible answer:
The banks are reporting ALL transactions to the IRS. That's right, the government has your complete banking history, and any functionary can go through your transactions at any time to look for a financial crime to charge you with.
We are not citizens. We are subjects.
Cousin Dave at June 5, 2015 5:16 AM
If we were subjects, that would an improvement. There would be a sense of noblesse oblige on the part of our betters.
They don't have that sense. Serf is the word you're looking for.
And of course, now that the IRS has that data, I'm sure they're storing it securely and keeping it away from hackers. Wut?
I R A Darth Aggie at June 5, 2015 5:57 AM
The police can stop you for sloppy driving (swerving within your lane, for example) because it is evidence of possible criminal activity.
I believe there is case law in my state that says that the police can decide to stop you for PERFECT driving behavior, because that, too, is evidence of possible criminal activity (because, seriously, no one drives 3 miles per hour UNDER the speed limit unless they have a dead body in the trunk).
You can't win.
-Jut
JutGory at June 5, 2015 6:27 AM
The end game is to rid the country of cash to suppress counterfeiting, and force everyone to go to electronic transactions.
While I understand the rational, I think a country where all financial transactions are on record, and trace your every movement, will be considerably less free.
This is the part that bothers me. While I don't have anything to hide, government will undoubtedly start monitoring everyone buying guns and ammo, jfor example, ust because they can.
Isab at June 5, 2015 6:29 AM
"The banks are reporting ALL transactions to the IRS."
Cousin Dave,
I worked in wire transfer for a decent sized bank. It's been awhile, but if I remember correctly banks are required to file a "suspicious activity" report to the Federal Reserve if they notice a pattern of "stacking" in an account where it looks like someone is trying to avoid the magical $9,999 number.
I have no doubt the bank I worked for handed over any information requested by any federal agency whether we noticed something or not.
I agree with you that any bureaucrat with access to your financial records can find a "crime" to bring charges. The Institute of Justice has had several cases recently (I believe Amy has posted them) involving some agency seizing assets due to individuals making separate deposits that totaled over $10,000.
JFP at June 5, 2015 7:31 AM
Part of the training for cashier positions when I worked summer jobs at both Wal-Mart and Target emphasized company procedures were to report any money sent over $1000 to the company headquarters, so they could then determine if it was a structuring behavior and turn it over to the feds. I'd imagine this reporting compliance started with Sarbanes-Oxley's determination that the CEO and CFO can be held liable for any illegal actions of employees of the company. I can't imagine banks don't have similar set ups for trying to track and monitor structuring, so that they can avoid liability in any case brought against one of their clients. Is this insane? Yes, it is, but laws and their enforcement often have unintended consequences.
SPQR2008 at June 5, 2015 9:25 AM
My MIL retired from US Bank last year after 40-ish years there. She said any account that has 3 or more cash withdrawals or cash deposits per week are flagged and then monitored for a 3 month period internally. If it's fairly consistent or involves amounts over $1000 it gets reported. The same happens with any non-payroll deposits of over $5000. $10,000-plus deposits are reported immediately and triggers bank monitoring of transactions to look for patterns. It's a company thing to be more strict than the law requires because they are responsible for anything they missed if it is discovered during a criminal investigation but hadn't been reported as suspicious. Of course, any account can be flagged and reported for suspicious activity at the bank's discretion. And yes, this is largely due to SOX.
BunnyGirl at June 6, 2015 10:29 AM
“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
You're all probably tired of me trotting out this quote by now, but they do keep proving it true.
Rex Little at June 7, 2015 1:33 AM
"This is the part that bothers me. While I don't have anything to hide, government will undoubtedly start monitoring everyone buying guns and ammo, jfor example, ust because they can."
When ordinary citizens-going-about-their-business behavior is a felony, then you have, by definition, something to hide.
Cousin Dave at June 8, 2015 8:20 AM
Leave a comment