Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Secretly Tapping Bank Databases

The Washington Post and New York Times are reporting on a Bush administration initiative that has tapped into a vast global database of confidential financial transactions for nearly five years. Relying on a presidential emergency declaration made under the International Emergency Economic Powers, the administration has been surveilling the data from the SWIFT database, which links about 7,800 banks and brokerages and handles billions of transactions a year. From the article:
Together with a hundredfold expansion of the FBI's use of "national security letters" to obtain communications and banking records, the secret NSA and Treasury programs have built unprecedented government databases of private transactions, most of them involving people who prove irrelevant to terrorism investigators.
The NYTimes goes on to say that the joint CIA-Treasury program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia. Still, the access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, and concerns were raised about legal and privacy issues.

18 of 537 comments (clear)

  1. Corporate advantage? by Manip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anyone else worry that the USA might use its intelligent services to give its corporate entities an advantage over foreign ones?

    If they use the information purely to look for money laundering or terrorism then that's cool, it would be 99% automated anyway... Looking for patterns and the like... But what if the security services use that information to give helpful hints to US companies over the international counterparts? Is that fair?

    We are talking about large amounts of money, and most of us know that money can lead people to act less than morally, so it isn't a far stretch to believe that they might do that... Even be authorised to do that.

    1. Re:Corporate advantage? by Tx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, come on. We all know that the US government subsidizes Boeing and the like through military contracts and the like, so get off your frigging high horse. At least in Europe we're up front about subsidies, rather than the hypocritical US position of paying lip service to free market principles, while being protectionist as hell in reality.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
  2. quick success by swissfondue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the US found a quick way to access international payment flows. I wonder about their "successes", which sound a lot like the "take our word for it, we know Saddam has chemical weapons". Also SWIFT, a seemingly international organization, has in fact confirmed it is controlled by the US by agreeing to pass all its data to the US. I wonder what its Arab clients are thinking. SWIFT can probably now close shop.

    --
    Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
    1. Re:quick success by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I always love that response: "We didn't find WMD's? Well then, he must have moved them." That's the perfect bulletproof argument. You can use it for unicorns too: "We haven't seen any? Well then, they must be hiding."

      Mod me down all you want. It's still true.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  3. Re:A message from the right by EGSonikku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uh oh you caught me!

    You are right though, in reality I do not mind secret courts, phone tapping, bank tapping, warrantless searches, americans being held indefinatly without access to a lawyer or charges being filed, torture, secret prisons, war, CIA leaks, and our spending more money on defense than all other countries on the planet combined and doubled while our education and healthcare go down the toilet and we run up a defecit that cannot reasonably be paid in the next 5 generations.

    Yup, red handed. Was just trying to annoy you, my bad. :-(

    Can we go back to blaming communism?

    --
    - "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
  4. Re:Secretly? by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why don't companies announce immediately when they have been forced to do something by the government against their will (like Google)? As far as I was aware America is still a country where you can speak freely against the government without fear of punishment. Why not just admit it in public that you are being forced to hand over confidential information? If the banks are hiding it too, then they are as much to blame and should not be trusted.

    Or is the government using threats to keep the banks quiet? If so, what threats do they use? And can anything be done about it to make sure it doesn't happen again?


    In the case of the NSA tapping the phone switches, the threat was that of "future government contracts and renegotiations" which was/is CONSIDERABLE $$$. Since Google doesn't have the same business model (lots of $$ from lots of sources instead of lots of $$ from few sources), they had the flexibility (and dare I say it...freedom) to speak out loud.

  5. Re:I don't know what's worse... by I+am+Jack's+username · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The fact that this is happening or the fact that this does not surprise me anymore. Every election year I tell myself I'll vote with my conscious and vote Libertarian. Screw that, I just want these f***ers OUT now.
    - Lobo (10944)

    I can understand how people who agree with the Democratic/Republican platforms can vote for them - I fundamentally disagree with their platforms, but I know lots of folk think it's a-okay.

    I can understand people who who've never even compared the platforms of the other parties voting Democrat/Republican:

    "On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

    "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

    "I did," said ford. "It is."

    "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

    "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

    "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

    "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

    "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

    "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
    - So long, and thanks for all the fish - Douglas Adams

    What I don't understand is how people can choose the lesser evil to try to just slow the downward spiral. It's still a downward spiral even if it's a bit slower - the result is the same. Sure, if you're old you might not have to deal with the end result, but even then, do you really not care about the people coming after you?

    Don't you want to do the right thing? Even if the party you vote for looses, doing the right thing is surely better than actually voting for the Democrats/Republicans?:

    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - Eugene Victor Debs
  6. Re: And the worst is... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Cheney doesnt even have the grace to be emberassed about it.

    If he's not embarassed to argue in favor of torture, why should a little thing like this faze him?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  7. Not taking it sitting down by Tony · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So far it seems though, and I say this as a foreign observer, that America is taking it all sitting down.

    We're not taking it sitting down. We're taking it in the ass, bent over the lap of a bound lady liberty. And the funny thing is, there's a bunch of folks saying they absolutely love it, because George Bush said they love it.

    "C'mon, you know you love it!" he says. But still they don't squirm like he likes, so he says, "Terrorism! 9/11!"

    And then they orgasm. "Oooo, I just love you, Mr. President!" And they say, "Those other people who don't love getting raped in the ass by their government are nothing but liberal crybabies." Because it's easier for them to call names and ignore the waxing fascism than it is for them to admit the truth: they support a fascist regime that has not made us one iota safer.

    They, the party that once called for reduced government interference in our lives, are whining about how fucking great it is that the government is more involved in our lives to the point where they know how we spend our money and whom we call, and they are telling us how to think.

    So, no. We're not taking it sitting down. We can't sit down. Our asses are sore.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  8. Re:I don't know what's worse... by jusdisgi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Libertarian the word has some nice ideas attached to it. The active political party identified as the Libertarian party is full of crazies, or at least, really extreme viewpoints.

    No, you've got it backwards. Libertarian, the ideal, is an extreme viewpoint. Furthermore, its basic tenants (government is always inefficient, the unregulated free market will work smoothly and provide for everyone's best interest, individuals can provide for their own security) are demonstrably false. There are some Libertarian people out there that aren't insane...but I frequently question whether they've really thought through to the inevitabilities of what Libertarianism leads to when actually put into practice.

    --
    Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
  9. Re: Wow by cluckshot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are not fools. (Mods if you don't like the truth just comment against it or get a life) The guys who are doing this monitoring have a full plan to monitor all data that can be collected on every person on the earth. I know this because I have read the Requests for Proposals from the various agencies involved. There can be only one logical conclusion of this effort. These guys want to establish a world wide Gestapo or SS. They intend to do so with impunity. They will do just as the NAZI's did, and cover their mafactor status as being "anti-terrorist".

    For those who don't believe this just test a few facts. These people know full well that Al Qaeda doesn't use the modern banking system. These people know full well that their efforts have little or no effect on Al Qaeda. At the same time these people refuse to do border enforcement or any of the requested security measures already law in the USA which would protect the people from real terrorism. Where for example is the phone number where a US Citizen may call and have an illegal or undesirable alien (One who is acting badly for those who don't understand) promptly and properly dealt with under law. Where I live, if I call the Sheriff I may see an officer in 1 hour or so depending on the time of day. If I called about a real live Al Qaeda member to the US Border Patrol or ICE the call would never be responded to. There are only 65 ICE agents actually empowered to make arrests in the USA as a whole. Surely this tells the truth about the real intent here. It is pretty undeniable.

    What is developing is obvious in another arena. George Bush has not issued a single Veto since he became president. This is because his treasure trove of info arrived at by this nefarious means that he couches as "Anti-Terrorist Efforts" actually is used as extortion against US Senators and Representatives who dare vote against his plans. This is why all measures always pass with at least a minimal margin no matter what. He doesn't care to eliminate the Congress as he controls it by this means.

    My US Senator Jeff Sessions has come under serious pressure trying to destroy his career as a US Senator because he spoke up against the Immigration lies that were being spread. The cost he has paid has been very high. In an election he will face the Republican Party Machine trying to destroy his reputation and take away the money from contributors. Supposing you dare contribute a significant amount of money, you may find your business contracts with the government suspended if you have any. You may find your reputation destroyed by the data they developed in this mass spying effort. The senator himself will find every detail of his life made public to try to ruin him.

    This is a direct threat to the very existence of a free people and a freely elected government. It makes the President of the United States of America and his team the chief terrorists in the world. It makes without doubt the danger very high. This is why we in the USA live in a continual state of "Terrorist Alerts" and other mechanisms designed to keep us sturred up and always afraid. This paranoid state they have us living in is making the whole world think we are insane. The fact of our sanity being in question because of this is becoming all of the discussion around the world. These people are up to no good in the White House. DO NOT MARK me as part of those who oppose the Republican Party generally. I support and go to meetings. I am a long standing life long Republican. These men in the White House only claim to be Republicans. I know most decent Republicans oppose what is going on.

    What for example have they done to Preserve Protect or Defend the Constitution of the United States of America? (Their oath of office) I am a supporter of a strong America and I definitely support the efforts to put down Islamic Radical Terrorism. The efforts of these people are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America at time of war. Yes their actions are TREASONA

    --
    Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
  10. Re:Cheney's response by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The senator [Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee] said he was particularly troubled that the administration had expanded its Congressional briefings on the financial tracking program in recent weeks after having learned that The New York Times was making inquiries.

    "Why does it take a newspaper investigation to get them to comply with the law?" the senator asked. "That's a big, important point."
    Specter gets right down to the essentials.

    The question isn't "Why are they running a secret program?"
    It's "Why are they doind it without the proper oversight?"
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  11. Color me unsurprised by l5rfanboy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Does it fail to surprise anyone else that CNN and other major media (I mean, 'news') outlets aren't reporting on this? Then again, they're so busy reporting on Kidman and Urban's desires for a normal wedding, Anna Nicole Smith's inheritance rival dying, and Reese Witherspoon suing someone over a false pregnancy story (all on CNN.com). Who has time for this kind of news when there's all that out there! Such decisions!

    I will be interested in seeing the BBC's take on the matter.

  12. And that was mod'ed +5? by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why bother watching Fox? Better perhaps to take advantage of the BBC's reporting. Take a moment and any of their coverage. It's hard not to notice the actual facts of chemical weapon use. Which, of course, rather requires the existence of the same.

    Look at the YEAR in which they were used.

    If Saddam had them 20 years ago, that does NOT make him a threat TODAY.

    No one is saying that Saddam did not have chemical weapons at any time in the past. We know he did. We were the ones who were helping him develop them for use in the Iraq/Iran war.

    And your articles are rather long on descriptions of Saddam lounging by a pool in a speedo ... and rather short on facts about chemical weapons.

    Right, there's no interest at all in avoiding another Taliban-like haven for government-sponsored terrorism, as is found in Iran.

    Dude, Iraq fought Iran.

    Iraq was a secular totalitarian state.

    There was NO danger of them changing to a Theocracy while Saddam was alive.

    So just leaving Saddam and the sanctions in place would have achieved your stated goal without the loss of a single US soldier's life.

    That sort of retrograde, destabilizing influence on the entire middle east certainly does impact oil flow (for the entire world, in case you're not paying attention), and allowing it to thrive is unacceptable on a lot of levels, not just as it relates to oil.

    If it's not about oil, then make the case without mentioning oil.

    Because you cannot do so, without fantasy scenarios that Saddam's existance would have prevented, it is/was/will be about the oil.

    And before you start mentioning Saddam as some sort of not-so-bad alternative to the extremist jihaddi types, remember that he was busy shipping (along with press releases!) cash to organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and even to individual families of suicide bombers.

    So? No one is saying he was an angel. Just that he was not a threat to the United States of America or our allies.

    Do not confuse "bad person" with "threat to the US".

    To say nothing of lobbing scud missles across borders, trying to annex Kuwait, and so on.

    Do you have some kind of calendar-phobia?

    You keep bringing up actions from years before the last invasion. What he did in 1990 has no bearing on whether we should invade in 2003. There were THIRTEEN YEARS between those two events.

    "For oil" is a tidy bit of sophistry, though, that must feel convenient.

    I don't know about "feel convenient", but it certainly fits the established facts.

    But the real issue with the oil is that it lies in a place where its value is being sought by medieval-minded theocratic crazies that use that single source of revenue to keep places like Iran running backwards from history.

    And again you support the position that it was about the oil. Or, more exactly, about who controls the oil.

    So, be as sarcastic/flippant as you want to be about it. The fact remains that you do not have a justification that does NOT involve the oil.

    Putting those oil reserves in the hands of constitutional democracies is certainly acting "for the oil," but not in the way you so cravenly describe.

    Oil does not vote. Oil does not elect representatives. There is nothing noble about going to war for oil. Therefore, saying that the war was for oil cannot be "craven".

    That's like saying that when the US marched into Germany and liberated the concentration camps, that it was for the German beer.

    Only in your mind, only in your mind.

    Germany was actively invading other countries and attacking our ally England.

    Iraq had

  13. Re:I don't know what's worse... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Government is always inefficient when doing things private companies have been doing better for years

    Government is always inefficient in a working republic or representative democracy, it is that way by design and for good reasons. I could explain it here, but it would be a bit lengthy. Instead of doing that, I challange you to think about why this is and why this is in fact a very good thing.

  14. Re:Wow by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They had the intelligence, and the power to cherrypick, to invade the country, Iraq, that was right for them. The Bush administration is the Iran/Contra administration . All these people made their bones in the 1980s CIA/NSA cocaine and guns conspiracy. That hijacked American foreign policy to wage secret wars in Central America. To raise money for secret wars elsewhere, like in Africa, and Osama bin Laden's Afghanistan. With secret Saudi funding and Iranian funding. As seed money for robbing the Savings and Loans of over a $TRILLION (in 1980s dollars: our GDP was 1/4 what it is today).

    These same people, like Poindexter, Negroponte, Bolton and so many others, wrench our country into invading Iraq to the benefit of Saudi Arabia and Iran, giving the NSA and CIA powers previously forbidden by our constititional democratic republic. While spying on all Americans for the political power that ensures their corporate backers will make all the money they want, forever.

    They're pulling it off. As measured by $TRILLIONS in profits and unlimited power, killing thousands around the world and leaving our country to rot. How can we possibly deny that they're smart, that they're doing it all on purpose, that it's malice, even evil, that is driving all their actions? Because the truth is too much to admit, especially since we like to believe what we see in the media: the Republican government works for us, not themselves and their corporate masters.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  15. Re: Wow by heinousjay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not speaking to the original point, but

    I suspect you are indeed part of the majority which dismisses arguments based on who is making the argument and not based on the merrits of that argument. At least, your posts are strongly suggesting this.

    When ranting and raving on the internet without presenting any sort of corroboration, indeed with not even leads toward information that may serve as a basis of evidence, dismissal is pretty much the only option. Anyone can post anything, and chasing down the rainbows of paranoia isn't a productive activity. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    This whole situation is kind of like the OJ defense: claim the administration is so incompetent as to be unable to conduct the normal business of the country, while at the same time masterfully organizing the biggest conspiracy in history completely successfully? Something doesn't fit.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  16. There's an old saying... by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.