Slashdot Mirror
Electronic Transaction Reporting Slipped Into Senate Bill
StealthyRoid writes "The Senate mortgage bill proposed by Sen. Chris Dodd (who was the recipient of a sweetheart deal on his mortgage from Countrywide, one of the beneficiaries of the bill) includes an attempt to sneak into law a requirement that all electronic payment processors send detailed transaction data to the federal government. The proposed law contains an exception for businesses with fewer than 200 transactions or a total value less than $10,000. Quoting FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey (former House majority leader) from the article: 'This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay's PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America's small businesses are breathtaking.'" This is the same bill that contains a controversial provision to fingerprint all mortgage brokers.
yes what we need more govt intrusion into our daily lives sure they won't monitor transactions unless they're over $10000 for 200. but how will they cull this out after the fact? Someday we'll enjoy the freedom and privacy the Soviet Union use to have.
Lets see it is a political story, on the negative side and does not mention the party the person is a member of.
Quick survey what party is Chris Dodds a member of?
Why the fuck is this the government's business?
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
The summary says that the minimum reporting is under $10K (USD) or under 200 transactions, but the article shows an and.
Aside from that nitpick, how is this supposed to "raise $9.802 billion over ten years"?
A congressional bill, as it evolves and eventually maybe becomes law, is a living document. In every sphere of the real world where multiple authors work collaboratively on a same document, we use content management systems, that allow versioning, attribution, and history. It makes changes to a document transparent. Businesses use it, non-profits use it. Why not demand our Congress to use it and stop this monkey business of "was slipped into the bill"? Sounds like conversation you'd here in the playground, for gods' sake..
Unfortunately, this is from a blog that wishes to attack Dodd(and little else at this moment). They have the most to gain by finding something to drop on him.
Try again, and without sounding like you just want to attack Dodd.
As for Congress, thank the obstructionist Republicans for the rating.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
... to tax you with, my dear. Funny delivery yes, but not so funny realities. It's clearly paving the way for the federal government to track that persnickity little inter-state commerce that gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want with the country. I'm sure the twinkling in the eyes has at least some part about taking a cut, or at the very least taking a cut for the states (since congress is elected via the state, they're job is to bring home the bacon).More Twoson than Cupertino
Why? Because the system is seriously f'ed up! Why don't we do anything about it? Um... uh... wait - Lost is about to start!
All pass beyond reach of medicine. None pass beyond the reach of love.
they can be introduced any time, and they always seem to be used to sneak in unfavorable laws... Why are they allowed?
I think you just answered your own question there.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
You know how you can tell a naive jackass on Slashdot, or for that matter anywhere? They're the ones who still seem to believe the labels "Republican" and "Democrat" still actually mean anything different from each other. Bless our one-party system for keeping its members too busy butting heads over meaningless crap to realize how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Well, sure. The government would like to know about your every activity, from breathing, eating, voiding, spending, reading, listening, talking, pretty much everything. The better to tax you, regulate you, imprison you, coerce you.
That doesn't mean we should willing give up that right, nor does it say in the supreme law of the land where the government has been given that power.
Better to let 1 million people cheat on their taxes than 250 million give up every last vestige of privacy.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
It isn't just Slashdot. Look back through any recent news article about a Republican who has done something illegal and/or really stupid. You're not only going to see the word 'Republican' much more often, but news stories also like ask alarmist questions like, "Is this indicative of further corruption in the Republican party?" or any other comment that will lead a reader to at least ponder widespread misconduct in the Republican party. While there isn't any true intense misconduct in this particular article, all you have to do is look back to Elliot Spitzer's demise as a real example; most news stories did not plaster the word 'Democrat' all over, let alone suggest a party-wide fallout from the scandal. Just the observations of an independent with a pretty staunch disdain for both major political parties....
It's pretty much the same way with most of the American media.
If a Republican is involved in anything that even might, maybe, sort-of, slightly, if-we-tweak-it-just-a-bit, appear improper, then thier name and party affiliation is shouted from the rooftops for weeks and weeks on end, even AFTER it is shown that the Republican in question was innocent, or that the issue in question was not illegal or unethical, maybe just slightly immoral.
If a Democrat is involved in even the most heinous and criminal of scandals, up to and including extortion, blackmail, embezzlement, child porn, rape and murder, it is given the most cursory treatment possible, buried as quickly as possible, and the political affiliation of the politician in question is NEVER mentioned.
While I can't speak for other country's media outlets, in American that's pretty much the way it works. Not even Fox News is innocent of doing this, although they at least TRY and mention the political affiliation of the politician. Sometimes.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
bullshit. he got the same rate everyone else was getting, the same rate i got. the only corruption in this case is with the dirty journalists and their stooges. yes, you.
parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus
Sentiment summed up nicely here.
Constitutionally Correct
I wish we could seriously apply this to laws. Why not create a "Scope" section for bills that specifies what the bill is about and limits its reach? Then interpret the bill such that anything outside the specified scope would be ignored.
Anything nasty trying to sneak in unnoticed would be in danger of going outside the specified scope and being ignored, but anything legitimately related to the bill would not be affected.
Congressmen often vote on bills they haven't read, but perhaps they could at least make time to review scope sections.
but news stories also like to ask alarmist questions like, "Is this indicative of further corruption in the Republican party?" or any other comment that will lead a reader to at least ponder widespread misconduct in the Republican party.
Yeah. The fact that they held the congress for 12 years and WERE incredibly corrupt, got caught practicing wide stances in men's room stalls while preaching family values, faked intelligence data, progagandized the country into a war, illegally spied on Americans, and instituted a policy of torture - to name but a few of their top hits - had nothing to with that. My god, it would be INSANE to speculate if there were MORE shoes to drop!
Please... as bad as this sounds, but could we PLEASE stop making laws? Every week I feel like there's 1 more thing I can't do, and 1 more thing that I don't want to do but have to.
Could we please just stop making laws? I'm happy with my already limited lifestyle. I'm tired of having to keep up with the list of new obscure laws. We have no more need for lawmakers, everything that we needed for laws has been pretty well ironed out long ago, and any gray areas that have been solved through courts have been good enough.
Why is it that I can list more bad laws than good laws?
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
For all intents and purposes, you're correct with the facts. But speaking of family values, do you not remember Bill Clinton's sexual practices (in the most storied and important building in the US, none the less) committing a crime in attempted cover-up, and also ordering a military strike in the thick of his personal and legal mess to take the press off of him? And then giving pure amnesty to family and cronies via pardons as he left office? Or perhaps while countless Louisianans were dying and/or having their lives destroyed by hurricane Katrina, Congressman William Jefferson used a National Guard helicopter to retrieve personal belongings? Already mentioned Spitzer.... and those are hardly the only embarrassing episodes in recent memory.
My point is that a very good percentage of news articles about about a Republican doing something stupid are often more about embarrassing and discrediting the party than they are about a thorough depiction of of the events that spurred the story at hand to begin with. Surveys show that there are substantially (on the scale of 2-5 times) more Democrats than Republicans in journalism. (source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0603/p02s01-usgn.html) And I think almost all of them will find honest answers to the questions they ask. Yes, a pretty decent number of Republicans have been douche bags. That's an honest fact. But they don't even ask the question of how douche bag-esque Democrats have been lately. I don't believe the discrepancy, if any, is large.
The mainstream "DID CLINTON GET A SLOPPY BLOWJOB????" media, *favoring* democrats? The mainstream "Let's only mention Bush's failings in passing and never his party" media?
There's a reason Republicans (much like yourself, I suspect) blame the "liberal media bias"; reality has a very well-known liberal bias towards not tolerating disgusting slimeballs.
The reason you don't see as many democrats scandals on tv is there aren't as many freaking pedophiles, perverts and corrupted assholes in the Democratic party.
As a little interesting homework, try and make a list of recent indicted Democrats. Then indicted Republicans. Compare. Ponder the "influence of the media on the judges" or whatever apologist bullshit you want to blame THAT on.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
do you not remember Bill Clinton's sexual practices
Sure, but what's your point? Was there some lack of coverage on Clinton? Did the media somehow fail to note that he was a Democrat?
My point is that a very good percentage of news articles about about a Republican doing something stupid are often more about embarrassing and discrediting the party than they are about a thorough depiction of of the events that spurred the story at hand to begin with.
I know but you offer no proof. Because you can't. It's just your perception.
Surveys show that there are substantially (on the scale of 2-5 times) more Democrats than Republicans in journalism.
Enough with this old chestnut, already. The people who REALLY matter, the guys who run the corporations and own the shares are overwhelmingly Republican. They set the agenda. The reporters may lean slightly Dem but if they act against the editorial policies they are unemployed Dem leaning reporters.
Look at all the stories coming out recently (because of the "military advisors" hired by the media but run out of the Pentagon) of reporters finally fessing up about how they were pressured from above to not print anti-war stories or to always have 2 or 3 pro-Administration guests for every anti-war person. Seriously, if the media was so "liberal" how could that possibly happen?
But they don't even ask the question of how douche bag-esque Democrats have been lately.
This very story about Dodd shows how flawed he is. Many scumbag Dems are going to vote for Telecom Immunity today. And I, among many other, will take note of each and every one of them. All I can say is: remember Joe Lieberman. I just wish the Repbulican party would start to hold their scumbags' feet to fire as well.