Reason Suggests DoJ Closing Porn Stars' Bank Accounts

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) writes "In a recent story on reason.com it was reported that the DoJ is closing down the bank accounts of porn stars. Not knowing the site I googled around and found another site, the Guardian. The story does not end there. It turns out that this is part of a larger scheme (ironically) called Operation Choke Point. Also reported in a Washington Post article that downplays the practice. According to Cryptocoin news. There are thirty industries the DoJ is now targeteting: Ammunition Sales; Cable Box De-scramblers; Coin Dealers; Credit Card Schemes; Credit Repair Services; Dating Services; Debt Consolidation Scams; Drug Paraphernalia; Escort Services; Firearms Sales; Fireworks Sales; Get Rich Products; Government Grants; Home-Based Charities; Life-Time Guarantees; Life-Time Memberships; Lottery Sales; Mailing Lists/Personal Info; Money Transfer Networks; On-line Gambling; PayDay Loans; Pharmaceutical Sales; Ponzi Schemes; Pornography; Pyramid-Type Sales; Racist Materials; Surveillance Equipment; Telemarketing; Tobacco Sales; and Travel Clubs. But more can be added. (I notice alcohol sales is not on the list)." The Reason article stops short of saying that Choke Point is proven to be the reason for the account closures, but it seems very plausible.

Comments

Communist revolution is needed

[For a Free Internet]

Smash hypocritical patriarchal bourgeois morality and the prison of the bourgeois family! Forward to a Soviet world!

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[jfdavis668]

The Soviets cracked down on all these too, except the ones they ran themselves. Ammo sales were a particular no no. Credit cards? Absolutely not.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone downmod this faggot. I disagree.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[ShanghaiBill]

Ammo sales were a particular no no.

Private gun ownership was fairly common in the Soviet Union, at about 10 guns per 100 people, and is still common in Russia today. Private citizens were limited to long guns (rifles and shotguns), and they had to register them. But they were generally available to almost anyone that wanted one. The idea that all dictatorships ban private weapons, or conversely, that an armed citizenry always prevents tyranny, is clearly false.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Jane Q. Public]

Private citizens were limited to long guns (rifles and shotguns), and they had to register them. But they were generally available to almost anyone that wanted one. The idea that all dictatorships ban private weapons, or conversely, that an armed citizenry always prevents tyranny, is clearly false.

You don't need total confiscation. When you need to crack down on citizens, all you need is [A] that they don't own handguns (because those are primarily defensive weapons), and [B] that all other weapons are registered.

Then you're home free. When you know who has the weapons and who doesn't, you pretty much control them.

While I agree that "not all dictatorships ban private weapons", they don't have to. All they have to do is control who has them and who doesn't. Example: while it has often been denied, the Nazis did in fact grab guns... from the Jews. I recently read an article that had a picture of the original Nazi decree that Jews could not have guns or bank accounts. (!!!)

Sound familiar?

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that ... an armed citizenry always prevents tyranny, is clearly false.

No shit. A majority of the second amendment nutters in the US are extremely pro-police state, pro-totalitarianism.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit. The majority of the left wing nutters in the US are extremely pro-police state, pro-totalitarianism.

FTFY

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[LordLimecat]

Would be nice if all of the folks so ostensibly concerned with the direction this takes us, had actually bothered to read the article. Sort of gives the lie to your moral crusading when you cant even be bothered to get informed on the issue.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Mashiki]

No shit. A majority of the second amendment nutters in the US are extremely pro-police state, pro-totalitarianism.

Really? Odd that reality doesn't seem to fit with your narrative. From everything that I've seen in the US, police are generally disliked by both sides of the isle. But between the two sides, especially 2nd amendment folks you'll find them being the ones who don't actually take to the militarization of police. While many left wing people do, and left wing groups. Going as far as pushing police depts. to get surplus military vehicles. So you were saying?

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Trepidity]

It's a bit regional I think, and mostly aligns with opinions on other issues. I've spent some time living in the southwest, and there is generally strong pro-police sentiment among conservative gun-owners in states like Arizona (and parts of Texas), largely due to their views on illegal immigration. If anything the prevailing sentiment in those areas is that the cops should be more militarized, fleets of drones with missiles and everything, and should be given more police-state-style powers to stop anyone at any time and ask for their documents.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[perpenso]

While I agree that "not all dictatorships ban private weapons", they don't have to. All they have to do is control who has them and who doesn't. Example: while it has often been denied, the Nazis did in fact grab guns... from the Jews. I recently read an article that had a picture of the original Nazi decree that Jews could not have guns or bank accounts. Sound familiar?

The Nazis allowed Germans civilian to have long guns too. I recall reading an account by a former US officer who had accepted the surrender of a German unit. He told the German commander to collect all weapons and deposit them at the town hall. Among the weapons collected were numerous civilian rifles and shotguns collected from the town residents. The US commander told the German commander he only meant the military weapons and that the civilian weapons should be set aside so that their owners could come to the town hall to claim their property and have it returned to them.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[DexterIsADog]

Private citizens were limited to long guns (rifles and shotguns), and they had to register them. But they were generally available to almost anyone that wanted one. The idea that all dictatorships ban private weapons, or conversely, that an armed citizenry always prevents tyranny, is clearly false.

You don't need total confiscation. When you need to crack down on citizens, all you need is [A] that they don't own handguns (because those are primarily defensive weapons), and [B] that all other weapons are registered. Then you're home free. When you know who has the weapons and who doesn't, you pretty much control them. While I agree that "not all dictatorships ban private weapons", they don't have to. All they have to do is control who has them and who doesn't. Example: while it has often been denied, the Nazis did in fact grab guns... from the Jews. I recently read an article that had a picture of the original Nazi decree that Jews could not have guns or bank accounts. (!!!) Sound familiar?

Um, no, it doesn't sound familiar. What in the world are you talking about? (Unless you have one of those Obama as Hitler posters in your basement. Then it all makes sense.)

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently read an article that had a picture of the original Nazi decree that Jews could not have guns or bank accounts. (!!!)

Sound familiar?

The only group of people I am aware of that are not allowed to have guns are convicted felons... was this a not-so-subtle attempt at saying "Jew == criminal"?

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[mi]

Private gun ownership was fairly common in the Soviet Union, at about 10 guns per 100 people, and is still common in Russia today.

Russia today may be better in this regard, but when I lived in USSR, I did not know a single person, who owned a weapon — even martial arts were frowned upon by the officials and what studios existed, were underground. Today in the US quite a few of my acquaintances have firearms — and my five year-old attends a karate class twice a week.

So, as they say, Citation needed...

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Firethorn]

When it comes to dictatorship, WHO has the guns is important, and 'military/police' isn't the only criteria.

With a 10% private ownership rate, that could be something like 'the rich/mid-high level party members'.

In a society that's tribally fixated like much of the middle east, I'd work to ensure that my tribe has the firearms, nobody else.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Woah, please cite an instance where left wing groups are pushing police depts. to get surplus military vehicles. It's generally the left that is always marching around protesting police brutality with things like the Oct. 22nd marches/rallies that have been going on. It's the left that protests US military interventions. The left that bitches about the police state. It's the left that the right calls peacenicks and makes fun of for not wanting to arm themselves in the name of pacifism. Police states don't fit into that equation.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Shakrai]

Unless you have one of those Obama as Hitler posters in your basement.

Obama could never be mistaken for Adolf Hitler. Hitler could rally crowds and command respect/fear on the global stage. Poor Mr. Hapless no longer seems able to do the former and was never able to do the latter.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes to dictatorship, WHO has the guns is important, and 'military/police' isn't the only criteria.

I think you will find that the WHO is more concerned with health issues than with guns.

p.s. learn how to use proper emphasis in your postings.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

From everything that I've seen in the US, police are generally disliked by both sides of the isle.

aisle*

Re: Communist revolution is needed

[LF11]

I would really like a citation for this, or at least a point to continue some research. I have an amateur interest in history, and have been attempting for a long time now to figure out how the Russian experiment in Communism went so badly wrong. Marx was an adamant supporter of individual ownership of firearms, but somehow that didn't make it into practice in any Communist experiment.

So if you have some information regarding civilian firearms ownership in Soviet Russia, I would love to know.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[epyT-R]

hmm, since affirmative action is inherently hypocritical for pushing discriminatory privilege along attributes it claims shouldn't matter, I'd say that hypocrisy is not limited to the wealthy private sector.

Take your 'soviet' newspeak and shove it up your ass.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[phantomfive]

But they were generally available to almost anyone that wanted one.

I don't think that's true. Certainly there were ways to get a gun in the USSR if you needed one, but based on how happy my Russian coworker was to buy a gun in America, it wasn't easy for anyone to get one.

Re: Communist revolution is needed

[estestvoispytatel]

If you read in Russian, you should google , and 1960. In short, being a civilian in the USSR, you could get strictly a hunting rifle. There was no Castle doctrine, so you couldn't realistically use it for own protection. Such action would make yourself a criminal almost automatically. The registering process and regular checks were quite strict, and you were bound to sell or abandon weapons if you have failed to renew your license in term. Hunters were watched over quite carefully, and a case of bad behavior could make their license revoked (there was a kind of civil watch program in the USSR). The '10 in 100' number posted above seems not very realistic for me. In my own town of birth (with plenty of forests with sporting game around) there were less than a thousand of registered hunters out of the 130,000-strong population. Disclosure: my father was a hunter for a few years in 1970s, even before my birth, then get rid of his rifle.

Re: Communist revolution is needed

[estestvoispytatel]

Oh good, slashdot is quite harsh with the cyrillic. I mean voluntary hunting society, okhotnichiy bilet and law on hunting of 1960.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Pseudonym]

You don't need total confiscation. When you need to crack down on citizens, all you need is [A] that they don't own handguns (because those are primarily defensive weapons), and [B] that all other weapons are registered.

It's easier to just convince gun owners that whoever is the target of tyranny is their enemy too. This is how the US government got away rounding up US citizens and putting them in internment camps.

Oh, also convince them that "we" respect your rights (as we're collecting all your phone calls) and "they" are trying to take your guns away (even though they're not). That shit always works.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Pseudonym]

So where are all of those NRA protests against wholesale warrantless wiretapping?

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[nbauman]

Sound familiar?

Yes, it reminds me of how the Black Panthers tried to exercise their Second Amendment rights, by marching into the statehouse in Sacramento in 1967.

That was unacceptable. California couldn't let negroes go around with guns. The legislature passed a gun-control law, and Governor Ronald Reagan signed it.

Reagan went on to become president in 1980, and appointed his own justices to the Supreme Court.

And that's how America lost its freedom.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[kamapuaa]

Right, fucking Democrats, always pushing the police into buying surplus military vehicles...god damn it I have family in Berkeley and they're always going on about the police needing to buy like a diesel submarine or maybe an Apache helicopter.

Re: Communist revolution is needed

[sseymour1978]

Hunter clubs members were allowed to have rifles. You needed (actually still need) to pass same medical test as for drivers license. Cannot be mentally ill, cannot be alcoholic.
Without hunter clubs it want possible to contro animal population. Rabbits, wolves, foxes are pretty devastating to farms. This apply to country.

In cities (cities in Ex/Ussr are smaller but densly populated) citizens didnt own firearms.

If you dont aim to be in some executive role / tv star / some very VVVVIP then dont dream about USSR kind of communism.

Humans are born to live free. It is impossible to be creative if you are totally controlled. In USSR you couldnt just decide to change work type. You could not decide easily, ok Ill be a an artist now. You had to learn before - in Academy Of Arts. And its rather hard if you have reached some age. And all your work would need to pass censorship.
Most tasks had very tight time schedules. Many couldnt cope with that and started to drink heavily. Why do you think russians drank/ still drink so much?  Because of good life?
Medicine was better then (for poor people). Every one was "fixed" when needed. Now it is very expensive.

Communism does not work without brainwash, censorship and good wall between free world and communists. Cause when you see what you are not allowed to and you want this very bad. Then leaders have to give you that or have to keep saying that all other world is wicked.
Just like Putin is doing right now.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[sjwt]

For the lazy..

Estimated 8.9/100 in guns per 100 ppl privately owned so about 1/11th of the amount in the US
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea...

"Guns may be acquired for self-defense, hunting or sports activities only. Russian citizens can buy smooth-bore long-barreled firearms and pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of up to 25 joules. An individual cannot possess more than ten guns unless part of a registered gun collection, guns that shoot in bursts and having more than a ten-cartridge capacity are prohibited."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

http://www.gunlab.com.ru/

Honestly in today's age, there is no excuse for lazy assed ppl to cry 'citation needed', this is not an encyclopedia, its a debate, take the effort to research rather then cry for others to do it for you. I remember the horrid old days of the internet when searching for data was a task, its not, grow up or shutup.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[tburkhol]

No shit. A majority of the second amendment nutters in the US are extremely pro-police state, pro-totalitarianism.

Really? Odd that reality doesn't seem to fit with your narrative. From everything that I've seen in the US, police are generally disliked by both sides of the isle.

Depends on the area. Individuals tend to want the public to share their values and behavior, so gun nutters tend to want the public to share their values. In places where the gun nutter values coincide with local law, this means they like when the state uses strong enforcement of law, say to win the war on drugs. In places where the gun nutter values differ from local law, they tend to see their guns as a defense against government over-reach, say to defend free grazing rights.

Big surprise, they're only "totalitarian gun nutters" if they disagree with you.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[KeensMustard]

I can't speak to local experience, but here on Slashdot we frequently have people (the "2nd amendments folks") allude to using their guns to overthrow the US government by force (which is obviously a totalitarian strategy) and also threatening to arbitrarily kill people for various perceived offences without a proper trial (mob rule, which is indistinguishable in practice form a police state).

Then of course there are the ways they inadvertently (or perhaps deliberately) prevent action against the current acts of tyranny by the oligarchs, discussed just a few days ago.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Sique]

You don't need total confiscation. When you need to crack down on citizens, all you need is [A] that they don't own handguns (because those are primarily defensive weapons), and [B] that all other weapons are registered.

[A] is complete bullshit. Handguns were created as weapons for riders, because you can shot them single-handedly, while with a long gun, you have to stop your horse and then shot both-handedly. Handguns are primarily attack weapons.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[BlueStrat]

The Nazis allowed Germans civilian to have long guns too.

That should read "German civilians who were members in good standing in the Nazi Party, or the family member or friend of someone with authority in the Nazi Party. If that Party member happened to fall into political disfavor, or the citizen's personal enemy(s) reported him for some betrayal or politically-forbidden speech etc, those individuals were suddenly instantaneously prohibited from possessing a firearm.

This status-change was often announced by way of a Luger or MP40 discharged into the unlucky formerly-legal-gun-owner for the offense of illegally possessing a firearm.

Every single person ever born or who will ever be born has the natural right to self defense. How much any particular government recognizes this natural individual right varies greatly, however. Until basic human nature deeply and fundamentally changes, people will always need an effective means of self defense against other humans attempting to do them great harm, and therefor have the natural right to that defense.

Every tyranny and authoritarian state down through history where individual freedom was severely restricted also severely restricted and onerously-regulated, or prohibited outright, common people from possessing effective personal weapons for self defense.

Failing to learn such important lessons from history leads people into de-facto slavery if not actual, outright slavery. That is, if they are lucky enough that the powers-that-be haven't included good old genocide of "*those* people" (whoever is politically-inconvenient or convenient, as the case may be) as part of their goals.

Strat

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[rjh]

here on Slashdot we frequently have people (the "2nd amendments folks") allude to using their guns to overthrow the US government by force (which is obviously a totalitarian strategy) and also threatening to arbitrarily kill people for various perceived offences without a proper trial

Hi! As a card-carrying NRA member, I'm one of those "Second Amendment folks" you're talking about here. A couple of points:

1. It's "the Second Amendment," not "the Second Amendments." There's only one Second Amendment.

2. Overthrowing the government by force is the right of the people, yes. It's also unbelievably stupid in the overwhelming majority of cases. Civil war is horrific and something best avoided. The Framers did intend the armed populace to be a bulwark against governmental infringements on liberty, yes, but mostly by means of making the government afraid to violently oppress the people for fear of the armed resistance they would face.

   In this, the Framers have been overwhelmingly successful: where in past eras a government would've just bludgeoned people into believing the law was what they said it was, nowadays our politicians have learned to couch things in terms of "counterterrorism" and "protecting the children" and we'll quite amicably assent to whatever they say the law is.

   The Framers had the right idea, they just weren't quite clever enough: they thought the risk would be a government that used force against the people, whereas the real risk is from public relations and focus groups.

   Anyway -- short version: although I am one of those "Second Amendment folks," I, and all of the other "Second Amendment folks" I know, am absolutely against civil war. Horrible, terrible idea. I've seen enough gunshot wounds already in my life, thank you very much: I feel no need to be the cause of them.

3. This would amount to "terroristic threats", and would be considered grossly illegal in all 50 states. I, and all of the other "Second Amendment folks" I know, think this behavior is reprehensible.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[cmdr_tofu]

Can you explain how a handgun is a defensive weapon? Does it prevent you from being shot like bullet proof vest??

In my opinion (and I guess I agree with at least some others), guns are offensive weapons: http://www.theblaze.com/storie...

From a practical perspective, I don't thiink a handgun or a rifle will do you very much good against the KGB. Oppressive regimes tend to have military dominance and unless private citizens own tanks and missile launchers (a recipe for disaster), nonviolent social change will have to be the avenue of reform at a citizen level.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

"left wing groups. Going as far as pushing police depts. to get surplus military vehicles"

Uh.... citation needed. Yeah. Left wing groups push police militarization? By.... marching against police brutality all the time? Name me ONE left wing group that's for police militarization. Just ONE. So full of shit.....

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[jon3k]

Or even one gun per 10 people.

Re: Communist revolution is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's one hell of a log of delusional shit. You do know about the gun control laws around Chicago, the place where King Barry hails from, don't you?

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[callmetheraven]

There can be only one reason to deny the stunning Nazi-esque politics of the left - being of them.

Re: Communist revolution is needed

[LF11]

Thank you very much. I don't read Russian well (yet). I appreciate you taking the time to explain.

Re: Communist revolution is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

With people like you voting I'm not surprised your country is turning into the toilet bowl of the earth.

Luckily for the rest of us you'll all get flushed sooner or later.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[gadlaw]

You know, that's like your opinion man. The President was elected twice by the American people despite the derision and hatred implied by your comment.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Jane Q. Public]

Um, no, it doesn't sound familiar.

Then you haven't been paying attention. The whole theory being discussed here is that DoJ may be forcing banks to shut down bank accounts that belong to people who engage in the businesses of (among other things) firearms and ammunition sales.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Jane Q. Public]

[A] is complete bullshit. Handguns were created as weapons for riders, because you can shot them single-handedly, while with a long gun, you have to stop your horse and then shot both-handedly. Handguns are primarily attack weapons.

You are hundreds of years out-of-date. Handguns WERE primarily attack weapons. Today, in the United States, they are used vastly more often defensively. I mean in a ratio of something like 1000 to 1. So yes, they are primarily defensive weapons. Today. In the United States.

(Note: "used" defensively does not necessarily mean "fired". Statistics suggest that they stop crime many times more often just by showing them than they do by shooting. And even when they are shot in defense, often they don't hit anything, yet they still deter the crime.)

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[DexterIsADog]

Your tinfoil hat is too tight. But I think you like it that way.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[DexterIsADog]

Obama has some serious flaws, but he did in fact save the world economy from being dragged into a depression caused by deregulation of the parasites on Wall Street. It must be easier for you to think about the world when you wear glasses that render everything in black and white.

And that crack about being unable to "command fear/respect on the global stage" is a regurgitated Fox talking point. You probably missed the fact that Obama threatened force, and was able to avoid using it, to get Assad to agree to relinquish his chemical weapons. Much cheaper, in both American lives and treasure. But don't let that get in the way of your narrative.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Jane Q. Public]

In my opinion (and I guess I agree with at least some others), guns are offensive weapons

80+ years of official Unites States Government statistics disagree with you.

For early years those statistics can be obtained from the Department of Justice. For more recent years, the Bureau of Crime Statistics.

I am rather amused that someone is using, as a supporting argument, the testimony of a sole person in the farthest Left and most pro-gun-control state of all 50.

Most police and sheriff's departments, and even police unions and organizations, say that handguns are the defensive weapon of choice, and support private ownership of handguns.

By the way: major crimes in this country are DOWN a full 50% from 20 years ago, and even more compared to 30 years ago. During that entire time, per-capita gun ownership (including handguns) has gone steadily up, and "concealed carry" has virtually exploded over that same period. Watch that chart for a moment. (Note: blue in that chart very much does NOT mean "blue state".)

If concealed handguns aren't being used "defensively", then what are they all being used for? Whatever it is, it sure isn't crime.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Jane Q. Public]

If you think this WHOLE DISCUSSION is "tinfoil hat", then what the hell are you doing here?

I remind you: these ideas are speculative only. But the fact that you (and maybe even me) think they're crazy is not reason to not talk about them.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Jane Q. Public]

That link did not come through for some reason.

Here is the chart to which I was referring.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[perpenso]

The Nazis allowed Germans civilian to have long guns too.

That should read "German civilians who were members in good standing in the Nazi Party ...

Which could have been nearly anyone. Many joined the party because it was an economic or social necessity, not because they were true believers. Even the Allied military recognized this as they went about de-Nazifying the country.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Jane Q. Public]

Wow. Trouble with links today.

Third try: U.S. "right to carry" since 1986

It's an animated .gif, so watch for a moment.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[DexterIsADog]

If you think this WHOLE DISCUSSION is "tinfoil hat", then what the hell are you doing here? I remind you: these ideas are speculative only. But the fact that you (and maybe even me) think they're crazy is not reason to not talk about them.

Okay, if it's that unclear to you; the comparison of the concerted policies of Nazis to advance a policy of GENOCIDE to some assholery by US government agencies that need some reining in is beyond stupid.

I find it worrisome that it needs to be said, because it seems nearly everyone is focusing on the distractions, while the real crimes, which literally steal peoples' futures, are ignored.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[ravenshrike]

10% per capita gun numbers meant the guns were in the hands of maybe 5-7% of the population. Common my ass.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[ravenshrike]

The NRA specifically notes in it's charter that it is a gun rights organization. VERY single focus for the simple reason that allowing the focus to widen decreases efficacy. Thus, while they will note other abuses, they will not lobby against them. That's the specific purview of organizations like the EFF and FIRE. Also state level ACLU orgs. The national level org can go fuck itself.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[ravenshrike]

Because there are so many right-wing politicos in LA, New York, Detroit, and Chicago pushing for police militarization.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Hamsterdan]

"Poor Mr. Hapless"

You mis-spelled Harper...

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Shakrai]

I was really just going for being a wiseass, but if you want to take it seriously......

but he did in fact save the world economy from being dragged into a depression caused by deregulation of the parasites on Wall Street

By continuing policies instituted by George W. Bush and Hank Paulson. GWB took the political hit on several unpopular decisions (bailouts) rather than leave them to his successor. BHO can't even bring himself to make a decision on Keystone, nor enforce the politically unpopular parts of his sole major legislative achievement. Oh, and guess what? A lot of the aforementioned deregulation was bipartisan. Who was the President who signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall into law?

You probably missed the fact that Obama threatened force, and was able to avoid using it, to get Assad to agree to relinquish his chemical weapons.

Want a list? Here's three of the top of my head: Chicago's first round exit from Olympics voting, Russia's behavior in Ukraine and Assad walking across the "red line" in the first place. BHO neither respected by our friends nor feared by our enemies. The global community laughs at him. BHO's decision to embrace any issue, no matter how seemingly insignificant (Chicago's Olympic bid) is usually the kiss of death. GWB was at least feared, if not respected. His Dad was both feared and respected. So was Bill Clinton. BHO is an embarrassment on the global stage. So is the current Secretary of State, while we're on the subject.

I really wish the Democratic Primary electorate had given us Hillary instead of BHO. It was their turn, the GOP was going to lose no matter what, the least they could have done was found someone that the rest of the world would have respected. Love her or hate her, Hillary would have been taken seriously overseas.

P.S., I don't really like the Republican Party either, so best of luck with your forthcoming attempt to dismiss me as a Teabagger, Right-winger, Rethuglican, or any other straw men you're cooking up.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your input, rjh. I appreciate your perspective. However, I think you may be preaching to the choir in this venue. Perhaps you might be better suited to express your views to your fellow NRA members, many of whom seem (to my eye) to be a bit belligerent in expressing their right to bear arms. Just my opinion, of course.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[cmdr_tofu]

Interesting chart-slideshow, but I don't see how it's relevant. I don't mean any disrespect, but that is completely unrelated to my question. What I was asking is more specific, "how are handguns primarily defensive weapons?". There seems to be an attempt to classify rifles as offensive and handguns as defensive.

Clearly bulletproof vests/bulletproof glass/etc are defensive technologies. Firearms are offensive techologies.

If concealed handguns aren't being used "defensively", then what are they all being used for? Whatever it is, it sure isn't crime.

I actually don't understand this at all. Concealed handguns are not used. If they are used, they are no longer concealed handguns (or else your clothes and body would likely be damaged.

By the way: major crimes in this country are DOWN a full 50% from 20 years ago, and even more compared to 30 years ago. During that entire time, per-capita gun ownership (including handguns) has gone steadily up, [postimg.org]and "concealed carry" has virtually exploded over that same period. Watch that chart for a moment. (Note: blue in that chart very much does NOT mean "blue state".)

I don't really have bandwidth to fact-check this. There are a lot of trends and correlation is not necessarily causation. Mass shootings are defintiely on the rise in this country as are metal detectors in high schools. Also a lot of professional criminals are moving from physical to virtual crimes which may involve less gun violence.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really have bandwidth to fact-check this. There are a lot of trends and correlation is not necessarily causation. Mass shootings are defintiely on the rise in this country as are metal detectors in high schools. Also a lot of professional criminals are moving from physical to virtual crimes which may involve less gun violence.

Everyone of those mass shooters were involved with supervised psychotropic drugs.

Another Mass Shooting, Another Psychiatric Drug? Federal Investigation Long Overdue
One Thing in Common... and It's Not Guns
Or
Mass+Shooter+Psychotrpic+Drugs

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[DexterIsADog]

Given that the first thing off the top of your head was Chicago's losing Olympic bid, how can I take you seriously? But if you want to throw Ukraine at Obama's feet, then remember Putin's little war on Georgia, while a U.S. president supposedly feared by the world was in charge.

Again, it's dumb to want a president who is feared by anyone. Fear is not the reaction you want to provoke, even among rivals. It doesn't end well.

For what it's worth, I voted for Hillary in 2008, and expect to vote for her in 2016. However, if you think I couldn't pull a one-side list of "failures" out of my ass for Hillary if she had won in 2008, then you're not living in the real world.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[mi]

For the lazy..

The figures you offered apply to today's Russia. I asked for stats regarding the Soviet Union times — when the country really was a tyranny.

Guns may be acquired for self-defense, hunting or sports activities only. Russian citizens can buy smooth-bore long-barreled firearms and pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of up to 25 joules

Right. Nothing, in other words, that could pose much of a challenge to the military or police.

Honestly in today's age, there is no excuse for lazy assed ppl to cry 'citation needed', this is not an encyclopedia, its a debate

And in a debate — whatever age — one should offer supporting evidence with the argument.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Shakrai]

Again, it's dumb to want a president who is feared by anyone.

No, it's perfectly logical to want someone that people think has the stones to back up their words. It's telling though that you choose to focus on the lack of fear as a good thing, rather than trying to dispute the fact that nobody (friend or foe) respects him. The Olympic Bid was perfect evidence of that, BHO put the power and prestige of the Presidency behind that bid, and Chicago got bounced in the first round. That may not mean anything to you, but it's hugely symbolic, and was the diplomatic equivalent of a slap in the face.

It's also evidence of BHO's utter failure to properly husband his influence and political capital. A domestic example of this failing would be the flushing away of all the political capital earned from re-election on an effort at gun control that was doomed from the get-go. BHO is supposed to be this cool political operator from Chicago but he's got nobody on staff that could do a whip count? Immigration reform was a casualty of that decision, as were other important issues that got short shrift.

In short, he's a loser, and the least effective President we've had in my lifetime. And I say that as someone that drank the kool aid and went so far as campaigning for him during the primaries against HRC. Boy, I screwed that one up big time....

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Jane Q. Public]

Okay, if it's that unclear to you; the comparison of the concerted policies of Nazis to advance a policy of GENOCIDE to some assholery by US government agencies that need some reining in is beyond stupid.

If you don't see the obvious similarity in policies, then I'm not the one being stupid.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[Jane Q. Public]

I don't mean any disrespect, but that is completely unrelated to my question.

No, it's not unrelated to your question.

If crime is way down, but handgun ownership and concealed carry are way up, then those guns are not being used for offense. Also, concealed carry is not primarily a sporting purpose.

So what are those handguns being used for? The obvious answer is defense.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[DexterIsADog]

Okay, if it's that unclear to you; the comparison of the concerted policies of Nazis to advance a policy of GENOCIDE to some assholery by US government agencies that need some reining in is beyond stupid.

If you don't see the obvious similarity in policies, then I'm not the one being stupid.

You're not being stupid, you're beyond retarded.

But hey, at least you excelled at it.

Re:Communist revolution is needed

[DexterIsADog]

Again, it's dumb to want a president who is feared by anyone.

No, it's perfectly logical to want someone that people think has the stones to back up their words.

There it is. Right there. There's your trouble - "has the stones". The only thing I'm not certain of is whether you were born 100 or 3000 years too late.

Oh, and I never said it's a *good* thing that other world leaders don't fear our president, but apparently you use "the stones" for reading comprehension.

Re: Communist revolution is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Another person who doesn't realize correlation != causation.

Lots of Capitals

[mythosaz]

Are all of those industries popper names or something?

I'm probably wrong. I skipped journalism school, but man, oh man, holy capital letters Batman.

Re:Lots of Capitals

[Anonymous Coward]

Summary Written By Jada Pinkett Smith.

Re:Lots of Capitals

[Anonymous Coward]

It used to be only for child pornography. Think of the children they said.

And now it for all that shit. What else tomorrow?

How much more will we allow?

really???

[Anonymous Coward]

There are thirty industries the DoJ is now targeteting: Ammunition Sales; Cable Box De-scramblers; Coin Dealers; Credit Card Schemes; Credit Repair Services; Dating Services; Debt Consolidation Scams; Drug Paraphernalia; Escort Services; Firearms Sales; Fireworks Sales; Get Rich Products; Government Grants; Home-Based Charities; Life-Time Guarantees; Life-Time Memberships; Lottery Sales; Mailing Lists/Personal Info; Money Transfer Networks; On-line Gambling; PayDay Loans; Pharmaceutical Sales; Ponzi Schemes; Pornography; Pyramid-Type Sales; Racist Materials; Surveillance Equipment; Telemarketing; Tobacco Sales; and Travel Clubs.

Because these industires are a definite threat to National Security... Fail!!!

Re:really???

[gweihir]

These are a threat to national purity, and if you disagree, you can go to one of the soon-to-be-opened concentration camps!

Re:really???

[Anonymous Coward]

Because these industires are a definite threat to National Security

Because the Department of Justice is focused like a laser on national security, rather than, you know, justice.

Derp.

Re:really???

[x0ra]

I'm down for that.. .as long as we can have fetishist orgies while drinking and masturbating with gun and ammo (a .50BMG would do a hell of an anal plug).

Re:really???

[Mr D from 63]

Eric Holder: "I Have 'A Vast Amount' of Discretion in Enforcing Laws"

Re:really???

[ButchDeLoria]

Every government agency is moving to national security is their objective. It means a bigger budget.

Re:really???

[cbiltcliffe]

Closing the bank accounts of gainfully employed citizens just because they're work in a perfectly legal field that the government doesn't like is justice?

How the hell are you people still not realizing you're living in a situation worse than Nazi Germany? (Screw Godwin's law. This is a perfectly legitimate comparison.)

Re:really???

[LordLimecat]

The idea that a liberal administration would be for shutting down porn sites when not even conservative ones go there is absurd.

This is the stupidest article ever; dont even need to read it to know why its stupid, inflamatory, and wrong.

Re:really???

[x0ra]

They are doing it in a way more subtle way, just as any agenda-based administration would do. A death by a thousand paper cut. Democrats have very few in common with "liberals"...

Re:really???

[reboot246]

I don't mind them going after the crooks, but many of those listed are perfectly legal activities. It seems like a huge overreach to me. The DOJ should stick to investigating criminals, even the ones in the current administration.

Re:really???

[mysidia]

they're work in a perfectly legal field that the government doesn't like is justice?

No, it's tortious interference with business relationships.

Re:really???

[Anonymous Coward]

Godwin's law exists especially for morons like you. Has anyone here been forcibly removed from their home, their friends, and their family, stuffed into a boxcar, shipped to a concentration camp to starve for a while before being used for medical research or shot or gassed?

"worse than Nazi Germany" you say? I say you are a moron. Godwin wins. Shut up now.

Re:really???

[Anonymous Coward]

Eric Holder: "I Have 'A Vast Amount' of Discretion in Enforcing Laws"

Holder will have his day, and then he will be looking over his shoulder for the
rest of his life.

Doesn't sound like fun to me.

Re: really???

[Anonymous Coward]

It's much worse, no they just barge into yu home withou knocking and shoot you dead.

http://www.businessinsider.com/9-horrifying-botched-police-raids-2012-2?op=1
http://www.cato.org/raidmap

Re:really???

[Anonymous Coward]

if you disagree, you can go to one of the soon-to-be-opened concentration camps!

You are confused. Guantanamo Bay is soon-to-be-closed and has been that way for at least seven years. Its soon-to-be-closed status was a major incentive for giving the American Godfather the Nobel Peace Prize.

Re:really???

[Anonymous Coward]

Closing the bank accounts of gainfully employed citizens just because they're work in a perfectly legal field that the government doesn't like is justice?

They said if I voted for Romney, that the gub'mint would be enforcing his Mormon morality on us at gunpoint. And they were right!

Re:really???

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you're saying that Cryptocoin news isn't a bastion of journalistic integrity?!? How dare you imply that they might have even the slightest animosity towards the government.

I'm sure that most of their readers took those new IRS legislations regulating their Internet funny money in stride. No ill will there at all.

Re:really???

[Anonymous Coward]

if you disagree, you can go to one of the soon-to-be-opened concentration camps!

You are confused. Guantanamo Bay is soon-to-be-closed and has been that way for at least seven years. Its soon-to-be-closed status was a major incentive for giving the American Godfather the Nobel Peace Prize.

That's right. Damn the president for tricking Republicans into refusing to fund transferring the prisoners in Guantanamo. That bastard!

Re:really???

[gweihir]

Well, you have to open more of them in order to make them soon-to-be closed. Incidentally, a good reason to not close them after all would be "we have trouble killing all those people". The Nazis did run into that problem, and it seems the the US is orders of magnitude more incompetent at doing it as recent evidence suggests.

Re:really???

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany started out as a democracy with political speeches quite similar to what you hear from Democrats. So the reference is quite apt, even if the hyperbole is not.

Re: really???

[Bartles]

What makes you think this administration is liberal? I don't see their actions pointing in that direction at all.

Re: really???

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a douche. There was no political will to do that anyways, the attempt was just a token gesture without the necessary politicking to actually make it happen.

Re:really???

[SuricouRaven]

The president takes all of the credit and all of the blame for any and all government actions, regardless of actual involvement. Those are the rules of the personality cult that is the American presidency.

Re:really???

[epyT-R]

Right, so we're gonna bring those prisoners here and create a precedent for holding people without trial on american soil instead.. this is worse..

Re: really???

[TapeCutter]

You offer botched police raids as proof the cops are worst than the Third Reich? - Must be Saturday night.

Re:really???

[Anonymous Coward]

Eric Holder: "I Have 'A Vast Amount' of Discretion in Enforcing Laws"

More like a vast amount of erection.

Re:really???

[jcr]

The idea that a liberal administration would be for shutting down porn sites when not even conservative ones go there is absurd.

As absurd as the DEA shutting down perfectly legal marijuana dispensaries?

Deny it all you want, but it's happening, and you're a blithering idiot.

-jcr

Re:really???

[Anonymous Coward]

Godwin's law exists especially for morons like you. Has anyone here been forcibly removed from their home, their friends, and their family, stuffed into a boxcar, shipped to a concentration camp to starve for a while before being used for medical research or shot or gassed?

Isn't that the point of Guantanamo and legalized torture?

But while there is some skipping ahead, mostly we are still at the "Don't buy from the Jew" stage. The Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act) was in 1933, the Patriot Act in 2001. So the U.S. is taking this somewhat slower than their spritual guides.

Re:really???

[1s44c]

Godwin's law exists especially for morons like you. Has anyone here been forcibly removed from their home, their friends, and their family, stuffed into a boxcar, shipped to a concentration camp to starve for a while before being used for medical research or shot or gassed?

Not yet. But don't think it could never happen, exactly that has happened in other countries in the past. The US government has built concentration camps all over the country. They are currently staffed and look ready to be used right now but no-one ever got an answer on why they were built or who they are intended to hold. These places are not part of the prison system but something else entirely.

If you want to scare the hell out of yourself google "FEMA concentration camps". You likely won't believe a word of it so drive out there and look at the inward facing barbed wire and the train systems for mass transport for yourself.

Re: really???

[LF11]

How many people have read even ten words that Hitler actually wrote or spoke? Nobody knows who the Nazis actually were, or what they actually did. I am convinced that if a National Socialist party were started in the US, people would flock to it without realizing for a moment what it actually was. They'd have to change a few nouns, perhaps substitute Muslims for Jews, but the rhetoric would be terribly seductive.

(Modern Neo-Nazis have very little in common with the German Nazis of the 1930s.)

Re: really???

[kyrsjo]

I guess they're judged by comparison to their main competitor.

It's a bit like many Americans would probably call all of the 7 parties currently represented in our parlament "communists", as they are all social democrats in some way or another.

Re:really???

[ganjadude]

if you really think the liberals are on your side, and not just after power by all means necessary i dont know what to tell you

Re:really???

[ganjadude]

what you are forgetting about when you make your points about boxcars and camps, is what was the leadup to all of that. If we dont stop the leadup, that will happen, maybe not today, maybe not on this issue, but look at what hitler did between 29-39, thats of way more interest to me than what he did after war started

Re: really???

[Bartles]

Main competitor? Canada?

Re:really???

[callmetheraven]

The idea that a liberal administration would be for shutting down porn sites when not even conservative ones go there is absurd.

Sounds like you need to get your head out of something and get informed about the Nazi's you voted for.

Re:really???

[callmetheraven]

This is the stupidest article ever; dont even need to read it to know why its stupid, inflamatory, and wrong.

Sounds like you need to get your head out of something and get informed about the Nazis you're voting for.

Re: really???

[kyrsjo]

Huh? I don't think Canada is going to run in the US elections any time soon :)

Re:really???

[petteyg359]

Once more, we ask you: What liberals?

Re: really???

[vandamme]

Why not? They'd probably win.

Re: really???

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol you hold ordinary criminals for years without trial in usa its not like you have human rights there.

Re: really???

[Bartles]

OK, I'll bite. Who is the administration's main competitor?

Re:really???

[Anonymous Coward]

Every government agency is moving to national security is their objective. It means a bigger budget.

I just popped in a new DVD. Right next to the FBI shield was a DHS one.

WTF?

Re:really???

[RabidReindeer]

Closing the bank accounts of gainfully employed citizens just because they're work in a perfectly legal field that the government doesn't like is justice?

How the hell are you people still not realizing you're living in a situation worse than Nazi Germany? (Screw Godwin's law. This is a perfectly legitimate comparison.)

Godwin's meta-law. Godwin's Law will be invoked to choke off discussion of situations that actually are approaching those of Nazi Germany.

Re: really???

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people have read even ten words that Hitler actually wrote or spoke? Nobody knows who the Nazis actually were, or what they actually did. I am convinced that if a National Socialist party were started in the US, people would flock to it without realizing for a moment what it actually was. They'd have to change a few nouns, perhaps substitute Muslims for Jews, but the rhetoric would be terribly seductive.

(Modern Neo-Nazis have very little in common with the German Nazis of the 1930s.)

The'd have to call it the National Conservative Party. 'Cause Socialism is Commie, dontcha know?

Re: really???

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republicans, dumbass. You knew what he meant.

Re: really???

[kyrsjo]

Yay, score!

Re: really???

[Bartles]

That's silly. He doesn't have a Republican competitor any more. He's got 3 years left and can't run again. The only competitors I see for the President are reality, and the cold hard truth.

Re:really???

[Whorhay]

Marijuana dispensaries are a slightly different matter though. Those dispensaries are violating Federal law, even if they are legal by State law. I oppose them enforcing the Federal law over the State law in that instance but I think everyone opening a dispensary understands that risk.

The industries that the DoJ seems to be targeting in most cases appear to be completely legal by Federal law.

Re: really???

[kyrsjo]

"The administration" consist of more than one person, many which will take part in the next election.

Re:really???

[jcr]

Those dispensaries are violating Federal law,

No, they are not.

There is no federal authority to ban any drug whatsoever. It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and that amendment has been repealed, leaving no legal power in federal hands to do anything of the kind. Any act of congress purporting to ban a drug is not a law at all, but a usurpation.

-jcr

Re:really???

[Wikipedia]

There already is such a place, it's called New Orleans, Louisiana! zing!

Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere in the Constitution are you guaranteed a bank account.

That the Constitution has zero mention of the power of the federal government to forbid you a bank account will be lost on the anti-drug "goddamn piece of paper" Republicans and liberals.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[gweihir]

And that is a problem. It makes sure people do not climb out of poverty, or at least makes it a lot harder. After all, cannot have people participating in normal society that the government deems "undesirables". Next steps: forbid them to work, then concentration camps, then gas chambers. National purity must be maintained at all cost!

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Imagine your live without a bank account or the ability to drive or travel by air.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Kenja]

Go read the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and get back to us with why you feel it doesn't apply to a bank account.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[x0ra]

No, but pornography is a first amendment rights, and screw you if it is at the opposite of your morality.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want to have your basic rights violated by government thugs, traveling by air is already restricted. Then there's also the no fly list.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[x0ra]

It might be argue that subpoena and affidavit constitute an unreasonable search, and thus protected by the 4th Amendment.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[AHuxley]

It really depends on what you can find in origins of US law about the tools of your legal trade/profession been blocked/confiscated. US color of law efforts without a warrant or access to court is not legally good and would be challenged by skilled US legal teams.
The great aspect to the US legal system is it was shaped to protect from extrajudicial punishment and protects free speech, assembly, press, privacy and much more.
Generational color of law changes are difficult.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

Ninth Amendment guarantees you a bank account.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Jane Q. Public]

The great aspect to the US legal system is it was shaped to protect from extrajudicial punishment and protects free speech, assembly, press, privacy and much more.

Or at least, it's supposed to. The foundation is there.

Check out 18 U.S.C. 242: "Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law".

While many people think this is "just" a discrimination statute, a careful reading of the law shows that it applies to ALL Constitutional and natural rights.

And government employees are not immune. Not even the President. (In fact, this statute was specifically intended to prevent government abuse.) The maximum penalty is life in prison.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Jane Q. Public]

I should add: conviction rates for violations of 18 USC 242, once charges are brought, are exceptionally high: somewhere in the 90% range.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

I gave up my car long ago. The ability to drive is overrated.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

Where in the constitution does it PERMIT the federal government to deny someone a bank account? The constitution is an enumeration of PRIVILEGES to the government.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

Go vote Republican then, they will make sure to uphold the Constitution unless it's for something they don't like.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[LordLimecat]

Because the DoJ isnt actually closing bank accounts?

If you had read the article you would see that it is speculating that a handful of porn star's bank account closures are maybe due to DoJ pressure. Theyre making this leap because of a vice.com article which speculates that the closures are because they are porn stars. Vice makes this gigantic leap because of a WSJ article (conveniently paywalled) which speculates that Operation Chokepoint is targetting porn.

Thats a whole bunch of speculation on a ridiculous assertion. A liberal administration isnt going to crack down on porn; it would alienate huge parts of their base. The idea is stupid, the speculation is stupid, and Reason/Vice are remarkably stupid websites. Slashdot is even worse for being dumb enough to link to the flamebait.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[The Snowman]

You won't find a right to a bank account in the Constitution.

Which is fine: the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That you won't find the power to stop you from having a Bank Account in the Constitution is a fact that will be lost on the anti-drug "Goddamned Piece of Paper" Republicans and liberals.

"General welfare" clause. It is the Silly Putty of the Constitution: it can morph into any shape and justify any law or government action, even if other parts of the Constitution are at odds with it.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you like your pornstar, you can keep her, period"

I think we have gotten to the point where the administration has lied so frequently and so blatently that I believe the wing nuts explaining their wrong doing long before I believe their excuses. There is no level of trust for the administration anymore and they brought it upon themselves.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

you're a literal retard and should kill yourself immediately.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[LordLimecat]

I'm a so called "wingnut" republican, and this story isnt even a little believable. The day Obama administration goes after porn sites is the day the tea party embraces obamacare.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Trepidity]

If the government were searching or seizing the bank account, you would have a point. However as far as I can tell that isn't happening here. The fourth amendment does not protect you from having a business relationship with a corporation terminated, even involuntarily.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Ultracrepidarian]

I couldn't find a right to breath in there either.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[dietdew7]

As those people stuck in the 9th Ward during Katrina can attest.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[DexterIsADog]

Conservative Utah has a pretty damn high (the highest?) per capita consumption of online porn.

You seem to be under the impression that conservatives dislike porn, and liberals love it. Fact is, both sides love it. It's just that more conservatives claim to be against it, because, you know, god.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

Subpoenas are "unreasonable search"? Really? They are the very definition of reasonable search. Go read the constitution.

Ooh, I wish I knew who you were. I'm on a federal grand jury, and I'd subpoena you in a second! :-)

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[x0ra]

Administrative subpoena have no judicial oversight, leaving plenty of room for abuse.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Firethorn]

The fourth amendment does not protect you from having a business relationship with a corporation terminated, even involuntarily.

It's a bit different when the relationship is terminated because the government is threatening the corporation though.

I get the feeling that a number of justices aren't going to like that, and at least to me quite a few businesses on that list are perfectly legitimate, even specifically constitutionally protected.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[x0ra]

Btw, you are also missing on United States v. Hubbell, which involves the 5th Amendments.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that "Obamacare" was embraced by the Republicans while it was still nicknamed "Romneycare" and introduced in Massachusetts by Governor Youknowwho?

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[LordLimecat]

Im under the impression that conservatives are more likely to object to porn than liberals, just as theyre more likely to reject ANYTHING that isnt "conservative".

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Shakrai]

A liberal administration isnt going to crack down on porn

Liberals aren't anti-porn? Seriously? You really wanna go there?

Earlier this month, 42 senators signed a letter urging Attorney General Eric Holder to step up enforcement of federal obscenity laws. Among the cast of mostly Republican signers, one name stood out: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a staunch liberal from California, the de-facto porn capital of America. (Feinstein wasn’t available to comment for this story.)

She wasn’t alone: five other Senate Democrats, including Minnesota’s left-wing warrior, Amy Klobuchar, also signed the letter, and they were applauded by feminists, leftist lawyers, and liberal academics. Together, this increasingly vocal segment of progressives is making the case that hardcore porn flies in the face of cherished liberal causes—and that Democrats should be leading the charge to take down its distributors.

“To be anti-porn is a progressive principle.”

Liberals have no problem going after porn. They just frame it differently than Conservatives. They're upholding women's rights (except of course for the right of women to consent to star in pornography) rather than Christian morals.

If anything the Liberal position is more hypocritical than the Conservative one.

Re: Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? It was heritages plan to start with...

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Right to (human) life implies right to oxygenate sugars implies breathing. Or not?

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Sperbels]

A liberal administration isnt going to crack down on porn; it would alienate huge parts of their base.

You mean like how the DEA is still going after medical marijuana dispensaries in Denver despite Obama supporting legalization? http://www.denverpost.com/news...

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[stenvar]

The Constitution doesn't enumerate the rights of citizens, the Constitution enumerates the (very limited) powers of the federal government.

So, since the Constitution has "zero mention" of a governmental power to take away people's bank accounts, the federal government does not have that power.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

As a lifelong Democrat, I may just do that. Democrats obviously have gotten drunk with power and have been wrecking this country. Frankly, I care less and less about the stupidity of social conservatives in the Republican party, because it is harmless compared to the damage Obama and Congressional Democrats have been causing.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[stenvar]

They "embraced" a preliminary version of something that was somewhat similar to "Obamacare". That's not the same as embracing Obamacare.

Fact is that Republicans universally rejected Obamacare and that it was exclusively designed and implemented by Democrats. Democrats are the only ones responsible for it.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[I'm New Around Here]

Read my sig. Please.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't find a right to breath in there either.

Good news for waterboarding.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere in the Constitution are you guaranteed a bank account.

That the Constitution has zero mention of the power of the federal government to forbid you a bank account will be lost on the anti-drug "goddamn piece of paper" Republicans and liberals.

Taking property from an American is a crime if it's done without due process and just compensation regardless of the reasoning used by the perpetrator about their victim -- even if they somehow feel enlightened by their job as an employee of the federal government.

[Ending of the] Fifth Amendment: ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and as far as I can see from the articles they are returning property, that is, the outstanding balance from the account. Otherwise there wouldn't even be a reason to call out to Constitution, just to articles of criminal code dealing with fraud.

Bank account, on the other hand, isn't even the property, but a service provided by the bank.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't mention locking people in jail, highways or aircraft either.

You're an idiot.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[dickens]

Um, you have heard about "Romneycare" ? He pretty much invented the idea of the individual mandate. And yup, it's working.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[stenvar]

Romney didn't "invent" the individual mandate. Individual mandates exist in many places in Europe. They're fairly reasonable. But whether they work or not depends on the details.

Obama's plan ended up being a gigantic handout to corporate America. Face it, the Obama administration is both deeply corrupt and incompetent. And I say that as someone who actually voted for the guy.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

Does you TAX office allow payment in cash?

We have laws here in the Netherlands about what primary needs are. Anything you need to work and live in the Netherlands is a primary need. Paying taxes can only be done through a bank account. Filling out tax forms can only be done on the Internet.

Although maybe bank accounts and the internet have not yet been deemed primary goods officially. I am sure that if our DOJ would stop a TAX paying citizen from using either one, that they will have to answer to the TAX man.

If your bank account is closed maybe you should talk to the TAX man and tell him that you are not allowed to pay your taxes by order of the DOJ.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[lagomorpha2]

If anything the Liberal position is more hypocritical than the Conservative one.

It's not so much hypocritical, it's just that the left favors collective rights over individual rights. So where the right would favor an individual's right to join or not join a union, the left favors a union's right to force individuals to become members.

Banning pornography is like forcing women to join a union. By restricting supply it artificially increases the value of naked women and as a result causes men to spend more on it. As a result they're hoping to increase the sexual value of the average middle-aged American woman from almost nothing to "half your stuff when she divorces you".

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[cascadingstylesheet]

No, but pornography is a first amendment rights, and screw you if it is at the opposite of your morality.

You don't have to support the actions in the story (and I don't) to argue with what you just wrote.

Pornography isn't a first amendment right. The actual people who passed the first amendment didn't think it protected pornography. By contrast. they did think that the first amendment protected, say, the Koch brothers buying political ads, because that's exactly what the first amendment was for.

Wallowing around naked in public (or some commercial version of public) isn't speech. Political communication is speech, the precise speech that those who enacted the first amendment were trying to protect.

If you want to enact law that protects pornography, then go ahead ... but actually do that, don't try to hijack other law for your purpose.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[1s44c]

In a two party system the two parties work in alliance to ensure they collectively control all political power.

In practice voting Republican is exactly the same as voting Democrat.

Re: Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

"The great aspect to the US legal system is it was shaped to protect from extrajudicial punishment and protects free speech, assembly, press, privacy and much more."

That protection from extrajudicial punishment is working wonderfully for "sexual offenders" in this country. Consider the added state law requirements to protect us from the creeps, oops "sexual predators", who wind up with that designation after sentencing.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[king neckbeard]

The first amendment certainly protects pornography. That's why the DOJ lost in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[cascadingstylesheet]

The first amendment certainly protects pornography. That's why the DOJ lost in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

That's not even an argument. That's like saying "Crimea should be Russian because Russia seized it."

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Shakrai]

My country produces porn? Wow, I had no idea, I source most of mine from Europe. Oh, you mean those videos with laughably large cocks and not a single non-augmented breast?

American porn sucks. How it manages to survive in a competitive marketplace is beyond me. Thank god for the internet....

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[callmetheraven]

^^ (Kevin Bacon standing amidst the carnage in the last scene of Animal House) "All is well! All is well!"

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[ganjadude]

even if true, states rights vs federal rights. Its ok for a state to do that per the 10th amendment, it is NOT ok for the feds, as per the 10th amendment (if we actually follow the constitution, something we havent done in decades)

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[ganjadude]

he doesnt support legalization, he supports pandering to potheads to get votes. big difference

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[ganjadude]

I like your sig, I would reverse the roles though. I want the libertarian president and the green veep

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[ganjadude]

give a lawyer a week and he will get that fixed. I mean all these people are destroying the environment, so we need to restrict their right to breath, you know, for the environment

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[I'm New Around Here]

Of course you would. That would make the most sense to any right-leaning person.

However, the goal isn't to get your favorite candidate into the White House, but to break the stranglehold of the Democrats and Republicans on politics, media stories, voter mind-share, etc. For that, you actually need the Green Party faithful to buy into the coalition, and few of them would be willing to vote for a Libertarian president.

So, bite the bullet for the short term, just to get voter attention.

For more in depth thought, see this comment I made yesterday.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[ganjadude]

oh i would totally vote either way, Ive voted for greens, libertarians, democrats, republicans If I saw a ticket that was split regardless of what party it is on top, Id be on board because as you said, baby steps, we cant expect REAL change overnight sadly

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[king neckbeard]

SCOTUS decisions are pretty important in the interpretation of the Constitution, and the intent of the Framers is studied extensively by them. Legally, the first amendment protects pornography. The exact feelings of the Framers may differ, but I wouldn't count on it. Many of them, were, after all, into some rather kinky shit.

So, chances are that someone like Benjamin Franklin would find our dirtiest porn dreadfully boring, and the highest court in the land has interpreted that pornography is protected by the first amendment. I think that's a fairly solid argument, but your claim of 'NUH UH' is quite a compelling counterpoint.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[misexistentialist]

Conservatives are hypocrites, though that's almost unfair because they barely make a show of believing in anything, but the left are true believers in "objectification theory", and would make even sexy advertisements a criminal offense. Only thing stopping them from going full Sharia is that they don't believe in restrictions on women, and it's going to take quite a restructuring to make men the frigid sex, apparently they're hoping that most will turn gay

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to arrest these ass clowns - if the feds won't do it, we can and will "Citizen's Arrest" for actions taken with no legal standing.

Then if the federal courts won't imprison them, I'm sure we can just ship em to gitmo. No warrants necessary as proven by the U.S. Government.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[The Snowman]

Does you TAX office allow payment in cash?

U.S. currency is valid tender for all debts, public and private (within the jurisdiction of the U.S., of course). Certain purchases (e.g. brand new cars) are pretty rare with cash, but any business or government agency that accepts payments will accept cash. It may not be as convenient: for example, to pay federal taxes with cash you may need to drive to another city with an IRS office, but it is possible.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[DexterIsADog]

Conservatives are hypocrites, though that's almost unfair because they barely make a show of believing in anything, but the left are true believers in "objectification theory", and would make even sexy advertisements a criminal offense. Only thing stopping them from going full Sharia is that they don't believe in restrictions on women, and it's going to take quite a restructuring to make men the frigid sex, apparently they're hoping that most will turn gay

Thank you, that was awesome! I haven't read such a dog's breakfast of nonsense in oh, nearly a month!

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a staunch liberal from California,

Citation, please.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

And now we know why the obsession to get everyone on board with direct deposits and bank cards. There was a time in recent memory when you could get by just fine without that "service" -- today could still workout, but would take some time to adapt and minimize the chaos.

Maybe it's time to embrace an underground economy.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[causality]

No, but pornography is a first amendment rights, and screw you if it is at the opposite of your morality.

I'm not commenting on porn one way or another. But if something that consenting adults do happens to go against my morality, do you know how I deal with that?

I don't do that thing myself. That's all.

You see, part of my morality involves recognizing the unnecessary control of other people as evil. Consenting adults == no victim == no crime == not a law-enforcement matter. I might speak against practices I disagree with, perhaps even vehemently, but in these cases trying to use government's police power (that is, armed men willing to do violence to force compliance) is just plain fucking disgusting.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

A liberal administration isnt going to crack down on porn

You might want to go look up Eric Holder's statements about his stance on the legality of pornography. AFAIK, he hasn't said anything recently, but look back to during and before his confirmation.

- T

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Rakarra]

There are things that states can be allowed to do that the federal government is not.
You can be opposed to federal control and in favor of state health care systems and not be a hypocrite.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Rakarra]

Oh, you mean those videos with laughably large cocks and not a single non-augmented breast?

Mmmmm, aww yeah, that's the good stuff.

Re:Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Don't you hate it when THEY track you?

[Anonymous Coward]

img src=3D"https://pixel=2Einbox=2Eexacttarget=2Ecom/pixel=2Egif?r=xxxxxxx=
dxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&c=3D1404NewsletterCustomerNokia520&wpid=
=3D1404NewsletterCustomerNokia520" width=3D"1" height=3D"1" />

Is what MS sends me as its "Insider" bulletin. The above was at the bottom. plain as day.

Re:Don't you hate it when THEY track you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you not agree to the terms and conditions? Be glad you don't have your lips sewn onto a chinaman's asshole. They can do that if you agreed to let them.

Right to a Bank Account

[Anonymous Coward]

You won't find a right to a bank account in the Constitution.

That you won't find the power to stop you from having a Bank Account in the Constitution is a fact that will be lost on the anti-drug "Goddamned Piece of Paper" Republicans and liberals.

Pretty chilling honestly

[bigmario]

Using DoJ resources to force the closure of accounts belonging to "legal but subjectively undesirable business ventures"? There's no way in hell that can be legal. This is a slippery slope situation and should get folks on both sides of the aisle riled up

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[gweihir]

It is the way to fascism. Just look at historic precedents. Very, very alarming.

It also means the DoJ is not concerned with "the law" anymore, but just does what those in power want. Not that "the law" was worth a lot before.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter if it is legal or not the banks already have denied people I know in the cam girl business new bank accounts, that they started looking for after the original bank (and it was more then one bank) sent them notices that after the first week of May they will not longer have accounts with them

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[DoofusOfDeath]

It is the way to fascism. Just look at historic precedents. Very, very alarming.

It also means the DoJ is not concerned with "the law" anymore, but just does what those in power want. Not that "the law" was worth a lot before.

Time to leave.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[phantomfive]

Congress makes laws, what congress says, is legal. Don't confuse 'legal' with 'ethical.' I can totally believe this is legal, since bank accounts are not protected by the constitution.

My question is, what is wrong with a Travel Club? I can't figure out who hates those.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

Using DoJ resources to force the closure of accounts belonging to "legal but subjectively undesirable business ventures"? There's no way in hell that can be legal. This is a slippery slope situation and should get folks on both sides of the aisle riled up

*Yawn* Is this anything like the report I saw recently that DoJ was planning on using predator drones to bomb Cliven Bundy's ranch to masscre everyone on it? If I recall correctly, it was supposed to have happened by last Monday, at the latest. Come back when you have actual credible evidence of this happening. (No, sorry, Sean Hannity doesn't count.)

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution is a whitelist of powers the government has, not a blacklist of powers it doesn't. Where in the constitution does it say that the government can arbitrarily seize bank accounts for little to no reason, or seize bank accounts because the person has an occupation that they simply don't like?

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Darinbob]

Chilling if true. I can't see evidence that this is happening except for this web site which merely asserts it is happening. Even the guardian article isn't saying accounts are being closed, only that they're sending regulators after businesses that are flagged by the banks. Maybe banks themselves are denying accounts to some people but the connection to DOJ is slippery.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[dale.furno]

Like tears in rain

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[jedidiah]

This is something that needs repeated frequently.

A lot of people think that the Bill of Rights is a white list. That's actually as wrong as you could possibly be. It is the Constitution in general as it relates to the powers of the federal government that is the whitelist.

This is why the Obamacare mandate is illegal and your state's care insurance mandate is not.

The Bill of Rights is just the short list of rights that should not be infringed by government. It's the really important ones much like the 10 Commandments.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

I can totally believe this is legal, since bank accounts are not protected by the constitution.

Even blatantly unconstitutional stuff, like PRISM is "legal", which is impossible because unconstitutional laws are void and can not, under any circumstance, be legal. Every law that skirts around or directly circumvents the constitution proves more and more that our government went rogue a long time ago.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[AHuxley]

Re "legal but subjectively undesirable business ventures"
Take it to a vote and then they can unleash the fully funded power for the domestic surveillance network of entrapment, police raids with military surplus, creating new informants, reports to fusion centers and enjoy great overtime funding.
That would then be "legal", fill the private prison system for longer, extra police funding and be great news for political class of prosecutors.
This method of "legal but subjectively undesirable business ventures" will result in many legally unsound convictions with very busy legal teams.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[artor3]

As with most stories on Slashdot these days, it's bullshit meant to make you scared and angry.

prosecutors are investigating whether third-party processors that route payments for merchants through banks are ignoring signs of fraud to rake in fees from transactions.

They're not trying to shut down porn -- what possible motive could they even have for that? They're trying to stop disreputable businesses from effectively robbing people a few nickels at a time. If innocent companies are getting caught in the crossfire, then the DOJ needs to do its job better. But quit hyperventilating. This is not some evil government plot to wipe out all of the fireworks stores and dating services in the country.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Opportunist]

I agree. But where to?

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[phantomfive]

The constitution gives the interpretation to the supreme court. So, while it's totally allowed to disagree with them, but the courts will uphold what the SCOTUS says, not what you say. And that is constitutional.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[TrollstonButterbeans]

Uh? No.

Those industries are run by organized crime and the mafia as "legitimate businesses" and engage in fraud, deceit and other felonies.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[LordLimecat]

Theyre not. The speculation is that banks are doing it voluntarily at the encouragement of the DoJ, but even that is a huge leap based on hysterical speculation by Reason based on hysterical speculation by vice which is based on a "maybe...?" article on WSJ.

Noone knows, we only have a handful of pornstars who have lost bank accounts, and some guessing about what "operation chokepoint is".

This is stupid trollbait, and everyone here is falling for it.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[LordLimecat]

What it means is that literally noone here read the article, so theyre getting their panties in a bunch over a summary which twists already highly spun nonsense.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[The Snowman]

The constitution gives the interpretation to the supreme court. So, while it's totally allowed to disagree with them, but the courts will uphold what the SCOTUS says, not what you say. And that is constitutional.

Judicial Review is an implicit power. I believe it is an important power that should be enumerated and limited in scope, but it is not.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[chihowa]

The constitution gives the interpretation to the supreme court.

Oh yeah? Where in the Constitution does it say that?

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[udachny]

Taking away rights started with the Sherman's act being used against Standard Oil over 100 years ago now, the people didn't care, they always hated the wealthy, nobody cares when some wealthy people lose their rights and lose their property.

Taking away property continued with the introduction of the IRS, nobody cared, because the original concept was supposedly to remove duties and import and alcohol taxes and instead to implement an income tax on the top 2% of the earners, and the original highest tax was 7%. Nobody cared, because people hate the wealthy and they also hate paying taxes. In any case, normally people define 'wealthy' being anybody who has more money then they do (so you ask a guy that makes 20K, he sees anybody making 40K+ as wealthy, a 40K guy sees a 70K guy as wealthy, 70K guy sees 120K guy as wealthy, 120K guy sees 150K guy as wealthy, 150K guy sees 200K guy as wealthy, 200K guy sees 400K guy as wealthy, 400K guy sees 700K guy as wealthy, etc.etc.)

They introduced the Fed in 1913 (same year as the IRS), in 1917 they gave the Fed the power to print money to buy bad US gov't debt (bonds). So people didn't care, I mean who cares, the gov't did that rather than raising more taxes to grow, and the people that got screwed were those with more savings, and everybody hates the wealthy. Well, today the real rate of inflation is north of 10% and the prices are only slightly rising because the inflation is exported to those '3rd world nations' that end up working for worthless USD and exporting their actual goods they produce to the USA. (This will stop soon.)

They steal people's property all the time, they created entire classes of poor people by introducing the minimum wage to destroy competition by the blacks to the unions back in the thirties. Before that time the black unemployment was lower than white unemployment and many other statistics were going really well for the blacks. Well, then they started 'fighting poverty', picture time.

Taking away property is long standing government tradition. From 'anti-trust' to income taxes to printing money (inflation) to payroll taxes and SS and Medicare and FDIC and every department and exists, even the latest nonsense with the Nevada ranch, it's all one big happy Mafia family, that's what the government is.

You are the property and they are the owners. This is modern day democratically created and maintained slavery.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[visualight]

What I don't understand is why anyone needs to tell a bank what you do for a living. If it's a personal account and you're not doing business through the account why should it be any business of the banks?

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress makes laws, what congress says, is legal.

Congress can only make laws for things it is specifically authorized to make by the US Constitution. It's true that Congress has been trying hard to find bizarre arguments for extending that power through various acrobatic interpretations of the US Constitution. Nevertheless, the principle remains: Congress has limited and enumerated powers and cannot simply make arbitrary laws.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

suck my dick, roman mir

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[BitZtream]

Of course its not legal.

But how stupid are you to believe they are actually doing this based on a slashdot summary, of an article that speculates ... based on the speculation of another article, based on the speculation in another article, based on the speculation of yet another article?

I'm not kidding, go read them, its literally speculation 4 or 5 levels deep with pretty much nothing but correlation to back it up, and the number of correlated items is so low that no one in their right mind would jump to that assumption.

So while, if true, its not legal ... you really (nor I) have any fucking idea why they are doing it.

This is FUD, pure and simple.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[sgt scrub]

Congress makes laws, what congress says, is legal That is correct. Except the Supreme Court determines if the laws are within the parameters of the constitution based on how they decide on cases brought before them. If a suit by one, or more, of the people abused by these actions makes it to the supreme court and wins this action is no longer legal.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[ComputersKai]

Hey, that means perhaps we can close down all of the accounts of politicians who don't follow up on campaign promises!

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[phantomfive]

Congress can only make laws for things it is specifically authorized to make by the US Constitution. It's true that Congress has been trying hard to find bizarre arguments for extending that power through various acrobatic interpretations of the US Constitution. Nevertheless, the principle remains: Congress has limited and enumerated powers and cannot simply make arbitrary laws.

This is one interpretation of the constitution, known as the Federalist view. Jefferson was the founding father who was the foremost proponent of this view, and it went out of favor during his presidency, when he made the Louisiana Purchase, which is not authorized by the constitution.

Jefferson was going to show that the country could be governed, he could handle emergencies while following that view of the constitution. He failed, and ever since it's not clear that such a view is even realistic.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

It also means the DoJ is not concerned with "the law" anymore, but just does what those in power want. Not that "the law" was worth a lot before.

Where have you been? That's been the case ever since Holder has been AG.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[DoofusOfDeath]

Well, for me personally, Germany.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

Those industries are run by organized crime and the mafia as "legitimate businesses" and engage in fraud, deceit and other felonies.

You make it sound like you don't consider the U.S. government a "legitimate business" merely because it engages in fraud, deceit, perjury, embezzling, torture, and has a Department of "Justice" openly working to abolish the Constitution in general and the First, Fourth, and Sixth amendments to it in particular.

Before the Department of "Justice" stepped up and organized the crimes of the government, it was a killing here, a torture there, no due process here, some blackmail there, an assassination here and there and so on. But no really coherent picture. Dung chewing terrorists could have set up operations like that.

But now we have the Department of "Justice" and it has done a lot for much more thoroughly organized crime. There is a system to it, a theme, a sense of purpose. People are tortured and killed for their own good now.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Paradise Pete]

It is not the DOJ's job to mete out punishment; to be be judge, jury, and executioner. There is a system in place for very good reasons.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to sue and shut down the fraudster companies, not close random innocent civilians' bank accounts?

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

The US could make people disappear without a fair judgement and people wouldn't care. They could monitor everybody more than the Gestapo could dream of and people wouldn't care. All they have to do is not blow up all McDonald's and TV stations and nobody will care.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia

We already have lots of criminals and in fact our country was based on the premises that we would accept criminals

As a bonus you get to download stuff off the internet without being sued for everything you have by suck sucking US corporations

As a downside lots of stuff can not be purchased here including many audio and video products

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[gweihir]

Since when? If they were, they could close them down legally, instead of resorting to exceedingly immoral and anti-democratic underhanded practices.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[gweihir]

Next step: Rename it into "Department of Love"...

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Xebikr]

prosecutors are investigating whether third-party processors that route payments for merchants through banks are ignoring signs of fraud to rake in fees from transactions.

There are legal ways to shutdown companies that are breaking the law. They involve judges and due process and an adversarial system, not extra-legal requests from the DOJ to the payment processors. An order to seize property or force a business closure can be appealed and overturned. What's their recourse here? Sue the payment provider? Sue the DOJ? Can't. No business, no money. This *is* horrible. If they are investigating, they should complete their investigation, and then ask a judge to do something, or have someone arrested.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[gweihir]

I read if before posting. Did you? At the very least you did not understand any of the implications.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[bananaquackmoo]

Do you honestly think they DO tell the banks what they do for a living? No. The banks look at who the paychecks come from.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[gweihir]

Sounds like a fair assessment to me.

Of course, "all McDonald's and TV stations" is what comes next, as totalitarian governments invariably drive the economy into the ground. But when ordinary Joe wakes up, it is far, far too late.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty sure this, but they really really really don't like shady transactions/banks making shady deals and this hurts the little guy in this country were we would just look the other way as much as the big guy

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember all that bitcoin the feds seized? Well they need a place to spend it. What better way to promote bitcoin than to make it hard to use credit cards?

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[misexistentialist]

The banks can't use ignorance as an excuse, they have to find out so they can monitor and control all transactions as required by government.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Nephandus]

You better be female then.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[DoofusOfDeath]

Why do you say that?

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Nephandus]

So the US State is unrealistic, and this circularly authorizes corruption to literally be law? I'm pretty sure that'd just make law unrealistic, but then the terms de facto and de jure do exist for a reason...

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[LordLimecat]

There are no implications: everything from the summary to the circle of links is speculation. noone knows anything for sure, but that hasnt stopped wild theories based on other wild theories based on a WSJ article.

DoJ is encouraging banks to close bank accounts of risky actors. We have no reason at this point to believe that means "kill all pornstar bank accounts", especially since there are apparently only 2 or 3 porn stars experiencing this. Strangely enough none of them are big names. Its almost like someones trying to create a story where there is none.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure Jefferson was Anti-Federalist...

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[wxjones]

Holder is a thug.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

the irony burns..

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why the Obamacare mandate is illegal...

So is the core of the internet, its foundations, its current regulatory bodies, etc.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[MacDork]

Really. Then how do you explain their closing Teagan Presley's personal account, and her husband's account?

The only business I have with Chase is a single credit card account. I'll be closing that as soon my next payment on it clears. I'm also going to be thinking very hard about finding a European bank to move my money into.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Mantrid42]

Here you go: https://news.vice.com/article/... They talked to a few porn stars who had this happen in the article.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution gives the interpretation to the supreme court. So, while it's totally allowed to disagree with them, but the courts will uphold what the SCOTUS says, not what you say. And that is constitutional.

No it doesn't. The authority to interpret constitutionality is a power the Supreme Court illegally usurped via Marbury vs Madison.

Constitutional Review does not reside with the courts, but with the people. Current Supreme Court practice and methods are completely unconstitutional.

http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, and these porn stars traced it back to the DOJ?

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[bruce_the_loon]

I'll take a bet right now that three to six months from now, Presley or her husband, or both, will be arrested for running a money laundering scheme. I sense an attempt to generate outrage in the public against the DoJ as a defence tactic.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is why anyone needs to tell a bank what you do for a living. If it's a personal account and you're not doing business through the account why should it be any business of the banks?

It is actually an effective method to prevent money laundering. If Joe Car Mechanic for some reason has three orders of magnitude more payments made to his bank account than other carpenters, it's likely that his income is not coming from fixing cars. Furthermore, to get a credit card it's obviously means for a bank to verify that you based on past history indeed are earning your living the way you claim you are.

NB. I'm European but that should be the universal reason. Here with employers reporting to the tax authority how much they pay employees, it also works to make tax evasion a little harder since if you make orders of magnitude less withdrawals for your expenses, chances are you're getting paid in cash and using cash to pay whenever possible. I could be wrong but I believe that this is hardly ever used to go after individuals (privacy and all that being a serious issue here as well) but to find out in which industries tax evasion happens. In my country, Finland, the construction industry has gotten a bad reputation in that sense due to the hordes of Estonians coming here for much better pay even though they work for a lot less than Finns (although many Estonians of course also work perfectly legitimately). The authorities therefore now know to conduct random inspections on construction sites (a friend of mine is a construction worker and says it happens almost monthly at his job). Basically they station people at the exits so no one can leave and count the no. of workers present (as well as helmets, overalls etc. available) and look at time sheets. The company can then get in trouble if it turns out that they're not reporting their employees' earnings correctly.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Aighearach]

Sure, I guess you're trying to convince people be repeating the lie enough times.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Aighearach]

The website does not assert that it is happening. It speculates that it might be.

I speculate that the Martians will invade tomorrow.

Well... prove they won't!

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Aighearach]

Wait, wait, who got executed?!?!

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, for me personally, Germany.

As a foreigner, good luck getting a long term visa and finding a job that pays.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

The Department of "Justice" is putting all the crimes, torture, murder, miappropriation, perjury, espionage, deception, extortion, blackmail of the government into proper context.

It's what turns the government into an organized crime syndicate rather than just willynilly crimes any curd-chewing terrorist could commit.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

i almost certainly will ! ! ! ...tomorrow

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Opportunist]

Why? Even the chancellor didn't have to be.

(NO, I will NOT believe it without a DNA test. I've seen "female" shot-putters from the GDR that were more female than this ... thing!)

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the way to fascism. Just look at historic precedents...

Time to leave.

Sen. Schumer, with more chutzpah than sense of irony, has already proposed a Reichsfluchtsteuer: Ex-PATRIOT Act.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Opportunist]

To have trouble finding a job that pays you needn't be a foreigner... Germany sure is NOT the country to move TO, it's rather the one to flee from.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Opportunist]

If you can download it, why would you want to buy it?

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

see that is your problem you are thinking if its legal or not. Those that have power of law over others do not need to consider if their actions are legal as no one can go against them

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Type44Q]

This is one interpretation of the constitution, known as the Federalist view. Jefferson was the founding father who was the foremost proponent of this view

Hamilton was the foremost proponent of this view; Jefferson was the foremost proponent of the opposite view (his contradictory actions re: the Louisiana Purchase notwithstanding).

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

Anywhere in Europe you can find a job in long enough to get citizenship (sometimes as little as 5 years) and then "upgrade" to any country in the EU that you would like the best.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[felrom]

This is a slippery slope situation and should get folks on both sides of the aisle riled up

Frankly, the sheer number of of illegal things that are slippery slopes and should have had people on both sides of the aisle riled up, that this administration has overseen in the last 5 years is so large that I have no confidence that anything will come of this.

I could name a dozen of them, but I know that for each one I'll be bombarded with responses from drones who can only make excuses for why it was legal, or why the people who died as a result weren't important, or why the president admitting it happened doesn't mean it really happened.

This scandal too, will fall by the wayside as the true believers come to the administration's defense.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[UnknownSoldier]

So you solution is to run away??

And go where exactly again?? Canada? Australia? Europe? Asia?

Almost every single country (aside from 6) is run by financial idiots.

* List of countries by External Debt
* List of countries by Public Debt

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[callmetheraven]

should get folks on both sides of the aisle riled up

The left will vigorously defend this, as they've defended all the recent totalitarianism, fascism, government promoted racism.
Democrat = American Nazi.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

it's nice to know that the DoJ is so efficient that they have no real criminals and crimes to deal, and so are simply content to abuse power.

Sounds more and more like almost the entirety of the bureaucracy(or at least intelligence, law enforcement and TSA) needs some adult supervision.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[roman_mir]

If you are an American, you will find it exceedingly difficult to open a foreign bank account because USA government forces insane reporting requirements upon foreign banks to give up customer info so that most foreign banks simply refuse to deal with you if you have American citizenship. USA used to be a free country one could be proud of 100 years back, today its passport is a liability not an asset thanks to the massive collectivist take over.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[ganjadude]

to me the porn stars are not the real story (and likely have nothing to do with the real issue) of getting subpoenas for information when there is no proof of a crime being committed.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no fan of pornography, but I am even less of a fan of this kind of stuff. Either outlaw porn, something they know they can't do, or stop going after the bank accounts of the porn stars.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

The banks can't use ignorance as an excuse, they have to find out so they can monitor and control all transactions as required by government.

And, speaking as an ex-employee, not everything that the government makes banks do is something that the banks are permitted to talk about.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

Time Holder was removed (in the fullest sense of the word) - I am not American so I can say that. You poor Americans cannot. You sure got Hope and Change. Just not the hope and change that that 80% of you semi-educated slashdoters voted for. Still too late now. If you don't like it you must be a racist. There can be no other explanation.

Stunning when Russia is becoming a freer country than the US.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

Well aren't we all so lucky you aren't ordinary Joe! You're on top of this leading the charge to save us all from our own stupidity. Let me know how it turns out.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[bbsalem]

Here, I'd like to help you out, which way did you come in? It isn't that government sanctioning business can't lead to abuse, it is that business needs sanctioning, and by the way that is the norm and not the exception. Government and business are intimate and always have been. Government is only the seeming enemy to business that greedy elitist bastards who spout Rand say it is, while they forget that governments are used all the time to help establish industries by taking on the start-up risk and then the profitable business come back and ask government to enforce a cartel or monopoly. If you don't buy that. examine the history of coal, steel, rail, and communications in this country. Further, you of all people, should know about sweetheart deals between governments and businesses, look at how major German companies made deals with the government and how it was German capitalists who made Hitler possible. Shame.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[SeaFox]

They're not trying to shut down porn -- what possible motive could they even have for that?

To enforce a certain moral system on the rest of the country, something the Right has been trying to do for decades with laws targeting same sex marriage, abortion, and the War on Drugs.

I'm not discounting the rest of your post and if the Slashdot summary is wrong and misrepresents what is really happening here that is too bad, but you seem to be suggesting the government having an agenda like that would never happen. The elected leaders have shown they really don't care too much about the viewpoints of their constituents, the people whose views they are supposed to embody. Once they're elected they do whatever they personally feel like or their corporate campaign donors want them to do.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[ravenshrike]

The DoJ stopped being about upholding the rule of law the moment a Chicago politico was elected to the White House by the percentage of the electorate that are complete and utter fucking morons(seriously, Vermin Supreme would have been tolerable in comparison) and installed another longtime Chicago politico into the highest police office in the country.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution gives the interpretation to the supreme court. So, while it's totally allowed to disagree with them, but the courts will uphold what the SCOTUS says, not what you say. And that is constitutional.

You're missing a few major points. Your conclusion is invalid. Consider the following:

1. Federal judges, including Supreme Court judges, are required to swear oaths upholding the Bill of Rights. Those oaths are preconditions for holding or continuing in those offices. An oath, by the nature of oaths, creates an individual responsibility.

Violations of those oaths means that the individuals involved are no longer office-holders, nor can they hold any position of public trust or responsibility. The responsibility to act according to these oaths supersedes the judicial hierarchy.

The requirement for these oaths means that the Nuremberg precedent effectively applies to all legal professionals, police officers, and government agents in the USA, despite not being explicitly part of the US legal code. These people have an individual responsibility to refuse to enforce any law or precedent (irregardless of the issuing source) that violates the Bill of Rights.

2. Historically, there was considerable opposition to the original Constitution. The opponents (the Anti-Federalists, and others) feared that the government instituted would eventually act contrary to fundamental rights. Thus, they feared that the Congress, Presidency, and/or Supreme Court would eventually lost touch with their responsibilities and become corrupted by power. None of these entities -- individually or collectively -- were to be trusted. It was necessary to create a check and balance that could be used against them.

To counter-act this fear, a Bill of Rights was demanded that would supersede the authority of the government at specified in the original document in any situation where the two came into conflict. In order to get the Constitution ratified, men of honor whose integrity was trusted promised that it would be done. Further, everybody knew that it was politically and militarily impossible to hold the states together (at the time, this was before the industrial revolution: logistics alone made it impossible for the states to assert military control over one another) if this was not done.

As a result, it wasn't long before such a Bill of Rights was written to hold the country together. It was intended to, and does in fact supersede the authority of the original document, including the authority of the Supreme Court when the two come into conflict.

The documented history demonstrates this beyond any reasonable doubt.

3. The Bill of Rights is open-ended. This was done to address the concerns of the Anti-Federalists that any Bill of Rights would necessarily omit rights that were really important because the authors hadn't thought to include them. The 9th and 10th Amendments, by providing for unspecified "rights retained by the people", and "rights reserved to the people".

This, incidentally, allowed James Madison to condense over 100 proposed rights into a mere 10, since the others could readily be asserted under the 9th / 10th Amendments as needed, making the Bill of Rights a much simpler document. Simplicity of legal documents is itself a necessity, since a right to ethical practice of law is certainly a fundamental right: the Bill of Rights thus demonstrates how an ethical law should be created, a sort of "leadership by example".

The open-ended nature of the Bill of Rights also meant that Madison's original explicit rights directed specifically against state government (in his original text) were simply moved to the 9th Amendment, which, unlike the 1st, is not limited in application to just Congress, effectively setting the scope of the Bill of Rights to apply to government at all levels.

Rights retained by the people being retained by the people, the ability to assert such rights can not be taken away by any entity of the g

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Nephandus]

Germany might not be among the worst, but there are increasingly chauvinistic feminist laws in the EU with decreased notoriety and resistance. German laws specifically include things like "libel" being any intentionally negative publicity regardless of truth: "insult" with true statements is a category of illegal defamation. I'd image combining the former EU issue with the latter German specific issues is going to get far nastier in the near future.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that. According to more than one source I've read (Emergency by Neil Strauss being the first that came to mind,) most international banks will not touch money that comes from United States citizens.... Too much liability involved.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Nephandus]

The most resistance against the Bill of Rights came from those afraid it's be taken as a white list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no implications: everything from the summary to the circle of links is speculation. noone knows anything for sure, but that hasnt stopped wild theories based on other wild theories based on a WSJ article.

DoJ is encouraging banks to close bank accounts of risky actors. We have no reason at this point to believe that means "kill all pornstar bank accounts", especially since there are apparently only 2 or 3 porn stars experiencing this. Strangely enough none of them are big names. Its almost like someones trying to create a story where there is none.

No, it's actually more like someone is actually reporting on a real news story is all.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[dryeo]

Often it is the citizens who are financial idiots as they'd rather have low taxes rather then pay off the debt or often even balance the budget. It's like a household where as soon as their earnings equals their expenses, they take a vacation while their house needs a new roof and interest payments eat 25% of their income.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Occams]

Not alarming at all, but quite sensible. THe DOJ has limited resources so it has to make judgements about how best to employ them. It should aim where it thinks it has the best chances of detecting breaches of federal laws. I think aiming at these dubious business is a good strateg. People dealing with drugs, porno, sex, ponzi scams, gambling, telemarketing etc, do seem to me to be more likely to reward some DOJ investigation.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[DoofusOfDeath]

To have trouble finding a job that pays you needn't be a foreigner... Germany sure is NOT the country to move TO, it's rather the one to flee from.

My plan is to have a job with a multi-national corporation that's okay with me working from Germany after starting out in the U.S. I've actually got a pretty good-looking lead for such a job, so I really hope it works out. I should also have my dual-citizenship (U.S. + one of the Schengen countries) in a few months, so no visa required.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

Just watch out; there's obscure US tax law that requires you to disclose certain (possibly all, it's been a while since I checked) foreign-held bank accounts for "terrorism" purposes. It's a common way for innocent people to be sent to prison by the federal government here.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Opportunist]

Then get over to Austria, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Denmark... hell, nearly ANYWHERE else is better than Germany!

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[MacDork]

Or they sue you for libel. One of those two.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[MacDork]

Well then, I guess I'll be purchasing gold coins to stash. Leaving much money in the bank seems like a really big liability after reading this article.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

The DoJ has not been concerned with the law since 2001. Just saying...

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[SonicSpike]

Jefferson was NOT a Federalist, he was an Anti-Federalist! And Jefferson actually consulted with the other branches of government before he proceeded with the Louisiana Purchase.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[rioki]

What you mean one of the few economies in Europe that is actually halfway working?

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[phantomfive]

Jefferson was NOT a Federalist, he was an Anti-Federalist!

Yes, you are right, I was tired when i wrote it.

And Jefferson actually consulted with the other branches of government before he proceeded with the Louisiana Purchase.

'Consulting' with the other branches of government isn't the necessary procedure prescribed by the constitution. There wasn't enough time to actually amend the constitution. Everyone knew it at the time and it made Jefferson look like a hypocrite. Thus ended (in failure) the only attempt at governing under that strict view of the constitution.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would any financial institution refuse to "voluntarily" do what ever a government institution asks them to do? It's not like the IRS, SEC, FRB, OCC, FDIC, can give you hard time if your refuse to volunteer.

Re:Pretty chilling honestly

[jwhitener]

Get a local or regional bank account. Like a local credit union. Helps keep your money local, and is far less likely to get wrapped up in any national nonsense.

Don't Misunderstand Me...

[Jane Q. Public]

I'm not making any claims, I'm just making an observation:

Some of the things on DoJ's "Laundry List" of so-called "high financial risk" businesses are historically not high-risk AT ALL.

Like ammunition and firearms. Far from being "high-risk": manufacturers and retailers have historically been both large and long-lived. There is an ammunition manufacturer not all that far from here and they have been in business for 60 years. And the vast majority of ammunition is sold through major sporting-goods franchises, not mom-and-pop shops. Same with firearms.

Further, where people DO engage in small-scale ammunition or firearms sales or manufacturing, it is often a perfectly legitimate, specialty product. I know somebody who made and sold custom cartridges, and I have also met a guy who makes firearms. All perfectly legit and legal.

So pardon me for saying so, and I don't want to be misunderstood as being some kind of right-wing nut or anything, but it kind of looks like some things on this list are in fact Obama agenda items. Which is illegal.

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[Mashiki]

You sound almost shocked. Considering the things that Obama and company have done in the last 6 years, this is "operation" is right out of the fascist playbook. Attack what you don't control, and shut down private industry by choking off the funds.

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[Austerity Empowers]

I'd believe you if you had just removed "Obama and company". The push towards greater fascism has been a bipartisan effort in our new millenium.

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[artor3]

The question is "high risk of what?"

The answer is credit card fraud. That's what the DOJ is trying to go after here. If you google online ammo suppliers, you get a bunch of sites that look like they haven't been updated since '98. I have no doubt that the companies are perfectly reputable. But they might not have the tightest security when it comes to detecting fraudulent transactions.

No one is saying that they're engaged in anything illegal. No one is saying they're unstable, fly-by-night businesses. What the DOJ seems to think is that the payment processing companies they do business with might be turning a blind eye to fraud in order to make more money.

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[Jane Q. Public]

That's why we should vote both parties out.

Ron Paul was a good candidate, and would have been a good no-BS leader. Not perfect, but good.

Gary Johnson was a fiscal and popular success in New Mexico. Hell, he was even liked by Democrats. He was a good candidate too.

What will it take before people realize that a third party vote is not a "wasted vote"? On the contrary, it's one of the few viable answers we have left.

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[Mashiki]

I'd believe you if you had just removed "Obama and company". The push towards greater fascism has been a bipartisan effort in our new millenium.

I'm sure you'd believe that, except that Obama and company have actually been the ones walking the walk, and talking the talk on it. While I'd agree that there has been something in terms of bipartisanship on it, the last 6 years have been something special in terms of "going after ones enemies and things that don't fit the desired narrative."

And a useful tip for anyone that thinks I'm a republican or something. I'm not, and I don't even live in the US. Rather I pay attention to US politics, living in Canada and all that. And what your media "says" and what we actually "hear" outside of US media are two fully different stories. Especially when you figure that nearly every news agency in the US has someone who's got a brother/married/sister/brother/etc in the whitehouse while in controlling interest of *insert media company.*

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[Amouth]

The question is "high risk of what?"

The answer is credit card fraud.

they might not have the tightest security when it comes to detecting fraudulent transactions

If this was true, then it should be the industry that goes after the company not the DOJ.. PCI-DSS is extremely clear on what the company needs to do to be able to process credit cards. If they are getting ripped off or that company is by action enabling fraud to happen then that company is liable for the charges and fees.

Trust me i've gone through PCI-DSS certification, and it isn't easy.. but it is extremely clear what the ramifications are for failure.

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as someone who runs an online-business classified as high-risk and has spent years dealing with problems with credit-card processing and banks. High-risk was traditionally meant to refer to businesses with a high-risk of fraud (or charge-backs) but over-time has broadened to include industries that are not accepted by the powers that be and who want to marginalize those businesses by making business increasingly difficult to conduct. If you can not accept credit-cards in this day an age, good luck staying in business. In some cases, you can have years of processing history demonstrating fraud and charge-back levels an order of magnitude LESS than businesses not-deemed high-risk, and it is very difficult to get traditional banks to even look in your direction.
While I can only speak for my little niche of the business world and for others business in the same niche, in my experience, such actions go a bit beyond concerns for reducing fraud and chargebacks.

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[Austerity Empowers]

This is, of course, exactly what everyone who didn't like Bush II said, and what we continue to say about people who watch Fox news. Obama has done many things I don't like, and not done many things he said he would do. I'm not his biggest fan. But I also remember being distinctly happy when Bush II was done for almost exactly the same reasons.

I won't argue about our co-opted media, I just want to assert that it's in their interest to give us the illusion of choice, and to select between two different, allegedly opposed "identities" when we vote. But in fact, both parties are on the one true narrative of which fascism is the means, but not the end.

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[rtb61]

So this is the new, no fly program, the no financial accounts program. People considered as politically undesirable being targeted by random suppression of rights until they learn to think right, till they learn who is their boss and they learn to obey. Those targeted especially with personal banking are being turned into targets of crime as a result of being forced into a cash economy and well as being denied access to many internet services. This is the early stage, they are attempting to target what they believe the majority of citizens will ignore, prior to ramping this up to target all political opponents.

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[artor3]

Ehh, maybe so. Maybe the industry asked the DOJ for support. Maybe the DOJ didn't think the industry was handling it well and wanted to step in. Maybe they're wrong to do so. I don't know.

What I do know, is that a lot of people here seem to think that this is part of Obama's super-secret conspiracy to eradicate porn and fireworks and dating websites. And that's absolutely bonkers.

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[Anonymous Coward]

So pardon me for saying so, and I don't want to be misunderstood as being some kind of right-wing nut or anything, but it kind of looks like some things on this list are in fact Obama agenda items. Which is illegal.

Are they self-evident "Obama" agenda items because it's alleged to be happening in 2014 when he happens to be president?

Or are they called "Obama" agenda items for some other reason? Because other than the 2014 date, few lucky people would ever correctly guess the name "Obama" from that list of oppressed businesses. (Not that the current president isn't corrupt or evil; just that the particular types of businesses could just as easily be called agenda items of Bush or Clinton or Bush or Reagan or Carter or Ford or Nixon...)

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gary Johnson was only moderately popular in New Mexico. His biggest problem was that he wasn't sufficiently corrupt, so the high proportion of state-employed voters felt threatened.

We fixed that problem with Richardson(D) and Martinez(R) who are far less principled people, much more easily influenced by money.

Remember: it is still fashionable to run on the "jobs" platform. Most Americans think that when a politician talks about "creating jobs" they're talking about a desirable thing, rather than a destructive anti-American thing.

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why we need to reform the election system. If there are only two "valid" viewpoints to represent 300+ million people something is VERY broken, or as I see it just the way they want it.

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[Anonymous Coward]

a vote for obama or romney was a wasted vote.

i caucused for ron paul.
i voted for gary johnson.

proud to say who i voted for. i'm not sure many obama voters can say the same.

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[wytcld]

Ron Paul's newsletter a couple of decades back was fuil of writing over his signature about how a race war is coming. They guy was in KKK territory. His son recently had to fire someone from his staff who was famous for similar views. These guys are largely against federal powers because they share the ideology of the Confederacy. The "liberty" they want is the liberty to refuse to do business with blacks, and the liberty in which the feds get out of the way of the power of billionaires like the Koch brothers, also "libertarians," whose father was famously a Bircher.

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[Jane Q. Public]

According to Paul, it was someone on his staff who actually made those statements, not him. Yes, it appeared over his signature but you have to give your campaign managers the permission to say things on your behalf. That's the way it works.

I am as bothered by those statements as you, but I have no reason to doubt that what Paul said about it was true. Shit like that does happen. Nothing like it occurred before that, and nothing like it has occurred since.

Further, I would like to point out that many articles from Leftist press sources (easy to find them on Google) have seriously stretched the truth by taking that could easily be interpreted as NOT racist, and interpreting them in a very racist way. I could do that to anybody. But the fact is that the Left had very strong motivation to label Paul as racist (just as they're doing right now today, to Libertarians and right-wingers they don't like.)

I do not endorse intentional racism. But at the same time, he may not have actually made the statements, over 20 years ago, and his detractors had every reason to try to portray him as a racist. So I am willing to give him some benefit of the doubt.

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[Jane Q. Public]

I'm sure you'd believe that, except that Obama and company have actually been the ones walking the walk, and talking the talk on it.

You both make good points. But I would also like to point out that Canada's government (for some unfathomable reason) was particularly friendly with Bush, and not necessarily so much with Obama. So I think I detect a bit of bias there.

They have BOTH been abnormally (abysmally?) sad administrations, and many of Obama's more serious abuses can trace at least their beginnings back to the Bush administration, and the aftermath of "9/11". A lot of what Obama has done was Bush policy, just more and worse.

Re:Don't Misunderstand Me...

[SeaFox]

I'm not making any claims, I'm just making an observation:
Some of the things on DoJ's "Laundry List" of so-called "high financial risk" businesses are historically not high-risk AT ALL.

Ironically, if the DOJ was actually going after "high-risk" businesses, they would be going after all those large banks that deal in sub-prime mortgages. Closing them down instead of bailing them out. We have proof that their business is a risk to the health of the country's economy.

Well Played, DOJ...

[IonOtter]

Pepper the list with plenty of "industries" that the vast majority of people would dearly love to see destroyed, such as pyramid schemes, racist trash and payday loans, but shut down plenty of useful-but-intimidating-to-those-in-power businesses as well.

Re:Well Played, DOJ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only ones being "played" here are gullible, hyper-emotional partisans of various political stripe. Move along, nothing to see here....

Re:Well Played, DOJ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Targeting scams is one thing, but some of the other categories don't seem to fit. "Racist Materials"? What does that include? Are the people selling it actually scamming people? As unpopular as it may seem, I don't think they should target people for selling pamphlets/books/whatever.

I also don't think they should be going after bong sellers. (The actual drugs in question are one thing, but I don't think they should target "weed culture" people.)

Same with coin dealers. Unless those are counterfeit coins, there's no reason to target them.

Re:Well Played, DOJ...

[TheGratefulNet]

I've been told that this is known as a 'shit sandwich'.

good, good, good, bad, good, good, bad, good, good.

try to lose the 'bad' in the apparent majority of 'good' things on a list.

and so, this has its own name, a shit sandwich.

Legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure why merely doing business in the Ammunition Sales; Coin Dealers; Credit Repair Services; Dating Services; Firearms Sales; Fireworks Sales; Home-Based Charities; Life-Time Guarantees; Life-Time Memberships; Mailing Lists/Personal Info; Money Transfer Networks; On-line Gambling; PayDay Loans; Pharmaceutical Sales; Pornography; Racist Materials; Surveillance Equipment; Telemarketing; Tobacco Sales and Travel Clubs industries or combination thereof should automatically flag ones activies as "questionable". What happened to innocent until proven guilty??

Re:Legal

[ultranova]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty??

Nothing. You're still innocent before the law. It's just that the law no longer rules.

Re:Legal

[x0ra]

"Innocent until proven guilt" has no place in a socialist, precaution principle-based, system.

Re:Legal

[visualight]

Socialism is a really broad term for an economic system. It is not inherently just or unjust, moral or immoral. It is basically so broad as to be meaningless -I can't think of a country that could not be described as 'socialist'. Whenever someone ties morality to a word like this know YOU ARE BEING MANIPULATED.

Re:Legal

[stenvar]

Socialism is inherently incompatible with individual liberty. That makes it evil for people who believe that individual liberty is an intrinsic human right.

Re:Legal

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just that the law no longer rules.

Did it ever?

Re:Legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha you don't know what socialism is.. just keep buying the fear mongering.

Re:Legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote Republican! They'll make sure that ammunition suppliers have no need to fear.

Everyone else on the list can suck it. Goddamn piece of paper or not.

Re:Legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialism is the best way ever discovered to encourage individual liberty. That's why fascists, religious bigots and the right wing hate it so much.

If it was just the banks that would be one thing

[sideslash]

...but I can't stand the thought of government deciding that some people (who aren't doing anything illegal) shouldn't be able to have a bank account.

I reject the excuse that it's all optional on the part of the banks. Having Big Brother breathing down your neck and Strongly Suggesting that you do something is absolutely inappropriate, and I'd love to see Washington, DC held accountable for this in some way.

BTC

[Z34107]

For all the Ponzi-this, tulips-that that gets posted every time Bitcoin makes the news, this is one of the problems they're trying to solve. A prude at Chase or the DoJ can't close your bank accounts if you have no need of a bank in the first place.

Re:BTC

[Jane Q. Public]

For all the Ponzi-this, tulips-that that gets posted every time Bitcoin makes the news, this is one of the problems they're trying to solve. A prude at Chase or the DoJ can't close your bank accounts if you have no need of a bank in the first place.

That's a good point. And so is "trying to solve" as opposed to "solved".

For all the promise of Bitcoin, the exchanges have corrupted it by insisting on knowing ownership, charging for transactions, etc. Both of these problems have to be addressed before it will be "solved".

With a properly-designed system, there should be very little need for formal exchanges.

Re:BTC

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you no longer need to "cash out" your bitcoins there will be no need for exchanges...that will be when bitcoin hits critical mass and the government can go pound sand.

Re:BTC

[Bob9113]

For all the Ponzi-this, tulips-that that gets posted every time Bitcoin makes the news, this is one of the problems they're trying to solve. A prude at Chase or the DoJ can't close your bank accounts if you have no need of a bank in the first place.

And that, in turn, is part of the reason the DoJ has been pushing so hard to tighten the Know Your Customer regulations on companies that turn Bitcoin into dollars.

Re:BTC

[Anonymous Coward]

The average person can barely keep track of their car keys, their debit card pin, and their email password. And you want them to somehow permanently store and maintain cryptographically secure information that is vital to their life savings? One virus, one keylogger, falling for one phishing site and all their money is gone. Even the big exchanges can't manage to keep their keys safe. It's too difficult, and too risky. The "solutions" like offline storage are complicated and still leave businesses at risk since they need liquidity.

Re:BTC

[Catiline]

While that is the route the DoJ is currently pursuing, I'm pretty sure that they will find it rather impotent:

KYC rules require money-related services to be able to identify all their customers, and self report ‘suspicious activity’ that can be signs of anything from money laundering to terrorist financing. In the traditional financial sector, this makes money laundering much more difficult (although nowhere near impossible). This is because, in order to interact with the modern financial system and transmit money electronically, you need to use a third-party service such as a bank, which are easy points of regulation.

However, with bitcoin it’s an entirely different story. No one needs a third-party service to own, spend, or send bitcoins anywhere in the world. All that is needed is an open-source wallet, of which there are plenty available to download. ... The real problem is whether governments will accept this new reality and plan appropriately, or continue to fight it. Regulatory bodies can’t fit bitcoin into current regulatory framework. The two are simply not compatible, and that has nothing to do with any libertarian sentiments in the community. It’s fact.

The degree of oversight government now has in the traditional payments arena is impossible to replicate with bitcoin...

Source: Why Know-Your-Customer rules won't work with Bitcoin

So unless the DoJ wants to argue that Overstock.com is a "financial service" company merely for accepting Bitcoin, or that the businesses which do convert Bitcoin into traditional currency need to implement some sort of "Know Your Customer's Customers" third party regulation, the tightening of existing regulation will have virtually zero effect.

Re:BTC

[Bob9113]

So unless the DoJ wants to argue that Overstock.com is a "financial service" company merely for accepting Bitcoin, or that the businesses which do convert Bitcoin into traditional currency need to implement some sort of "Know Your Customer's Customers" third party regulation, the tightening of existing regulation will have virtually zero effect.

Perhaps, eventually, but certainly for now there are very few things you can do with Bitcoin. You can't rent a car, buy an airplane ticket, or shop at your local supermarket. Bitcoin can come and go where it pleases, but if you can't turn it into dollars, you can't live on it -- at least for now. And if the government wants to, it can certainly use the same kind of wink-and-a-nudge pressure to keep lots of companies from accepting Bitcoin -- even if they otherwise would. And even where the government doesn't have significant regulatory discretion to flex, most companies don't have a CEO who sees financial libertarianism as a cause worth crossing D.C. over, like Overstock does.

Happy to be living in Canada

[Hamsterdan]

Oh wait... Harper's in power

Re:Happy to be living in Canada

[Mashiki]

Oh wait... Harper's in power

And I'll bet you think that Kim Dong Wynn's budget in Ontario was the greatest thing since sliced bread too. Well it was so bad, that not even the ultra-liberal NDP wanted anything to do with it. And people wonder why Ontario went from the economic engine of the country to a have-not-province in 10 years.

Re:If it was just the banks that would be one thin

[Jane Q. Public]

I reject the excuse that it's all optional on the part of the banks. Having Big Brother breathing down your neck and Strongly Suggesting that you do something is absolutely inappropriate, and I'd love to see Washington, DC held accountable for this in some way.

It seems to me, too, that even though many banks are "local" institutions, if they accept FDIC regulation I think they are supposed to play by Federal anti-discrimination and fair business rules. Which would prohibit Government from shutting down legal businesses just because they are "unwanted" by somebody in said government..

according to cryptocoin news?

[YesIAmAScript]

Come on guys.

Given Wells Fargo is currently accepting these people as customers, I think you need to produce a higher standard of proof before this conspiracy becomes believable.

Re:according to cryptocoin news?

[pkinetics]

Define accounts. A bank savings account is one thing. The money in your account is loaned back out, so banks have a desire to get as much cash.

Payment processing is a whole different issue. Small merchants don't always use the big banks' processor because the cost can be significantly higher.

A merchant might shop around, find a processor that matches their needs.

Welp what happens when the processor is instructed to not take payments for this merchant? Merchant scrambles to find another, and so forth.

Cash

[RJFerret]

Wait, so they want more of these industries to be cash based and perhaps un/under-report income tax??? I know plenty of people who have been moving more toward cash in the past several years, but it seems counter-intuitive the government would want to track less.

But seriously, how will this decrease fraud?

Re:Cash

[MozeeToby]

Wait, so they want more of these industries to be cash based and perhaps un/under-report income tax???

Yes. That way they can come crashing down and get the businesses totally shut down instead of just economically neutered.

inevitable parody

[Anonymous Coward]

Operation Choke Point, starring Keifer Burns as "Point"

Re:If it was just the banks that would be one thin

[Anonymous Coward]

This is feminism in action. Pornstars are the living embodiment of their imaginary patriarchy.

Moron idea...

[Hamsterdan]

Drive porn to the black market... That will probably work as well as the war against drugs...

Re:Moron idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Drive porn to the black market... That will probably work as well as the war against drugs...

Logically, it would probably work the *exact* same. Note that we still have drug-dealers, they just follow specific rules and regulations to be considered legal ("pharmeceutical") drugs versus teh evil drugs. Same for porn actually. In order to remain legal, it must meet certain qualifications, much like pharmaceuticals must be pure compounds, porn actors must be of a certain again ('pure decision-makers'). Pushing porn to the black market will put the same risk for regular 'tame' porn as for child porn, and thus make both theoritcally available in nearly equal quantities.

Won't someone please think of the children!

Re:Moron idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't buy Jewish" signs are just one step on the way.

I guess it's time

[Anonymous Coward]

To do a few more money shots

Re: I guess it's time

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just go gay. Gay for pay

Porn stars and not investment firms

[joe_frisch]

Considering that investment firms cost the government HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in bailouts, can they really argue that porn stars are "risky"?

Re:Porn stars and not investment firms

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, the vast majority of money used to "bail out" Wall Street was paid back, with interest, very quickly. Check your facts. The one big loser that the Government has stomached was General Motors.

Re:Porn stars and not investment firms

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, when you have leverage (i.e. the ability to lend money that don't exist) you can extort^Wreceive a lot of interest in a short time, much more than enough to pay back the government loan. It doesn't make any difference for the fact that the fuckers screwed everybody over.

Re:Porn stars and not investment firms

[MacDork]

Sorry AC, you need to check your own facts. The largest chunk of the bailout went into buying GSE Mortgage backed securities. You know, all the bad debt these investment firms had invested in. Yeah, the government bought those bad debts. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will likely be paying back on the bailout well into the next decade as a result.

Re:If it was just the banks that would be one thin

[sideslash]

Maybe that's part of it. I think this is Big Government nanny state in action. They want to control everything they see, whether or not there's a law authorizing them to do so. It's this kind of arrogance that makes the IRS audit political opponents of the Obama administration for no other reason than to intimidate them and "make them go away". Making people go away in one form or another is a common theme with dysfunctional governments.

This is interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I had no idea that this was the case in the soviet era. Can you cite your sources please?

Re:This is interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I had no idea that this was the case in the soviet era. Can you cite your sources please?

For an AC? No, fuck you very much.

Re: This is interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you get a hard-on from typing that?

Re:This is interesting

[ignavus]

I had no idea that this was the case in the soviet era. Can you cite your sources please?

Tsk. Don't you watch any movies?

The film "Enemy At The Gates" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0215750/) is all about a renowned Russian sniper during WW2 who learned to shoot accurately when he went wolf huinting with his father. Being Stalinist Russia, bullets were expensive and difficult to buy (as were most items) so you learned to shoot very well and not waste the ammo.

Re: This is interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Little bit yeah

Re:This is interesting

[nospam007]

"Being Stalinist Russia, bullets were expensive and difficult to buy (as were most items) so you learned to shoot very well and not waste the ammo."

Unfortunately, in order to be that good at shooting, so not to waste bullets, you need to waste a lot more bullets first to get there.

Re:This is interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. You'd just be extra careful in lining up your shots, and take more time to do it.

Missing "3D Printer" on that card, but on this--

[Anonymous Coward]

BINGO!

So, uhh, DOJ guys

[russotto]

Do you WANT to create a shadow banking system? Because this is how you do it.

Re:So, uhh, DOJ guys

[TrollstonButterbeans]

How is that going to work? Joe wants some pyramid schemes, escort services, some payday loans so he'll go buy some bitcoins or something since he can't use his bank account, Visa or Paypal?

Sounds awfully complicated for Joe to go through that trouble.

Re:If it was just the banks that would be one thin

[lpevey]

Agreed, it is clearly not optional on the part of the banks. This has a very chilling effect on activities where the regs can't actually prosecute for wrongdoing. If they could, they would, and they wouldn't be going this route. This sort of tactic is contrary to the principles of a free society. Banks will "choose" to decline to do business with certain people and companies if they feel they will get sued or have to spend a fortune on a governmental investigation. If there is truly evidence of illegal activities, authorities should go after the people allegedly engaged in those activities, not the banks. But in these cases, often times the activities are not really illegal, even if they are activities not loved by everyone in society. Because the government can't prosecute, should it be allowed to strong-arm banks into doing the dirty work? What does that sort of logic lead to, especially when things like banking are akin to breathing in modern society.

There are plenty of nefarious behaviors going on at banks that regulators would be wise to oversee, but this is a case of overstepping IMO. Regulators are forcing discrimination. Is it okay for banks to be choosy based on certain parameters (I don't like your business because it's porn and I think porn is ruining our society) and not others (I don't like your business because it supports, say, charter schools, and I the bank president happen to think charter schools are ruining our society)? That's discrimination. At the very same time, regulators would bring proceedings against these very same banks for refusing to do business with certain people/organizations just because they choose to.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

"PNC Financial Services Group Inc. (PNC) received a subpoena regarding the return rate for its payment-processor clients from the U.S. Department of Justice. The department’s consumer protection unit is seeking information “for certain merchant and payment processor customers with whom PNC has a depository relationship,” the Pittsburgh-based bank said today in a regulatory filing. “We believe that the subpoena is intended to determine whether, and to what extent, PNC may have facilitated fraud committed by third-parties against consumers.” "

Oh, Let's not talk about the investment firms...

[Anonymous Coward]

What they've done is pornographic in financial circles...

beta

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill the beta.

Re:If it was just the banks that would be one thin

[Anonymous Coward]

washington held accountable? it's an interesting concept but no one on government are for the people more than they are for their own asses.

see any of the industry boards, where victims

[raymorris]

If you want more confirmation, see any of the message boards dedicated to the affected industries. There you'll find the victims discussing what to do.

In some of these industries, like porn, one closure affects many, many people. All those free porn sites are financed by the ads they run for a comparatively small number of large pay site networks. Many of them don't expect to get paid this month because their sponsor's account has been shut down in the last few days. The affect is similar to, but not as big, as shutting down PayPal's accounts - it affects not only PayPal, but anyone who relies on PayPal for their business. There are also hosting companies and other service providers who make their living providing services to all the smaller sites. When the sponsor can't pay the small sites, the small sites can't pay their hosting bill. Anything that affects a couple of the large sponsors ripples through the industry.

Re:see any of the industry boards, where victims

[Aighearach]

That narrative is very consistent with the accounts closed being "personal" accounts that are actually signed up as the account connected to a merchant account that is used for porn, which is the main reason many banks don't want these customers. (the merchant accounts have much higher-than-average chargebacks)

Re:see any of the industry boards, where victims

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. There's a dominoe effect with this behavior that is going on, that I don't think the DOJ cares about. What's the degree of deliniation at that point? Should secondary businesses, ad operators on port sites, be subject to this? Should the warehouses holding products from those ads be subject to this?

If this was just about stopping CC charge backs and fraud in industry that are higher at risk for it, then that would be one thing. But, that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Welcome to the United Socialist Republic

[BoRegardless]

Socialism, Marxism, whatever you want to call it, Obama has told us he wants to fundamentally transform the USA. Fact is, he is DOING IT.

Re:Welcome to the United Socialist Republic

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not socialism, dipshit. It's outright fascist capitalism.

Re:Welcome to the United Socialist Republic

[Anonymous Coward]

You're mixing up your terms. The USA are going for fascism, not socialism. If you look at Obama's policies from over here in Europe, he's still way on the right side of the axis, while socialism and marxism should be to the left. You guys are going way fascism scale though.

Re:Welcome to the United Socialist Republic

[BoRegardless]

Except that you only see and hear what certain people say and what the REAL outcome is, not the smoke and mirrors.

Obama went to Columbia when Cloward and Pivens wrote their report on how to convert the USA to socialism. Sure looks like Obama is doing this.

Re:Welcome to the United Socialist Republic

[Anonymous Coward]

> Obama went to Columbia when Cloward and Pivens wrote their report on how to convert the USA to socialism. Sure looks like Obama is doing this.

Yep, since Socialism is government owning the means of production. Under Obama, the government has nationalized the following industries:

1.)

Re:Welcome to the United Socialist Republic

[BoRegardless]

The object of Cloward & Pivens is to cause a total financial collapse. That will be done by Marxism.

Once the collapse is done, the new "Elite Party" (my name) will rise to properly own and control and dispense everything to the populace (slaves.)

Re:Welcome to the United Socialist Republic

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, WTF are you smoking? Oh yeah, Glenn Beck.

Financial collapse isn't going to happen due to Marxism, it's going to happen because of 1) Medicare, Social Security, and military spending bankrupting the Treasury, and 2) eroded tax base due to a shrinking labor force, offshoring of industry, consolidation of agriculture, and Wall Street destroying the middle class by robbing them of all their disposable cash through usurious lending.

All debt is a bet on a rosier future, and thanks to the crappy policies and education of the last 40-odd years, we have set ourselves up to fail. Good luck supporting the retirees on a country full of service sector trying to give haircuts to people whose purse strings are getting endlessly tighter.

Re:If it was just the banks that would be one thin

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is feminism. FTSU.

Nope, just "Things Poor People Like"

[TrollstonButterbeans]

Porn, lottery tickets, credit repair services, payday lenders.

Here is how the day for a typical poor person works:

1) Wake up, watch some porn
2) Go get a PayDay loan
3) Go buy some lottery tickets
4) Go to the credit repair service after not winning lottery
5)Sign up for some pyramid schemes
6) Watch some descrambled cable TV from neighbors cable connection
7) Party by doing some fireworks while smoking some tobacco and a bit of shooting some guns

These businesses really do prey on poor people. On one hand, you might think targeting these industries might be ineffective because people with really bad common sense are hard to stop from self-destructive activities.

Why aren't they just scanning driver's licenses as a requirement of buying lottery tickets and then compiling a list of super-habitual "blow all their money types".

These industries are organized crime, engaging in fraud/deceit and wrecking lives and run by criminals, and are run by the mafia types.

Re: Nope, just "Things Poor People Like"

[Anonymous Coward]

Only your mother does all those things in one day.

Re: Nope, just "Things Poor People Like"

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn that sounds like an awesome day. Maybe I should quit my job and become poor.

Re:Nope, just "Things Poor People Like"

[BitZtream]

Lets look at the industries that pray on poor people while we're at it:

Porn websites
Payday Loan services
Lottery
Credit Repair Services
Pyramid schemes

Arguably cable descramblers are praying on the poor.

Fireworks, tobacco and guns generally aren't, but they certainly can be dangerous if not handled properly and there are plenty of people in those businesses that are scumbags, so its not surprising any of them are being targeted.

I'd wager however, its not EVERYONE in those industries, probably more of the scumbag types.

Re:Nope, just "Things Poor People Like"

[pellik]

Clearly you don't know many poor people. Cable costs so little in low income areas, there is no need to steal it. Seriously, it's like $25 for cable in some cities while 2 miles away the same package is $60.

Re:Nope, just "Things Poor People Like"

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets look at the industries that pray on poor people while we're at it:

{snippety do-dah}

Arguably cable descramblers are praying on the poor.

Are they laying hands on them in jebus' name?

Re: Nope, just "Things Poor People Like"

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be quite knowledgeable about this.

Re:Nope, just "Things Poor People Like"

[mysidia]

Arguably cable descramblers are praying on the poor.

Oh, the poor, poor cable companies....

Fireworks, tobacco and guns generally aren't, but they certainly can be dangerous if not handled properly and there are plenty of people in those businesses that are scumbags

There are plenty of people in any business that are scumbags. I think the point was they were being unfairly targetted, not for misbehavior --- but for being in a legal business the current administration wants to discourage using underhanded covert methods of harassment?

Re:Nope, just "Things Poor People Like"

[mschwanke97402]

Don't get the religious types in a tizzy...it is PREYING on the poor...not praying on the poor...though in a way I guess it is kind of the same thing.

Re: Nope, just "Things Poor People Like"

[Richy_T]

Round here, we call that "starting my own business"

does anyone know ...

[Anonymous Coward]

if the new version of flamingfaggotfox will kill my download if i lock the screen in windows? i think it did in the last version and since they basically only update it to make it worse i'm going to assume my download is going to be fucking ruined if i lock the screen in version 29 too?

The Truth about Obama + Cable Descramblers

[TrollstonButterbeans]

Yes, Obama clearly was pro-cable box descramblers and pro-fireworks when he ran for office.

Just one more way he didn't keep his promises!

Re:If it was just the banks that would be one thin

[Dynedain]

I personally know people who got audited because of contributions to the IRS watch list. And they love to claim that it was a coordinated political attack against the right wing.

It wasn't.

When "non profit" groups form that are closely aligned with or have explicit anti-government agendas (particularly against the IRS, tax code, and the claimed illegality of personal income tax) then it's a no brainer place to look for those skirting the law.

No one was intimidated, their tax reporting was just flagged for the extra-scrutiny pile.

Shirley You Jest!

[TrollstonButterbeans]

"Maybe that's part of it. I think this is Big Government nanny state in action."

Can you imagine unsanitary restaurants whining back in the 1960 when EVIL "health inspectors" started telling restaurants that employees had to watch hands, and make sure cockroaches didn't snack on the food.

And everyone whined "Big Government" is taking our FREEDOMS!

We have the right to serve cockroach-germ-contanimated food!!

But no, seriously, if you are ok with health inspectors making sure your chicken doesn't have salmonella and your burger is made of cow and not 20% sawdust --- why do have a problem with fraudster industries getting oversight?

Back in the 1950s cereals and even tobacco products claimed outrageous health benefits.

Re:Shirley You Jest!

[sideslash]

Nice troll. How are ammunition or porn sales "fraudster industries"? People do get what they pay for, it's just that the government (yes, the nanny state) doesn't approve. Back in your troll hole now. Scoot!

High risk

[manu0601]

Removing high risk activities? They should close banks!

Comic Code Authority for banks?

[davidwr]

It is effect, this is to banks what the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comics_Code_Authority&oldid=604210348 Comics Code Authority] was to comic-book stores.

Then: "If you don't want trouble, only sell pre-approved comic books"

Now: "If you don't want trouble, only deal with businesses in pre-approved lines of business."

damn drain bamage

[davidwr]

Of course I meant to say Comics Code Authority.

Memo to self: Preview THEN post.

Porn? Really?

[Opportunist]

As if our weekly fun news didn't have enough material for its "US SPECIAL" corner...

What is it with the US and Porn? I've never seen a country so obsessed about it, and quite frankly any time some sort of report about some sort of sexual freak show or paraphilia, you may rest assured it's about the US.

Kinda reinforces my theory that the road to sexual perversion is repressing it.

Re:Porn? Really?

[BitZtream]

Doesn't every country have something they are retarded about? The USA have several it seems, but its not like others don't have something we look at and think ... 'WTF is the big deal?!'

Re:Porn? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool, a refreshing and cogent perspective. I award you a +3 karma. It's not actionable but it's the best I can do at the moment.

Re:Porn? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda reinforces my theory that the road to sexual perversion is repressing it.

your completely right look at Japan where in porn movies there is pretty heavy censorship.. and its pretty well known that Japan has a pretty screwed up view of sex look at pretty much any anime or Japan their fetish with ejaculate or other excrements.

Re:Porn? Really?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

As if our weekly fun news didn't have enough material for its "US SPECIAL" corner..

What is it with the US and Porn?

The US is (approximately) the size of all Europe. Just all of our crazies get labelled "US citizens"

You (assuming you're a European) have a whole powerful interest group devoted to giving a guy a big hat and having him yell at people in AIDS torn regions that they'll burn forever if they put condoms on. Whose predecessor was.... unsavory.. in his youth. And whose predecessor before that, who was just honored, covered up the largest child molestation ring in history. What's up with Europeans??

Re:Porn? Really?

[Opportunist]

Umm... to be honest, no, I can't think of a country right now where it is so terribly easy to ruffle feathers. Seriously, some of the crap that gets people all fired up in the US would not even make people turn their head in any other country.

Religion? Hell, even in ITALY you can't get people so worked up over it.

Creationism? Please, anyone mentioning it anywhere outside the US would be looked at as if he's some kind of idiot for believing in that fairy tale.

Guns? Yeah, have 'em or don't. Next... not so in the US, "from my dead, cold hands"... are you nuts? Who gives a shit about a gun?

Clinton's blowjob. So he had a blowjob... "But he lied!" Erh... DUH, he's a politician! "But ... TO CONGRESS!" So he lied to a bunch of other politicians... "UNDER OATH!" Yeah, we got that part, again, HE IS A POLITICIAN. He lies. That what he does. Get over it. Fuck, he was still 10 times a better prez than anything we had or anything that came after.

And let me not start about people pointedly pointing out that the US is a Republic and not a Democracy. That always gives me the giggles, considering that it's a cleptocratic plutocracy, at best.

Re:Porn? Really?

[Opportunist]

Erh... get your facts together, please. I know you want to be funny but it took me a while to find out who you mean, considering that it was a long while ago that they sold the funny hat (for charity, iirc). Also you should probably know that most of Europe don't really give a fuck about what Franky says. He's a celebrity, sure, but people come to his events more akin to going to a pop concert, it's just a different crowd. They cheer, they sing along, I fail to see the difference to a Beyoncé concert.

Because that's, essentially, what such a papal visit is for most of Europe: A huge event with a celebrity coming by. Sure, there are the religious nuts, but hey, every pop group has its die hard fans, why shouldn't he?

I have to say you know quite little about Europe if you think Franky's words hold much sway over here. South America, I could see, but Europe? Membership numbers are in sharp decline, old members die while younger ones leave the church for the reasons you mentioned (among others). What props the whole show up is ancient contracts with the Vatican from a time when there was actually a tighter lock to that dated ideals, but if you ask around, you'll find very few people who give the whole deal more than lip service, if that.

So if you want to smear Europe, at least find some shit that sticks.

Re:Porn? Really?

[Opportunist]

I stand corrected, yes, it's either the US or Japan.

Re:Porn? Really?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You seem to have completely missed the point. I'm not saying that the Pope leads all of Europe. I'm saying he's a European. And equating his views with all Europe is impractical.

Hell, he's even the leader for life of a European country, with membership in international organizations.

The US is approximately the same size as Europe. So I'm saying when you hear about "in US X happens" or "a US leader says something stupid", it may be about as important as what Europe thinks if the Pope does something. Or far less so.

I'm just trying to say, when you hear 100 people protesting that the lord hates fags in the US, that's as meaningful as if you heard 100 people were protesting somewhere in Europe.

P.S. they may have auctioned off an old hat, or a copy of it (maybe each Pope gets a new one?) they definitely replaced it.

Re:Porn? Really?

[kick6]

Umm... to be honest, no, I can't think of a country right now where it is so terribly easy to ruffle feathers. Seriously, some of the crap that gets people all fired up in the US would not even make people turn their head in any other country. Religion? Hell, even in ITALY you can't get people so worked up over it. Creationism? Please, anyone mentioning it anywhere outside the US would be looked at as if he's some kind of idiot for believing in that fairy tale. Guns? Yeah, have 'em or don't. Next... not so in the US, "from my dead, cold hands"... are you nuts? Who gives a shit about a gun? Clinton's blowjob. So he had a blowjob... "But he lied!" Erh... DUH, he's a politician! "But ... TO CONGRESS!" So he lied to a bunch of other politicians... "UNDER OATH!" Yeah, we got that part, again, HE IS A POLITICIAN. He lies. That what he does. Get over it. Fuck, he was still 10 times a better prez than anything we had or anything that came after. And let me not start about people pointedly pointing out that the US is a Republic and not a Democracy. That always gives me the giggles, considering that it's a cleptocratic plutocracy, at best.

Silly Americans. All, not taking their overlord rain of shit sitting down. What's wrong with us? Why can't we just be good little subjects!?

Re:Porn? Really?

[Opportunist]

I guess it's safe to say that stuff like creationism, gun laws, religion or Clinton's blowjob ain't some minor piddly crap that only some insignificant fringe group cares about. Why? Because it not only makes national news (something that some odd out-of-the-world crap does occasionally), but because politicians actually treat it like some serious issue that needs to be addressed seriously and sensibly.

Try, just try, to find any politician that's not so insignificant that he'd try posing like Darth Vader alternatively to get some limelight who'd seriously mention something as harebrained as creationism seriously without kissing his political career good bye the same moment.

You can actually judge how "sane" people in countries are when you look at their politicians and the agendas they ride upon. If politicians run with agendas that are completely fucked up and actually don't get chased out of town for it, it's time to reevaluate the sanity of the people.

Re:Porn? Really?

[Opportunist]

That first paragraph misses an "in the US" and the second an "in Europe". I should not post when I'm in a hurry.

Re:Porn? Really?

[Opportunist]

No, but at least get worked up about stuff that's worth it. How about a government that runs your country economically into the ground by propping up failed businesses while keeping new businesses from taking off? How about being in the income disparity and GINI-Index (which is directly proportional to civil and social peace or unrest, btw) in the vicinity of such beacons of liberty and economic powerhouses as Bulgaria or Guyana? How about getting worked up over the steady erosion of your civil liberties and a more and more encroaching police state?

Nobody gives a shit about that. But it's imperative that little Johnny gets to hear that "a wizard did it" is a very scientific explanation for how the universe came into existence.

Re:Porn? Really?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Creationism is a fringe thing in the United States. Judging by what makes national news is pretty dumb. A lot of national news is based on taking someone in a minor position and exaggerating how important they are. Stupid shit like that Kansas school board deciding to push creationism lead to all of them getting voted out of office in the next election. All of them.

Gun laws are important. I'm not sure why that belongs in the same sphere as creationism

p>But yeah, Europe has its share of creationismists too. Deputy Education Ministers, protests by parents, a possible "Genesis-land", hell, even a Geman Ministry of Education decision allowing intelligent design to be taught in public schools.

Re:Porn? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda reinforces my theory that the road to sexual perversion is repressing it.

That's pure gold wisdom.

Ordinarily you would figure out that body parts of women, however young, are stinky and gooey and too squishy to be associated with. But then you get them hiding and teasing you with half-displays implying that there is something special inside in there. The more you hide and tease, the more one's curiosity is aroused. The same with sex. I used to think sex was this real powerful supreme tempting activity till I watched some porn. With all the flesh and buttocks moving around, it looks so grosse, I wonder what is appealing. The pleasure is in your nerves, not in the partner's flesh. And the brain is such an idiot, without a partner, your our pleasurable nerves are not attractive enough because as you can plainly see, your own organs are ugly enough to hide them away most of the time.

In short, if you had a culture of nude beaches, and no photoshopping, people would not waste so much time, money, and energy over something that is about as attractive as taking a dump mixed with a sensation of a sneeze.

But the sexual attraction meme is such a stupid and widely propagated powerful piece of shit, it has come to rule our lives. First the TV, then internet ads. Without the makeup, even Britney Spears looks ugly.

Banks Don't Like It Either

[Hangtime]

Frank Keating, former governor of Oklahoma and FBI agent who is now head of the American Banker's Association came out against Choke Point in a WSJ op-ed a week ago.

http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

When you become a banker, no one issues you a badge, nor are you fitted for a judicial robe. So why is the Justice Department telling bankers to behave like policemen and judges? Justice's new probe, known as "Operation Choke Point," is asking banks to identify customers who may be breaking the law or simply doing something government officials don't like. Banks must then "choke off" those customers' access to financial services, shutting down their accounts.

Justice launched the effort in early 2013 as a policy initiative of the president's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, which includes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other regulatory agencies. Though details are scant—much of the investigation has been conducted in secret—the probe aims to crack down on fraud in the payments system by focusing on banks that service online payday lenders and other services deemed suspicious by the government....

^^ Funney post of the week

[TrollstonButterbeans]

^^ Haha funney post of the week!

Cash based in a web/phone/email world. What scammer wants the local person-to-person limitations of cash.

^^ Haha funney post of week #2

[TrollstonButterbeans]

^^ Haha funney post of week #2

Ah, yes. Will drive everything to the black market.

Just like those guys on the corner that sell ripped CDs and DVDs for cheap. Oh wait, that was the 1990s!

So I guess the common Joe that wants porn will be forced off the internet to find porn and will have to turn to dark alleys and buy illegal copies of Hustler!!

+5 Insightful

[Fwipp]

You heard it here first: Sex workers not being able to keep their money in a bank is worse than the Holocaust.

This fucking website, man.

Re:+5 Insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

You heard it here first: Sex workers not being able to keep their money in a bank is worse than the Holocaust.

It's first a step to the left, and then a jump to the right.

Fascism is not the Holocaust. It is the road to it. The U.S. government considers itself far enough above the law to kill people with drones without due process, to detain them for decades in Guantanamo for decades without due process, to torture people to death for fun (the CIA report shows that torture was used lethally and systematically regardless of whether the "justifying" information was already given either by the victim or other means), to extort from people their right to a jury trial ("plea deal"), to record the communication of everybody in the world including the own populace for fun and extortion.

Destroying the existence of people you don't like for some reason is quite in line with what Nazi Germany did to the Jews in the years leading up to the Reichskristallnacht. And the U.S. shows no sign of mitigating sanity in its current course.

The main difference is that there is not a single NSdAP against splintered small parties they suppress, but rather a right and a far right wing of it handing off power to each other and having rigged the political system long ago to a degree where voting has become pointless.

Re:+5 Insightful

[blackiner]

It really is more similar than you may think. Berlin, prior to the Nazi takeover of Germany, was something of a sex capitol. Hitler was fairly annoyed by the wanton sexuality and liberalism of the place. In fact he tried to take over the city and failed the first time... but not the second.

Re:+5 Insightful

[dryeo]

One of the first steps on the way to the holocaust was to deny Jews and other undesirables the right to a bank account.

Re:+5 Insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Berlin also has the ironic distinction of being the only place in Germany where Nazi candidates actually *lost* elections at some point in the late 1930s (after the Nazis had de-facto control of Germany, but before they quit pretending they were still a democracy). Actual Berliners *despised* the Nazis & viewed them as crude country bumpkins.

Re:+5 Insightful

[Raenex]

One of the first steps on the way to the holocaust was to deny Jews and other undesirables the right to a bank account.

Maybe so, but remember the original poster's claim:

"How the hell are you people still not realizing you're living in a situation worse than Nazi Germany?"

Which is just fucking ridiculous, no matter how you slice it.

Re: +5 Insightful

[panopticonisi1717]

are you time warping?

Re:+5 Insightful

[Aighearach]

Stupidest thing since beta

Re:+5 Insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

> One of the first steps on the way to the holocaust was to deny Jews and other undesirables the right to a bank account.

Did they ever force them to sell companies they own?

Re:+5 Insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

So apparently you both agree that you're somewhere on the scale of Nazi Germany, and now you're just arguing over the exact point the United States falls?

I'd say the problem is more the fact you're even on the scale, rather than where on the scale you are.

Re:+5 Insightful

[Guru80]

And here I am without mod points, +5 to you. Looking through that list of targeted industries is head-scratching. They list perfectly legitimate business alongside illegal activity.

Re:+5 Insightful

[ganjadude]

what you are forgetting is that nazi germany wasnt JUST the Holocaust, Nazi germany lasted about 15 years(longer if you dig deeper but we will go with 15) and the war was 6. So yes, saying we are living in a place WORSE than nazi germany could be factual, nazi germany before the war, not during obviously

Re:+5 Insightful

[Raenex]

Please just stop. The original poster was exaggerating in stupid fashion. Too often on Slashdot do you get these arguments, trying to find some technicality to defend the indefensible.

Re:+5 Insightful

[ganjadude]

Regardless of the interpretation of the original posters use of exaggeration, there are in fact similarities between what is happening in america today and what happened in germany in the late 20s and early 30s

Re:+5 Insightful

[Raenex]

So having made a stupid defense of the original post, you now fall back to a point the first guy who replied to already made, which while maybe true, is moving the goalposts. Of course the idiot mods are having a field day with this crap.

Not Real

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress and the wealthy class would never do this. Frankly they own these types of businesses and it would be like punishing themselves. I don't think people are very aware of the giant corruption machine we call society.

First they came for the Porn Stars...

[Anonymous Coward]

First they came for the Porn Stars, and I did nothing...

Then they came for the Tobacconists, and I did nothing...

Etc...

Eventually, they'll take your savings and they'll find some kind of spin to justify it. But in the end, it's about Obey or have your money "privileges" revoked.

What to do? Well, don't buy gold or silver. You can't eat those.

 

Re:First they came for the Porn Stars...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's "First they came for Wikileaks, and the industry meekly went along with it." Choke-Point is just the latest round.

Can someone please kill congress already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta start cleaning house soon or it will be too late. No more fascists in government!

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

But where are the investigations and prosecutions for those that played a large part in the destruction of the world's economy with the sub-prime mortgage loans? The people who are generating legitimate incomes, even if they are not the best moral activities, and reporting them as such should not have to be worried about the government actively attacking their economic existence.

For those that are acting illegally then go after them. But do not attack whole industries just because you have a few acting illegally and the industry may be morally or politically undesirable to some people. If the industry is really wrong then make the very real, ad very open, effort to make it illegal. Don't like guns, make gun manufacturing, sales, and ownership illegal. But that would have to be done openly and there would be a real effort to prevent that. The same with any of the other legal industries targeted in this effort. And where the industry is wrong use the proper means to close down those that are engaged in the undesired activities.

Not sure why

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure why ObamaCare is illegal. It seems to be merely a matter of jurisdiction.

Here in Australia, health care is a state-provided service. However, medical services have been funded by the federal government since the 1970s.

You can still get cable descramblers?

[guevera]

I had no idea you could still get cable descramblers that work worth a damn. Anyone know if they're legit? Anyone wanna point me toward a good source?

I used to get hacked DirectTV access cards back in the day and they were awesome...but I thought those days were over for good.

I've sworn to never pay for cable again, but I would sign up for a basic package if I could get everything else for free like back in the day.

Thank you DOJ; without your stupid initiative I woulda never known.

nice bank you have there...

[stenvar]

"Nice bank you have there. Wouldn't it be a shame if we had to shut you down and audit you and your best customers for the next six months?"

"Now, here is a list of people we think you better not do business with. Any questions?"

Hard to verify

[ALeader71]

I found two non-fringe or slightly suspect news links: EFF.org. The article completes the circle back to sites like reason.com and The Guardian. The other is CNBC.com. It links to entertainment sites like Perez Hilton. Not the sort of thing you expect to find when a secret government operation like this is uncovered.

What I don't see, is anything linking directly to information about the DOJ's Operation Chokepoint. The list of targets is a bit broad and the tactics are a little suspect. You wouldn't think of a far left liberal like Obama as someone who is anti-porn. We'll have to watch this and see how things develop. Maybe someone will find a few hard government generated facts and write up a 2600 article?

Re:Hard to verify

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is far left in what world?

Re:Hard to verify

[blackpaw]

Obama is far left in what world?

USA World. Its another planet altogether.

Re:Hard to verify

[Anonymous Coward]

Around five years ago the government forced credit card companies to stop processing payments to a bunch of porn sites. All those sites effectively went out of business. This is the next step down on the slippery slope and so very easy to believe it's happening.

Re:Hard to verify

[Anonymous Coward]

A democratic republic, such as the USA, by design is slightly left of center. Too many people tend to weight whether something is left or right based on the number of the governments instead of looking at how the government runs.

Re:Hard to verify

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't think of a far left liberal like Obama as someone who is anti-porn.

A far left liberal like Obama? Far left liberal compared to whom? Joseph Goebbels? Julius Streicher? Obama's already more or less a tossup with Benito Mussolini. Though I don't remember Mussolini entertaining extraterritorial internment camps without legal basis as one of a multitude of places where torture commenced with official blessings.

Re:Hard to verify

[Anonymous Coward]

far left liberal like Obama as someone who is anti-porn.

See also: Tipper Gore.

Just because it's unchristian and unRepublican doesn't mean that the liberals like it either.

Re:Hard to verify

[Jonah Hex]

This has been linked to as the "start of Operation Chokepoint"

Supervisory Insights - Summer 2011 - Managing Risks in Third-Party Payment Processor Relationships

Some merchant categories that have been associated with high-risk activity include, but are not limited to:

Ammunition Sales Cable Box De-scramblers Coin Dealers Credit Card Schemes Credit Repair Services Dating Services Debt Consolidation Scams Drug Paraphernalia Escort Services Firearms Sales Fireworks Sales Get Rich Products Government Grants Home-Based Charities Life-Time Guarantees Life-Time Memberships Lottery Sales Mailing Lists/Personal Info Money Transfer Networks On-line Gambling PayDay Loans Pharmaceutical Sales Ponzi Schemes Pornography Pyramid-Type Sales Racist Materials Surveillance Equipment Telemarketing Tobacco Sales Travel Clubs

...

Appropriate Supervisory Responses

In those instances where examiners determine that a financial institution fails to have an adequate program in place to monitor and address risks associated with third-party payment processor relationships, formal or informal enforcement actions may be appropriate. Formal actions have included Cease and Desist Orders under Section 8(b) or 8(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance (FDI) Act, as well as assessment of Civil Money Penalties under Section 8(i) of the FDI Act. These orders have required the financial institution to immediately terminate the high-risk relationship and establish reserves or funds on deposit to cover anticipated charge backs.

As appropriate, the examiner will determine if financial institution management has knowledge that the payment processor or the merchant clients are engaging in unfair or deceptive practices in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. In those cases where a financial institution does not conduct due diligence, accepts a heightened level of risk, and allows transactions for high-risk merchants to pass though it, it may be determined that the financial institution is aiding and abetting the merchants. This also could indicate a disregard for the potential for financial harm to consumers and, as a result, the financial institution may be subject to civil money penalties or required to provide restitution.

Re:Hard to verify

[Anonymous Coward]

USA World. Its another planet altogether.

QFT. It would be hilarious, if it wasn't so damn sad. And scary.

Bypass that law

[Anonymous Coward]

... What happened to innocent until proven guilty??

Government agencies no longer have to prove your guilt before making and enforcing judgement. Due mostly to the war on drugs/terror/piracy, they are despotic fiefdoms.

This mostly makes sense to me

[swb]

While I'm sure there is a lot of room for abuse, I kind of applaud this action.

I think far too long the government has let banks and payment processors off the hook when it comes to enabling fraud.

A lot of fraud wouldn't exist in our modern world if it didn't have access to financial services. In some ways its the air supply of fraud.

Re:This mostly makes sense to me

[frank_adrian314159]

What kind of "fraud" are porn stars participating in (other than faking their orgasms)?

Re:If it was just the banks that would be one thin

[sideslash]

Explain Ben Carson's audit. It's one of many.

Worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying I'd agree with taking those bank accounts. But worse than Nazi Germany is pushing it a bit too far, no? It's not as if they are attempt to rid the world of an ethnic race.

Re:If it was just the banks that would be one thin

[ShaunC]

Explain Ben Carson's audit.

Easy: lots of people get audited, many of them at random. Somewhere around 1% of returns are selected each year. Recent trends show that approximately 245 million returns (PDF!) are filed each year, that's almost 2.5 million people who will be on the receiving end of that damned envelope.

My father was hit with an audit this year concerning his 2012 return. He hasn't voted in 40 years, isn't even registered in this state, and he sure isn't making political contributions or starting up a charity. There's no history of tax troubles, he didn't file or claim anything new or unusual that year. He just "won" the audit lottery. Sometimes famous people like Dr. Carson win it, too.

darrell issa witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Baloney. This is nothing more than the latest darrell issa witch hunt. Benghazi, the IRS, and the post office aren't getting enough traction anymore, so he needs a new rallying cry, and the faux news wannabes are more than happy to oblige.

Re:darrell issa witch hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

bologna!

How the US Constitution works ...

[perpenso]

Not sure why ObamaCare is illegal. It seems to be merely a matter of jurisdiction. Here in Australia ...

The construction of the US government was based on competing centers of power. That power would be split between the federal government and the various state governments, and that within the federal government the power would be split between executive, legislative and judicial branches. The basic idea was to have checks and balances between the federal and the state and within the federal itself.

The constitution does this by enumerating the powers and authorities of the various components of the federal government and then it explicitly states that all other powers and authorities are the domain of the state governments.

The argument against Obamacare goes that since the constitution does not enumerate compelling a person to purchase a service as a power of the federal government it is a power that falls into the domain of the states.

In other words the power of the federal government is limited by an enumerated list of power and authority granted to the federal government and the power of the state governments is limited, plus the power of the federal government is further limited, by an enumerated list of rights and privileges granted to individual citizens.

Re:How the US Constitution works ...

[phantomfive]

And now there is a technical argument against Obamacare, that since it was a tax, it should have originated in the house, but it didn't, so it is not constitutional.

Re:How the US Constitution works ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Specifically, it says all others are RETAINED by the states and the people.

It does not GIVE power to the people, it notes that the power belongs TO the people and always has.

Re:How the US Constitution works ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when this document was written, healthcare consisted of a bottle of rum and a hacksaw for a simple scratch to the leg which got infected. I don't think any other country in the world is so ignorant to think that laws created back then aren't up for rediscussion if it's for the common good.

Re:How the US Constitution works ...

[Anonymous Coward]

There seem to be 2 HR bills at issue HR 3590 and HR 3962 - seems wikipedia is a little vague on this. HR 3590 was clearly gutted to get around the origination clause. At the time the law wasn't officially labeled a tax even though most knew it was and the president publicly said it wasn't but then argued it was to save it.

A court challenge on this basis is winding its way along. Might be some news this week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-the-next-affordable-care-act-challenge/2014/05/02/c0150da8-d159-11e3-a6b1-45c4dffb85a6_story.html

Re:How the US Constitution works ...

[phantomfive]

Yeah, it's one of those issues that is complex enough, with little benefit in actually trying to understand it, that I'm happy to wait and see what happens.

Re:How the US Constitution works ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument against Obamacare goes that since the constitution does not enumerate compelling a person to purchase a service as a power of the federal government it is a power that falls into the domain of the states.

This may be a valid point, but there's a more fundamental one that torpedoes Obamacare, namely the 9th Amendment right to ethical practice of law. Even the appearance of ethical conflict of interest must be avoided whenever possible.

If the Federal government does have a role in health care, that role can certainly be expressed in a law that is simpler than the 2000+ pages of new law written for Obamacare. This law effectively creates a huge amount of future demand for the services of the legal profession.

For the legal professionals working in Congress to create such a law is a de-facto violation of the right to ethical practice of law, as is the decision of the Supreme Court lawyers to allow this law to stand.

Further, the Bar Associations form an enormously powerful, influential, and wealthy special interest group. Any law that creates such a huge amount of future business for the legal profession can reasonably be supposed to result from the influence of this lobbying group, not from the genuine interests of the people, and thus violates the right to ethical government (another 9th Amendment right).

The original Bill of Rights can be printed in a readable form on a single page. Compare the size of this document to the size of Obamacare, and weep at how screwed up how things have gotten in this country. Only a lawyer could love such a law.

Of course, none of the lawyers running the major political parties or holding public office have much interest in making legal ethics the basis for their opposition to this law. Few people get very far in our corrupt two-party system without making ethics violations by the dozen, and nobody wants to be the person that throws the first stone.

Re:How the US Constitution works ...

[Richy_T]

And funnily enough, that rediscussion is provided for and there are legal ways to go about it.

how many people work in porn?

[alen]

thousands? are all of their accounts being closed?
there are probably hundreds of porn stars at any time being that they go through girls like baseballs at a game. plus all the people behind the scenes.
is there suddenly a stop to all porn production? because that's what would happen if people can't get paid or companies lose access to banking

Article VI + Article III = judicial review

[tepples]

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Article VI), and federal judges have power to interpret law (Article III). This includes power to interpret laws limiting the power of Congress, or in other words, to declare that Congress broke the law when enacting a particular statute.

Re:Article VI + Article III = judicial review

[Anonymous Coward]

Article X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Re:Article VI + Article III = judicial review

[tepples]

The power to interpret federal law is "delegated to the United States by" Article III.

Re:Article VI + Article III = judicial review

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution is a piece of trash. It started out as paper but has been wiped on a few too many asses to be passable any more. Time for a fresh one.

Re:Article VI + Article III = judicial review

[Anonymous Coward]

But federal judges are not the only ones.

Everyone who has promised to uphold the US Constitution also has that responsibility.

We're seeing state governments developing spines, and proposing -- even passing -- legislation that asserts the power they have under the Tenth Amendment. And those laws cover a variety of issues, all over the map.

this has already been debunked

[alen]

google it
chase closed a few accounts
the porn people went on twitter and a lot of their friends closed their chase accounts in protest
in reality it was a few accounts

Re:this has already been debunked

[Anonymous Coward]

Your definition of debunked is very strange.

CableCARD

[tepples]

You can get them now, although you need a valid CableCARD to make them work.

3 times SCOTUS struck down Clinton's anti-porn law

[raymorris]

That's the claim from some on the democrats. Probably some of the same democrats who filibustered the civil rights act. In fact, over the last 20 years, there have been three major anti-porn laws, all eventually struck down by the Supreme Court. All three were signed by Bill Clinton.

Not only do the liberals pander to to the extremist feminists by going after porn, they keep at it, never giving up when the Supreme Court tells them over and over again "no, you can't do that. You're violating the first amendment". That's the fact. For more information, Google "CDA", "CDA II", etc.

aren't some of those businesses legal?

[morethanapapercert]

As far as I know, many of the business types listed are legal and perhaps a few are legal in certain areas or provided certain regulations or other criteria are satisfied. Some of them I know are vague enough industries that I think they are going to have a hard time deciding between shady operations and legit ones. Pay Day loans for example. Sure there are some pretty sleazy outfits out there, but the practice itself is legal. Money Transfer networks? I think Western Union might be worried about that grouping catching them in the sweep. Racist materials? As much as I disagree with the stuff, I have to say (as a foreigner) that I'm pretty sure that stuff has 1st Amendment protection. As for pornography, from what I've come across on other sites, they are not just shutting down the accounts of pornographic media companies, but the actresses/models personal accounts as well. (all of which makes little sense from a crime fighting perspective...)

This is looking like it will be a PR nightmare for the DoJ. It's going to look like an effort to impose morality and in a way that discriminates against the poor. There's all kinds of juicy hooks in a story like this to make sure it gets plenty of prime time news coverage.

My first question is: is the fundie element going to cheer because the gov't is cracking down on sinners? or freak because they are cracking down on god, guns and country?

my second question is : Can we get televangelists added to the list?

Why

[meglon]

Why is it that we have so many nutcase conspiracy theory adherents in this country? Did the average IQ around here drop dramatically in the past few years? Jesus people, science is about evidence, not lame brained mentally deranged faith.... yet that's what more and more people who apparently won't take their medication keep putting up around here.

Yes, it looks like the DoJ is trying to crack down on scammers and frauds... who wouldn't applaud that? Seems to be quite a few people, especially ones that like living in their own fantasy land hating the government.

follow the Guardian link

[skybuster]

This is bullshit, in case you didn't guess. Follow the Guardian link. One bank, Chase, is closing porn-related bank accounts, including "at least one" personal account. Chase is operating in the USA and making a calculation that it has more prudes than porn businesses among its customer base. This has nothing to do with the US government.

How risky?

[SuperKendall]

DoJ is encouraging banks to close bank accounts of risky actors.

How are porn stars "risky" in any way? They make a fair amount of money, what they do is legal beyond all doubt.

What the DOJ is doing, is helping re-define what "risky" means according to some victorian moral code.

Strangely enough none of them are big names. Its almost like someones trying to create a story where there is none.

Because it's easier to attack the weaker members of the flock first before you take out the last few remaining. The presumption would be by the time anyone noticed, it would be too late - and it would in theory provide a chilling effect on new people entering the adjust industry, killing off the industry by shutting down supply.

Re:How risky?

[Anonymous Coward]

nah, if you go find the sources for this story, it looks more like Chase bank was being opportunistic and overreaching by making the false equivalence of "ACH recipient of a third party payment processor = risky" instead of "third party payment processor = risky" like the law says.

At any rate, there is a serious danger of the banks being over-regulated to the point that no foreigners can open one (which is already a problem with most banks, and many Canadians have US-based bank accounts because US banking rules make it a goddamn bureaucratic nightmare to actually keep US cash in Canada, where US checks are held for three weeks, yet the US banking system clears US checks at US banks immediately.) When that happens, expect to see more American banks bought by foreign banks for the sole purpose of doing business with their home country. BMO bought Harris, TD bought Commerce bank. Incidentally RBC (which has US operations, mostly in Florida) closes bank accounts of US/Canadian citizens who have citizenship of foreign countries that there are trade embargo's with.

So this is nothing new in the grand scheme of things. What I'm expecting is the DOJ to actually go after third-party-payment processors that trade crypto-currencies for US dollars.

On the plus side, I hope if the DOJ is doing stuff like this, that they cut the heads off the "game cheating/gold-mining" industry as that IS the industry easily targeted by money launders because the FBI doesn't see cheaters in WoW being the same as drug smugglers laundering money.

Re:How risky?

[Aighearach]

Porn stars are risky because porn sales are risky, and porn companies have trouble maintaining merchant accounts for credit card processing. This leads to a high rate of "personal" accounts being used as business accounts, and then used to open merchant accounts; often with misleading or erroneous service types listed.

It is simply a fact that all sorts of "adult" companies have a high rate of charge-backs. This puts the companies involved under pressure and difficulty, so all sorts of related fraud and non-compliance with terms happens. Being associated with this sort of "high risk" industry makes it more likely that a bank will have some sort of related problem with your account.

Personally, I would like to see a government-run bank that only offered deposit accounts and checking services; nothing else. With account numbers that can't be used to sign up to merchant services or anything like that. That way everybody would have access to a basic banking services provider of last resort.

Re:How risky?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I would like to see a government-run bank that only offered deposit accounts and checking services; nothing else. With account numbers that can't be used to sign up to merchant services or anything like that. That way everybody would have access to a basic banking services provider of last resort.

Oh dear ... the Republicans would just love that: The government is trying to take our bibles and our guns away and force us to get health insurance and now they are trying pass laws to try and force us to redistribute our wealth.

Re:How risky?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I would like to see a government-run bank
> That way everybody would have access to a basic banking services provider of last resort.

Controlled and owned by The Man.

Re:How risky?

[Richy_T]

Thank you for your comment, Mr deputy director of the NSA.

Re:How risky?

[Aighearach]

I pity people who associate knowing about something with supporting it.

Facts are neutral.

Re:How risky?

[Richy_T]

This was not "knowing about something", this was advocacy of government controlled bank accounts.

(Of course, they effectively are anyway but still).

Re:How risky?

[Aighearach]

You do understand that the NSA handles signals intelligence, not banking or money... right?
That's like worrying about the CIA busting you for drugs, or the Fire Martial auditing your taxes.

Re:How risky?

[Richy_T]

Yes, there are certainly no signals is who funds are received from or paid to. Not at all.

Re:How risky?

[Aighearach]

Yes, there are certainly no signals is who funds are received from or paid to. Not at all.

Nor are there banking secrets, nor privacy, so you're still a long ways from a point that has to do with the NSA.

You want to keep your money privately, that is called "under the mattress" and that hasn't changed at all. The NSA does not care and is not involved. But various other agencies already know about banking details.

Re:How risky?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably right on this. I just had my debit card compromised two weeks ago. Hacker made a few charges - a few to legitimate software firms, and then one huge one to a porn company. The software firms all refused to give me my money back, saying that the bank would need to call them and file a chargeback. The porn company? The day after I called in, they had 100% of the money refunded, no questions asked, probably just so that they could avoid a chargeback from the bank.

Re:Came for the Porn StarsNext Car Dealers...

[BoRegardless]

Oh, wait, they already did that with the Saturn dealers.

Here are my banks list of banned accounts

[Anonymous Coward]

Operate a Cheque Cashing/ Payday Lending Business?
Operate, lease or maintain a White Label Banking Machine?
Operate a Casino, Bingo, or Gambling/ Gaming service (including internet gambling)?
Sell used cars, boats or planes?
Operate as an Arms Manufacture Dealer or Intermediary?
Create or trade in Digital Currencies (Bitcoin)?
Operate a Telemarketing / Direct Marketing business (sell goods/services via telephone or the internet)?
Operate a Pawn broker service?
Operate an account for a Foreign Government?
Operate a Correspondent Bank?
Operate a Shell Bank?

Re:Here are my banks list of banned accounts

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is my post within a post. The first thing my bank wants to do is ban accounts opened by the competition. The second is to ban accounts that are related to money laundering. The third is crime.

I don't see porn listed so it is OK in Canada. :)

Bitcoin is not allowed to be traded by a business but you may barter with it personally up to $10,000 in real money. Above $10,000 it is considered money laundering.

Conspiracy Theory Much?

[statemachine]

Reason, Guardian, Washington Post...

Cite a source that doesn't just make stuff up.

I read the letter that the senators wrote, and it doesn't mention anything even close to what this submitter is claiming.

Why is slashdot approving tinfoil-hatter submissions now? That's the bigger story.

amusing

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need total confiscation. When you need to crack down on citizens, all you need is [A] that they don't own handguns (because those are primarily defensive weapons), and [B] that all other weapons are registered.

Then you're home free. When you know who has the weapons and who doesn't, you pretty much control them.

You want to say that again? The US has long controlled it citizens. As has Russia, and if people are motivated and in large enough numbers they will acquire various weapons and start a rebellion. You look at any regime that is a dictatorship and you see no matter what type of controlled system they put in place people will rise up and fight it. It comes down to numbers of course that is military power, that out numbers any rebellion.

Gun control isn't going to do anything to control citizens, or disarm them from a possible up-rise. In Russia you live in a country and most know their fucked when it comes to freedom, in this country they've done a great job at getting the majority to buy into their bullshit. There is no difference between the two countries, both use propaganda to suck citizens into a false sense.

Shut down porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they want to shut down porn? The people in the DOJ would have nothing to do all day...

I disagree

[rsilvergun]

when you've weakened their access to food/shelter/healthcare you pretty much control them.

Maybe 100 years ago you were right, but these days the tech available to a modern army is so much better than what Joe Blow can afford it's not even a contest. To say nothing of the training a soldier gets.

Dictatorships are much more concerned with controlling who gets to eat and sleep in a warm house. If you too busy worrying about food and shelter you're not worrying about oppression...

Re:I disagree

[Jane Q. Public]

Maybe 100 years ago you were right, but these days the tech available to a modern army is so much better than what Joe Blow can afford it's not even a contest. To say nothing of the training a soldier gets.

There are so many invalid assumptions in this fallacy that I hardly know where to start.

(1) You'd have to get the military to fight its own people. Which is not very likely. In my estimation 90% of them would jump ship first.

(2) There are about 1.5 active U.S. military personnel. They have lots of high-tech weapons, and lots and lots of ammo. (They don't, however, have as many guns as lots of people think. Only a few per man at any given time.)

Now, contrast that to the fact that there are 300 million people in the United States, with more than 300 million firearms plus ammunition. That's MORE THAN one firearm for every man, woman, and child. Which means that even if you could get the entire military to fight its own citizens, it would be outnumbered by an ARMED enemy by 200 to 1. Those are pretty shitty odds, when you consider the trouble they had with a very poorly-armed minority of citizens in Afghanistan and Iraq. THEN, you have to consider:

(3) A military, in every situation, depends on its supply line. Soon after the military started to be used against the citizenry, they would find that nobody is making ammunition for them anymore, or supplying them with food or water or gasoline or spare parts or tires or...

I could go on, but the point is made. It is not something to fear. It would never get anywhere in the current United States. Somebody would have to be very stupid to try it.

That's why they want to restrict your freedoms (and your firearms). Because as long as those exist, they simply could not win. Period.

Re:I disagree

[Jane Q. Public]

Correction: "1.5 active military" should have been "1.5 MILLION". According to Wikipedia.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) You'd have to get the military to fight its own people. Which is not very likely. In my estimation 90% of them would jump ship first.

This is charmingly naive, depending on the reasons for the military to fighting their own, you'd probably find it closer to 90% who don't jump ship. Non-violent protest actually increases the chance that military personnel will refuse to fire on civilians. If you're shooting at them, chances are higher that they're going to shoot at you.

(2) There are about 1.5 million active U.S. military personnel. They have lots of high-tech weapons, and lots and lots of ammo. (They don't, however, have as many guns as lots of people think. Only a few per man at any given time.)

They also have fighter jets, helicopters, aircraft carriers, tanks and a whole host of other heavy weapons. Additionally they're trained in combat and following orders and can actually use battlefield tactics which would be a huge advantage in a large conflict. The value of organization and tactics diminishes greatly when facing an insurgency, of course.

Now, contrast that to the fact that there are 300 million people in the United States, with more than 300 million firearms plus ammunition. That's MORE THAN one firearm for every man, woman, and child. Which means that even if you could get the entire military to fight its own citizens, it would be outnumbered by an ARMED enemy by 200 to 1. Those are pretty shitty odds, when you consider the trouble they had with a very poorly-armed minority of citizens in Afghanistan and Iraq. THEN, you have to consider:

I don't see why they would be fighting 300 million Americans. It seems far more likely that they'd be fighting around half the country, give or take.

(3) A military, in every situation, depends on its supply line. Soon after the military started to be used against the citizenry, they would find that nobody is making ammunition for them anymore, or supplying them with food or water or gasoline or spare parts or tires or...

Why? Seems to me they'll be plenty of people who would believe the military is doing what's right. Whether because they believe in whatever cause started the conflict, the military's paying them and they aren't planning to starve for your cause, or because your gang of armed terrorists scare them near to death, I highly doubt the military supplies would dry up.

I could go on, but the point is made. It is not something to fear. It would never get anywhere in the current United States. Somebody would have to be very stupid to try it.

It would be stupid, but not for the reasons you describe at all. It would split the country, ruin the economy, destroy the means of production in the country and impoverish everyone. That's why someone would have to be very stupid to try it.

That's why they want to restrict your freedoms (and your firearms). Because as long as those exist, they simply could not win. Period.

Actually, they want to restrict your freedom to own firearms so you'll stop shooting your neighbours. It may be the wrong solution to the wrong problem, but your supposed motivation is just plain ridiculous. You may wonder why they don't realize it won't work, but you, dear Jane, are ample evidence that some people can't be disabused of the ridiculous notions in their heads no matter how evidence is presented that they are wrong.

There really isn't an American Left...

[rsilvergun]

at least not a material one. So it's not surprising people look on at the current administration doing a lot of the same things as the last one and conclude their all the same.

To be fair, I think the current Administration (e.g. Obama's) is doing the best he can. I doubt I could do any better. But given the current state of America there's no chance in hell you'll see a real left...

Not the DOJ

[Anonymous Coward]

I may be confused, but it appears that banks are willingly and proactively closing these accounts to cover themselves.

Truly a terrible act, and overreach from the government, but it's just an example of people and large economic actors being cowardly and selfish. Companies - but also individuals - don't care about the rights of others. It is a very sad fact, but basically no one holds morality or "rights" (as an ideal) above their own self interest. A bank won't risk itself to support freedom/free speech/self determination.

There's a Godwin here as well... though they would have forcibly done the deed if "necessary," whereas this is entirely due to capitalism and lack of principles.

Re:If it was just the banks that would be one thin

[Anonymous Coward]

No what they did was illegal and unconstitutional at the IRS. Basically, people who had donated to these 501Cs where outed to the democratic party after the 501Cs where illegally asked to provide donor lists. While some left leaning groups where given additional scrutiny most the majority where simply waved through. But most damning is that fact The Democratic Party and aligned 501Cs begun personal attacks against anonymous tea party and rightwing donors. Yes, the proof will be hard if not impossible to find but the circumstantial evidence is pretty damning. Search around for donors attacked by democrats. They ether hacked some datebases or they got the names from someone??? and now we know who was asking for the names.

At the end of the day this just shows us why we need to simplify the government. Just get rid of 501Cs and all other tax free organizations there all political to some degree anyway.... Or should be free to be as political as they want to be.

"Racist Materials"

[Anonymous Coward]

Meaning - any attempt by white people to inform other white people of the ongoing genocide against us, through undemocratic, unwanted mass immigration of non-whites into white countries.

Why aren't millions of white people moving in Africa or India every year? Hmm...

Tail

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is pissed that he has not gotten any tail or even a blow job.

Give big O some tail and a blow job and the DoJ will "cease and desist" faster than a bother finishing a bucket of KFC.

Ha ha

subject

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution gives the interpretation to the supreme court.

it's funny that no one thought that until the supreme court decided it was so.

In eu bank will not be allowed

[leuk_he]

To prevent such random risks to people earning money in the eu there will be laws to protect the common people.

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health...

However i think this is about personal accounts. If you want a bank account for a porn business you might have to shop arround.

Right not to be punished without a trial?

[walterbyrd]

Taking away a person's assets without a trial seem unconstitutional to me.

Re:Right not to be punished without a trial?

[ganjadude]

they do it to low level drug dealers all the time. Get pulled over while back with a joint? no more car

Cruel and Unusual isn't it?

[dbIII]

There should be a law against punishment of that type carried out without a trial.

Still an assault on due process - no?

[walterbyrd]

How many accounts does it take? How is it legal to even close one?

If the government can get away with this, where does it stop? Close the bank of accounts of political rivals? Close the bank accounts of those who write unflattering articles about Obama?

Seems to me that this action sets a dangerous precedent.

B/S right wing agitprop.

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical right wing conspiracy theory thrown out for all the knuckledraggers to get all hysterical about.

This is actually the second time this happened.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually the second time this happened. The first attempt failed, code named Operation "Deep throat."

What A Fucking Ridiculously Shitty Title for This

[Anonymous Coward]

Reason suggests...

An organization named "The Reason" has determined...

Some random media outlet, no one has ever heard of, is alleging... ...and then the inflamtory link baity part.

It's more insidious than this

[RogueWarrior65]

Closing accounts is one thing but there are a lot more insidious things going on. For example, my Chase Business account was recently changed without my approval such that I could not make outgoing international wire transfers unless I kept $50,000 in the account. That means that I have to tie up more cash that doesn't earn any interest in order to be able to purchase components from outside the country. That was the first straw. The next one was when my business banking rep called me to try to convince me to close out some of my credit cards that I keep on hand for times when I need to purchase a lot of inventory to handle a big order. Intentionally closing a credit card has negative impact on your credit rating. Why was the rep trying to get me to fall on my own sword? They said they were concerned about my exposure. WTF? I always pay the cards off every month. What exposure?

But there are other cases where some bureaucrat functionary decides to take "social justice" into their own hands. The firearms business has recently been targeted even though everything they are doing is perfectly legal and above board. In one instance, the bank rep told the company "We don't think you should be in this business." In another, a manufacturer went into a meeting with the bank they had been doing business with for years. The bank rep told them that they were going to take away their lines of credit. To the manufacturer's credit, they said "Fine. We're closing all our accounts now. Today. This minute."

Anyone ever heard of...

[Anonymous Coward]

Credit Unions?

F$%^& the big banks I haven't put money in a -bank- in 20+ years. I have been using credit unions EXCLUSIVELY. The banks are always having this kind of cr@p played with them and the big banks can get away with this stuff. Try it with a local credit union. The MEMBERS own the thing.

Re:If it was just the banks that would be one thin

[ganjadude]

no its not, Just because I dont like the IRS does not mean the IRS should put me under more scrutiny. If anything it just shows that the admin are bullies. I thought we were against bullies??? isnt that one of the things they are pushing these days?

potential obvious answer.

[OurDailyFred]

Never overlook the obvious answer. Perhaps the cash deposits made by the porn stars were causing complaints from other customers that they were somewhat slippery and had an unusual odor.

Perhaps a few of us could undertake to have a whiff the next time we're in the WF bank.

Home based charities?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the ones on the list are absoluely legitimate enterprises. It seems to me that there's something else going on here. Wish I knew what...

So's racism

[Anonymous Coward]

do you support racism? Hmm, xOra? Supporting white supremacist garbage in 2014 with some pointy-headed legalism that ignores human suffering, human rights and the need for human dignity is pretty odious. I think your employer would like to know about it.

Re:So's racism

[causality]

do you support racism? Hmm, xOra? Supporting white supremacist garbage in 2014 with some pointy-headed legalism that ignores human suffering, human rights and the need for human dignity is pretty odious. I think your employer would like to know about it.

The antidote for bad speech is more (good) speech.

You simply can't have freedom if people aren't allowed to decide for themselves what is worthy and what is disgusting. And in terms of free speech, it's worked out pretty well. Those who seriously express racist sentiments are publically humiliated and villified in our society. In fact I'd rather they be free to speak so that they can be identified and avoided, rather than driving it underground (like our futile efforts to proscribe drugs).

To frame this in terms of "supporting free speech is also supporting racism (because racists might speak too)!" is really very childish of you. If and when your intellect and emotions finally mature and match your chronological age, you will come to understand this for yourself.

impeach Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

DemocRATS are crony currupt...

Makes sense if one is not disposed towards going o

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, one needs facts not in evidence here and a dash of paranoia in order to fall into that category. Thanks for being the voice of reason.

Only chilling if you're a fucking idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for the headline, but this stuff just infuriates me. As a former journalist, I really hate this kind of inferential reporting. And even worse is the way that Americans have been trained by decades of political talkshow entertainers and by the tendency of online communications to isolate us into like-thinking groups. When presented with an outrageous assertion like this, why are the reactions of people here -- most of whom, I assume, consider themselves to be of above-average intelligence -- to simply accept conclusory statements and start shaking their heads about the chilling effects of government? The rational response, IMO, if you're too lazy or too swamped to RTFA is to maintain a healthy skepticism: "That's a pretty extreme accusation. If it's true, it's a real problem. But I don't have any information to confirm its truth and, to be honest, it's outrageous enough to require significant corroboration before I get too worried about it."

So often, when a correct response would be, "That's a grave accusation. Unfortunately, I don't have enough information to have an educated opinion on the matter one way or the other," we instead respond with, "That's chilling!", "That's just one more example of why , , , , , , , are evil!."

If you want to have an opinion that means something, I believe that you need to constantly be questioning it. Otherwise, you get into circular logic that must makes you stupid: i) Obamacare is bad; ii) I know this because it caused skyrocketing healthcare costs; iii) I know it caused skyrocketing healthcare costs because Rush Limbaugh told me so; iv) I know Rush Limbaugh is correct because Obamacare is bad; v) etc. (For the record, check factcheck.org -- despite the viral nature of the incessant pounding of the "skyrocketing healthcare costs" mantra, factcheck looked up the real numbers and found that the ACA did not result in a significant rise in premiums -- and that the guests that the talkshow guys parade on their shows who claim otherwise aren't telling the whole story. But I digress.)

Here, if you follow the link and the links from the links, you find that: i) reputable sources like the Washington Post & WSJ cite abuses related to a DoJ "Operation Choke Hold (sic)"; ii) these abuses relate to using banks to squeeze payday-lending organizations, which have been known to violate lending laws or take unfair advantage of clients; iii) the bank accounts of some porn star and her husband were closed by a bank; iv) the porn star claims that a bank employee told her in private that the accounts were closed because of pressure related to this heavily reported "Operation Choke Hold."

Really?? That's the story? From that the author extrapolates a concerted effort by the Federal government to suppress dozens of classes of politically unpopular business. Worse, the author deliberately misrepresents other sources, apparently (correctly) believing that most readers will not click the links. See, for example, the link in the last paragraph, which misrepresents a Republican Congressman's remarks about the payday lending assertions (themselves likely exaggerated in order to make Democrats look bad) by making it appear that the Congressman is referring to the porn star's unsupported claims.

If only there was a way to close my Slashdot account. I'm so tired of this stupid shit.

Related Documentary About Porn Discrimination

[Anonymous Coward]

A new award-winning documentary, "Risky Business: A Look Inside America's Adult Film Industry," examines many of the current issues surrounding the adult film industry, including many of the discriminatory items addressed in this article. The film's website is RiskyBusinessTheMovie dot c0m

I WANT TO CANCEL MY FUCKING SLASHDOT ACCOUNT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazingly enough, Slashdot does not allow users to delete their accounts. Worse, it does not even allow users to change their nicknames.

So, if you're concerned about Web analytics making connections between your postings on Slashdot and postings made with stylistic language or nicknames similar to those of your Slashdot postings, you're shit out of luck. And speaking as one who works in the field, such connections and inferences are far from mere paranoia. Analytics is what drives NSA data collection and many forms of clicktracking, and these methodologies are still in their infancy -- data collected today is likely to yield far more information when mined 5 or 10 years from now, when increases data-storage and processing capabilities eliminates some of the constraints of current technology. DNA computing, anyone?.

As recently as last March, Slashdot itself reported that researchers, using only Facebook metadata (not postings), could predict a user's sexual orientation, political party, IQ, likelihood to use drugs, and other personal characteristics. Hence, prudence dictates that online users should ALWAYS delete unnecessary traces. And older Slashdot postings, which can get far more personal than Facebook "likes," should certainly be high on the list of deletable traces. Even if you always (and it's not a bad idea) post as an AC. See: http://yro-beta.slashdot.org/story/13/03/11/218221/facebook-knows-if-youre-gay-use-drugs-or-are-a-republican.

Amazingly, Slashdot refuses to provide basic posting-deletion service. It refuses to allow even half-assed attempts to hide one's identify by changing a nick. And it won't even accept email requests to explain these policies. When I sent a message to Slashdot last month asking for clarification or assistance, I received a form letter apologizing for "Slashdot's inability to reply to every question about its new beta system."

Jeez, can't we even get kissed when we get fucked?

So what can anyone do? Well, to start, I'll be submitting this message as a story proposal until I get some kind of reaction from somebody who thinks that I'm raising a valid issue. In the interim, I STRONGLY urge anybody thinking of opening a Slashdot account, or of posting other than anonymously, to think twice. Search on Google (or better, on the Patent Office Web site) terms like "web analytics," "inferential statistics," "knowledgebase," "big data," "natural-language prcoessing," or even just "cybersecurity." Or scan a copy of the already-outdated book "Dragnet Nation." And remember that, once you open that Slashdot account, once you post that Slashdot message, there's no redo.

Shame on you, Slashdot! I could understand these kinds of policies on a Duck Dynasty fan-club forum, but you guys are supposed to have a clue.

Re:If it was just the banks that would be one thin

[sideslash]

Sorry, the timing of Dr. Carson's audit was not a coincidence. He was targeted because of his political speech immediately after embarrassing President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast.

In my opinion, there should be a clear paper trail at the IRS establishing exactly how all audit decisions are made, and where/why they originated. If it originated from the Oval Office, that information should be available on demand by the auditee, and it should be a felony to conceal it. Obama's IRS has really been going to town with auditing his political opponents, and Bill Clinton's IRS allegedly actually admitted at one point that an audit was being done for payback against a person suing the president.

When the IRS is used as a political tool (or really, weapon), people's confidence in our country's freedoms is justifiably eroded. I'd like to see laws, harsh penalties and (again) paper trails brought to bear on this problem.

Big deal, so was George W Bush

[mpercy]

Seems like any moron can manage to get elected President, even twice.

Illegal operation - time to arrest the DoJ Staff

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally illegal, totally unsupported by any laws.

Time to arrest all staff of the DoJ, throw them in prison, throw away the keys - prison? I say Gitmo for traitorous scum like these ass wipes.

US Constitution does not preclude gov't healthcare

[perpenso]

Back when this document was written, healthcare consisted of a bottle of rum and a hacksaw for a simple scratch to the leg which got infected. I don't think any other country in the world is so ignorant to think that laws created back then aren't up for rediscussion if it's for the common good.

There is absolutely *nothing* in the US Constitution that prevents government backed and mandated healthcare. Hence the people who argue that Obamacare is unconstitutional simultaneously admit that Romneycare in the state of Massachusetts is perfectly constitutional. The dispute is over the federal government running things rather than the states.

Clearly does not receive NRA literature

[mpercy]

The NRA magazines like America's First Freedom regularly carry articles about the abuses of the government, although Fast & Furious and Operation Fearless (being gun-related) do tend to overshadow more generally political issues like Benghazi and the NSA/CIA wiretaps.

You Europeans are so narrow-minded.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you look at Obama's policies from over here in Europe, he's still way on the right side of the axis, while socialism and marxism should be to the left."

Yes, you are right from a warped European perspective

where your ENTIRE political spectrum is:

[LEFT]Communist .... Socal Democrat ... National Socialist[RIGHT]

But that's a VERY narrow political range. In the US, the spectrum is more like:

[LEFT]Communist .... Socal Democrat ... National Socialist ... Liberal Democrat ... moderate Democrat ... moderate Republican ... Conservative Rep ... TEA Party ... Nation's Founders ... anarchy[RIGHT]

Admittedly imprecise and sloppy, but the point is that your European political scale is remarkably narrow and way over on the left. In the U.S. our scale starts way over on the actual "right" with the minimal, VERY small Constitutional government with no social safety net, no taxes on income, etc (and there are even libertarians / anarchists who think THAT's still too far left...) and then stretches way over to the extreme whacko and dangerous left where you guys all live in the belief that government should run most of your lives. Oh, and by "anarchy" on the "right" of our spectrum, I do NOT mean "hoards of drug-addled satanists running through the streets starting fires and raping and murdering", rather I mean zero laws and regulations (i.e. nobody in charge at all) which could mean anything from lawless packs of criminals running wild to, peaceful self-regulating religious people (think idealized Amish) who simply do not need laws, or anything between.

Americans have never been governed by anything "left" of Liberal Democrat, just as most Europeans cannot fathom anything to the "right" of National Socialist - Americans threw-off a royal monarchy and went straight to our Nation's Founders, but you guys in Europe went from royal monarchy to Social Democrat, and then dipped your toes into the Commie and NAZI "extremes" on either side of THAT.

And this is why...

[kick6]

I bank with a small credit union. Hell, I even WORK for a mid-cap bank, and I'm reluctant to do business with them, and they're below the Chase/BoA radar.

A play from the world's oldest playbook

[Anonymous Coward]

EVERY political actor who reaches for more power starts by going after "unpopular" people and things.

Wanna grow government regulations? If you start by telling people what size dinner plate they may have, they'll get upset and think you're "crimping their style", but if you tell them you are going after terrorists, criminals, porn stars, drug dealers, cigarette makers, etc most people will happily vote to give you more power and authority to do it. Later-on, when nobody's looking, you can then use the new power to go after your political enemies (who will squeal a bit, but if your base supporters are happy you will "get away with it"). Eventually, you'll even be able to go after any of your own supporters if they "get out of line" and start giving you trouble...

In Obama world, laws do not matter and the Constitution does not matter; Mr Obama has a pen and a phone and can just re-write any laws he wants (who needs Congress?) as he has done with the health care law (what he can do to one law he can do to any other law - it's the principle he is establishing that matters). Of course, his Atty General, Eric Holder, has followed his boss and asserts that he can choose which laws to ignore and which to enforce (never mind that both of these men took an oath that specifically requires them to uphold the Constitution and to see that the laws are faithfully enforced). ANYBODY who claims to be shocked by ANY level of lawlessness by this duo is either dishonest or supremely ignorant of history, politics, and government. Mr. Obama campaigned on a pledge to "fundamentally transform" the U.S. and he has done just that - ANY future president can use Obama as the precedent to do ALL these things, and more, to any groups he/she chooses...

Our tax dollars pay for this

[Anonymous Coward]

wow.. the revolution i'm sure is coming, and will be televised

eric holder

[Anonymous Coward]

a treasonous scumbag who should be tried for his crimes against America

Telemarketers

[Anonymous Coward]

If the law can't get rid of them, perhaps governmental power abuse will. We can only hope. Hold off the revolution a little longer, please.

"Coin Dealers" WTF?

[RockDoctor]

I mean, most of the others have been linked to "objectionable practices" (in some people's opinions, and those are a separate range of issues), but coin dealers?

OK. I may be biased, but I just brought £200 worth of coins from the Royal Mint. What's illegal or unethical about that?

sonehow its all back to monkies typing

[Anonymous Coward]

Its porn. Not gun laws. One shoots bullets, one shots its load come. ok guys

And Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

The DOJ is doing nothing to enforce the laws concerning illegal immigration (Didn't work for the Romans, Didn't work for the native Americans, Didn't work for the do-do bird, probably won't work for the USA). Meanwhile nothing is being done about the drug trade, and is encouraged under the table by the powers that be (It is a billion dollar industry after all and the finest example of capitalism at work.) Profits would be down if there were not a so called war going on against it. Meanwhile the DOJ is shipping guns to Mexico under fast and furious ( i guess to protect the poor drug dealers against the crazy white people that live in Arizona). My guess is that Eric Holders boss's at Prison Industries were upset about the dip in stock holder value, so you have to go after someone. You have to make money somehow.

In the USA the rulling class openly takes bribes from foreign powers, and the media will only focus on blow jobs that may have occurred in the oval office. We will fight a war against our own citizens (uggh I mean suspected domestic terrorists) meanwhile ignoring foreign incursions by Russia into nations that we have sworn to protect. We will only go after those that are perceived as being weak, such as those religious conservatives who believe in family values living in the middle east, or Nevada.

Like many of the articles on Reason's site...

[ToddInSF]

This one is exaggerated troll-bait.

Coin Dealers?

[AnnaZed]

Why are coin dealers on that list? What am I missing?

Working in porn is not against the law...

[Jefftoe]

Working in porn is not against the law... at least in many states. so why?

Re:If it was just the banks that would be one thin

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that in a free society as long as you pay your taxes it is legal to have an explicitly anti-tax agenda. It is not legal to penalize groups with an anti-tax agenda. It is also not legal to claim that such people are skirting the law without proof.
If you don't think that unwarranted extra scrutiny is intimidating then you're wrong.
Also being anti-tax is not being anti-government. The legality of the personal income tax is, unfortunately, pretty uncontestable. There was some question at one time whether the constitutional amendment which allowed the income tax was legally passed, but a court put that to rest some years ago. The question of whether such a constitutional amendment should have been passed is a separate question. The progressives pulled a fast one and got it through. You can't protect people from their own stupidity.

The real truth here is....

[Anonymous Coward]

The sex workers aren't blowing the right cocks. Blow the VERY small penises in DC adn there would be NO problem.

Its not who you know
but who you blow.

How the hell are you people still not realizing you're living in a situation worse than Nazi Germany?
You are correct sir and some of do realize it.

this government

[Anonymous Coward]

We've been screwed and tattooed by the Obama administration. So why not go after the monies of the people they don't like... Soon it will be the Republicans bank account...WAIT They are already doing it....IMPEACH OBAmA

Why target the stars rather than the company

[Wikipedia]

Also why target the stars rather than the company that created it?