The dumbest thing Americans do is assume that consumers act rationally, never-mind should be expected to act rationally.
Yes, people never make the choices *I* think they should make, so I want the government to *force* MY choices on everyone else with the threat of imprisonment or death to back it up.
Health care is an insurance product that you want everyone to be forced to pay into...
Intercept NSA/GCHQ communications and/or hack them back? DDoS all their IP ranges? What's good for the goose is good for the gander? Crowd-source the gathering of any identifying data/biometrics of those working for NSA/GCHQ with phone apps and host an open/searchable database online? Why would they stop if there's no cost/push-back?
They have to come to understand that spying on everyone as they have been will cause a backlash that will seriously impair their ability to do *actual* national-security duties.
Also keep in mind the fed was created because of one of these conditions.
If you want to know how & why and by whom the Federal Reserve was created, read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin.
It's...unsettling...at best, and the implications flowing from what's revealed are downright frightening, though it does explain a lot of what's happened over the years regarding the Fed, the economy, and the US Dollar.
Many Youtube users never use it for music covered by the RIAA so it is not fair to compare it to services like Spotify that are primarily for music.
Google/YT should try suspending all the record label and label-signed artists' accounts for a full business quarter and see if the labels/IFPI/RIAA change their attitude after they watch their bottom-lines take a plunge.
The labels and their stables of artists need YT more than YT needs them.
CAGW alarmists don't/won't provide falsifiable evidence that can be independently tested. They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research They will not release the actual programs, algorithms, and data used in their computer models, which still are unable to both track past climate changes while modeling the future global temperature rise rates claimed. Models which most accurately track past changes do not show the predicted increases, while models that show predicted increases in global temperature averages do not track against past climate records.
In order to assume this is reason enough to greatly disrupt the US national economy (guaranteed other nations like China, Russia, and India will not harm *their* economies b/c of CAGW alarmism) requires a 'leap of faith' equal to that of a religion. It requires faith without any more proof than Christians have to believe in the God of Abraham.
The way that CAGW alarmists have been acting has not been that different from the Westboro Baptist Church nutters. They try to shout-down and silence opposing voices, substituting outrage, anger, and argument/appeal from/to authority for reason and logic.
Even their precious IPCC/Dr. Roy Cook "97% scientific consensus" is bullshit. The "97%" includes scientists who think humans have *some* effect on climate, which humorously includes many on the "Denier(TM)"-side. Hell, *I* believe humans have *some* effect, I've simply seen no evidence that justifies massive immediate changes.
If we all agree that de-institutionalizing the mentally ill was a mistake, can we skip the blaming step and just come up with the money to at least get us back to the state things were before that time when it happened due to nobody's fault? And since we all agree that "it" is a good idea, there shouldn't be a problem paying for it, right?
The problem is not so much the costs, but in turning back the legal clock, so to speak, and removing rights from the mentally ill. That's a big hurdle and one with many pitfalls and dangers. If taken too far, those people who are merely 'odd', 'unique' or who hold 'unusual' ideological or political beliefs, suffer an isolated bout of depression, temporary PTSD, see a therapist, etc etc could find themselves in a rubber room under heavy sedation. The USSR routinely locked political dissidents away in mental wards.
He petitioned the courts and after a lengthy legal battle became the legal owner of John Casor (a white man) in 1654 in Virginia.
A side note; Thomas Jefferson was not born until 1743, so he and the other founders were not even born until nearly a century after Anthony Johnson became the first US slave-owner. The Founders did not institute slavery in the US, it was a legal institution when they were born. Most of the Founders who wrote about slavery found it detestable, but the southern Colonies had become dependent on slaves and would not join with the other Colonies if they made it illegal, and without the southern Colonies joining in, they would stand little chance against the British.
No one cares what a bunch of racist landowners in the 1700's wanted, they are dead now. Those that are living will decide what is and isn't valid.
A couple of historical notes FYI.
The person responsible for making slavery a legal institution in the Colonies and who also was the very first slave-owner was a land-owning black man named Anthony Johnson. He petitioned the courts and after a lengthy legal battle became the legal owner of John Casor (a white man) in 1654 in Virginia. Johnson went on to acquire other white slaves.
Thomas Jefferson neither bought nor sold a single slave. He inherited slaves from his family and his wife's family. It was highly illegal to free a slave at that time in the Colonies, so he would have likely been hung if he'd tried to set them free. Things like the "underground railroad" were still about a century in the future.
It's OK to be angry at injustice, but one must be very careful one has the correct target(s) first or you become part of the problem.
So, tab out, read the Tenth Amendment, then go through the body of the Constitution and find the text discussing education as a Federal Power. Then get back to me...
Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....
Constitution!? Pfft!
The US government has been wiping its' collective ass with that thing since the 1800s and these days it's a tired joke.
Is it only coincidence that the further the US government has strayed beyond the limits set forth in the Constitution, the worse things have gotten?
Personally, I'm for a Convention of States as set forth in Article V of the Constitution. The size, expense, power, and scope of the Federal government has exceeded all reason and any semblance of a "limited" government. Things such as term limits for Congress, among others, must be enacted to prevent eventual collapse into anarchy or some form of authoritarianism, and possibly even civil war that turns into global war as the US' enemies seek to take advantage of a crippled US.
Here, though, where Bernie Sanders - who's a 120 leagues left of any other elected Democrat - smeared Hugo Chavez as a "dead communist dictator". Here, where Chavez is 360 leagues to the right of Castro....
You're onto something. Castro is exactly in line with Chavez (as you say 360 degrees, one full turn).
The only one that's off is '120 degrees to the left of any other elected democrat'. Which is, again, pretty much right on top of Castro, 'authoritarian asshole with a justification', going further left of that takes you back into right wing.
LOL!
Careful, HW!
His head may asplode, and *nobody* wants *that* mess around!:D
I'm sure this will work perfectly, and everybody will respond honestly and accurately based on whether the story is factual, rather than whether or not it follows the correct political opinion.
"Working As Intended(TM)"?
Perhaps filtering of politically "sensitive" topics in the "news" feed is the goal and not an unintended consequence under the guise of filtering "fake news"?
That's some nice revisionist history except for one detail.
It's wrong.
It was Progressive Democrats who had a majority in Congress that thought they were 'defending the rights of the mentally-ill' and pushed through the de-institutionalization of the mentally ill and forced them out on the streets and also 'defended the right to refuse medication' for the mentally ill so they are now wandering the streets un-medicated or self-medicating with street-drugs.
Republicans at the time opposed these moves but were outvoted in Congress and demonized in the media for their opposition.
Why would you? What ever made you think you could trust a doctor with a computer?
Good point. Wait... then why wold we trust a real estate developer and pyramid marketing purveyor to run a country again?
Because the Democrats couldn't figure out ways to both bring Castro back from the dead and get him elected as POTUS so they had to settle for the runner-up, HRC?
Current state of ISPs in the US is a pretty good example of government-granted service monopolies acting like typical monopolies. Actual capitalistic competition would be a vast improvement.
Not with mysterious government cameras appearing on utility poles, "Stingray" type cell-site MITM units used by local PDs, even being near others with cellphones/tablets/etc, ALPR systems, biometric ID matching, NSA/TLA/Five-Eyes data-slurping anything they can, etc etc etc.
The ways in which individuals can be and are tracked if/when authorities wish makes an amazingly-long list.
Not saying you should accept this crap from MS, just the opposite. Just pointing out that this is only one small front in a huge war for your private data and thoughts and who has control of them, the individual or TPTB. Information is power and they mean to be hold a monopoly on their control of it and remove any ability for the individual to make choices about what they share.
If I have to give up my privacy, I want a computer that always works. Otherwise, it's security through inoperation.
Lol, not a bad idea. Like nazis used to turn off electricity in whole blocks to see if the resistance transmitter stops working. Screw up updates to half of computers, see if what you want to stop has stopped. Divide, conquer:) In a few decades of failing updates you will know who is doing it, totally worth it right?
MS: "Gosh we feel awful about it, but this is gonna hurt you a lot worse than it hurts us."
I'm always careful to grab mine, but with all the bullshit rules these days I have FOUR FUCKING BINS plus my bag to take through TSA.
It's complete fucking security theater. Stop requiring removal of all these devices that just slow down lines and lead to lost items. It's all bullshit.
...This is a friendly reminder to please leave these items at home.
How about we leave the TSA at home? And DHS along with them? They don't actually keep US citizens safe, they keep the US government safe from citizens.
Of course nature has a feedback method to automatically correct the damage we do: extinction (or a major culling at least)
It couldn't possibly be some other mechanism or combination of mechanisms nobody has thought about or understands yet coming into play. That's unpossible. The science is settled. It has to be extinction. Because alarmism gets attention and funding.
I think our fingers have been good and well fucking up that balance for a few hundred years, with the mass removal and burning of countless tons of coal.
You assume humans are not and and human activity is not 'natural' or 'normal' or that the planet does not already have sufficient feedback measures in place we are not yet aware of to compensate for human activity without harmful/dangerous rates/amounts of climate change. We, ourselves, are a product of nature, after all. How many times in the past has nature created species that upset the global climate? Are we so arrogant as to think that just because we've developed a higher intelligence and self-awareness that we are somehow beyond/above nature and nature's ability to mitigate changes caused by life that is nature's own product?
Human understanding of the global climate system is in it's infancy. CAGW may well be akin to the warnings scientists were voicing in the 1940s that detonating an atomic bomb would start a chain reaction destroying the Earth and killing all life, or at least the planet's ability to support life.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for advancing both our knowledge in this area and for finding *pragmatic & economically viable/practical* ways to pollute less and impact the environment less overall. I don't believe it warrants extreme measures bordering on emergency status that will harm people by destroying economies and lowering standards of living while empowering authoritarianism to enforce those measures.
....have developed a new, super-efficient method for living organisms to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Yeah, let's genetically engineer plants and microbes to be unnaturally efficient in removing atmospheric CO2. It's not like the biosphere has spent millions of years achieving a balance or that the balance is important.
"What could possibly go wrong?"
This could be a plot for a sci-fi novel or movie. One of those that predict a not-happy outcome for humans due to their own shortsightedness and hubris.
I'm a lefty, and I would never do or propose one of the things you claim lefties would do... just for your interest. And neither would any other lefty in my country...
I believe that more speech is always the solution. Let ideas compete equally out in the open without censor regardless of how revolting some may find some speech. After all, it is only unpopular opinions that need protecting. Nobody tries to suppress speech they agree with.
If one's ideas and speech can only gain acceptance by silencing/suppressing others' ideas and speech, then one should re-examine and re-evaluate their own ideas and speech, for that is where the problem lies.
If what you say is true then carry on, Sir, whether we may agree or not. If I may ask a favor, please have a heart-to-heart with the US Left. Sad to say, they are currently not only harming themselves but the US as well with the tactics I outlined above, which are just a fraction of the things they discredit themselves with without help of opposition.
Hell, I really don't want either faction to gain too much power. That leads to tyranny. However, the US Left has swung the pendulum quite a ways Left in the US and I fear the counter-swing, of which Trump could be just the beginning. That the pendulum has swung so far Left in the US (by US standards) is what's driven extreme political views, opinions, and policies from both sides.
A far-Right fascist authoritarian regime and a far-Left socialist authoritarian regime are nearly indistinguishable from the general populations' viewpoint.
However, if this is an investigation of individuals, the Fourth doesn't apply because they're not searching the individual's effects. If it's an investigation of the exchange, then it isn't a general warrant.
The quotes from the investigators said they were wanting to see if any of the exchange users were using it to evade taxes. That's an investigation of the individuals. They did not say they were investigating the exchange because they had probable cause to believe the exchange was evading taxes. They have no specific probable cause to search the private financial data (papers and effects) of the individuals. It's a fishing expedition using a general warrant. That's the reality.
Of course, a Venn diagram of reality and the US legal system would show only a very modest area of intersection, particularly in more recent times.
No idea where you get that idea. For a start I can go anywhere in the EU, moving from country to country without even a passport in many cases, and not being watched while I do it.
And I can travel from State to State within the United States just as easily. The EU is a collection of member-states as well and so similar travel freedoms are the norm there too.
What's your point?
Similarly, when I visit Japan I don't even need a visa, and no-one keeps "tabs" on me.
So there have been special agreements made between Japan and your nation/the EU. What about visitors to Japan from Somalia or Syria?
Corner/special cases where special agreements/arrangements have been made are not equivalent to general visa/immigration policies. Try again.
What does this have to do with immigration? Border controls are one thing, but you said "keep better tabs on", as in watch them once they are inside the country. That requires extensive surveillance. And not just immigrants, visitors too.
You don't even seem to understand the implication of what you are saying.
Apparently you've never traveled internationally much. Almost every other nation on the planet keeps far closer watch over people entering/visiting/immigrating to their countries and while they are there than does the US. The US has one of the most open and liberal immigration/visa systems of any nation and keeps far fewer tabs on them once here than almost any other nation.
You talk like implementing sane foreign visitation/immigration policies are equivalent to going full-'Big-Brother'. It's hyperventilating like yours that prevents rational debate. Of course, derailing rational debate may be the goal.
Slashdot Mirror
The dumbest thing Americans do is assume that consumers act rationally, never-mind should be expected to act rationally.
Yes, people never make the choices *I* think they should make, so I want the government to *force* MY choices on everyone else with the threat of imprisonment or death to back it up.
Health care is an insurance product that you want everyone to be forced to pay into...
Ain't Fascism great?
Strat
Now what?
Intercept NSA/GCHQ communications and/or hack them back? DDoS all their IP ranges? What's good for the goose is good for the gander? Crowd-source the gathering of any identifying data/biometrics of those working for NSA/GCHQ with phone apps and host an open/searchable database online? Why would they stop if there's no cost/push-back?
They have to come to understand that spying on everyone as they have been will cause a backlash that will seriously impair their ability to do *actual* national-security duties.
Strat
Also keep in mind the fed was created because of one of these conditions.
If you want to know how & why and by whom the Federal Reserve was created, read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin.
It's...unsettling...at best, and the implications flowing from what's revealed are downright frightening, though it does explain a lot of what's happened over the years regarding the Fed, the economy, and the US Dollar.
Strat
Many Youtube users never use it for music covered by the RIAA so it is not fair to compare it to services like Spotify that are primarily for music.
Google/YT should try suspending all the record label and label-signed artists' accounts for a full business quarter and see if the labels/IFPI/RIAA change their attitude after they watch their bottom-lines take a plunge.
The labels and their stables of artists need YT more than YT needs them.
Strat
The difference is my belief is falsifiable.
And that's the problem right there.
CAGW alarmists don't/won't provide falsifiable evidence that can be independently tested. They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research They will not release the actual programs, algorithms, and data used in their computer models, which still are unable to both track past climate changes while modeling the future global temperature rise rates claimed. Models which most accurately track past changes do not show the predicted increases, while models that show predicted increases in global temperature averages do not track against past climate records.
In order to assume this is reason enough to greatly disrupt the US national economy (guaranteed other nations like China, Russia, and India will not harm *their* economies b/c of CAGW alarmism) requires a 'leap of faith' equal to that of a religion. It requires faith without any more proof than Christians have to believe in the God of Abraham.
The way that CAGW alarmists have been acting has not been that different from the Westboro Baptist Church nutters. They try to shout-down and silence opposing voices, substituting outrage, anger, and argument/appeal from/to authority for reason and logic.
Even their precious IPCC/Dr. Roy Cook "97% scientific consensus" is bullshit. The "97%" includes scientists who think humans have *some* effect on climate, which humorously includes many on the "Denier(TM)"-side. Hell, *I* believe humans have *some* effect, I've simply seen no evidence that justifies massive immediate changes.
https://youtu.be/PHyd-Y6haMg
CAGW==Religion(or scam)
Strat
If we all agree that de-institutionalizing the mentally ill was a mistake, can we skip the blaming step and just come up with the money to at least get us back to the state things were before that time when it happened due to nobody's fault? And since we all agree that "it" is a good idea, there shouldn't be a problem paying for it, right?
The problem is not so much the costs, but in turning back the legal clock, so to speak, and removing rights from the mentally ill. That's a big hurdle and one with many pitfalls and dangers. If taken too far, those people who are merely 'odd', 'unique' or who hold 'unusual' ideological or political beliefs, suffer an isolated bout of depression, temporary PTSD, see a therapist, etc etc could find themselves in a rubber room under heavy sedation. The USSR routinely locked political dissidents away in mental wards.
Strat
He petitioned the courts and after a lengthy legal battle became the legal owner of John Casor (a white man) in 1654 in Virginia.
A side note; Thomas Jefferson was not born until 1743, so he and the other founders were not even born until nearly a century after Anthony Johnson became the first US slave-owner. The Founders did not institute slavery in the US, it was a legal institution when they were born. Most of the Founders who wrote about slavery found it detestable, but the southern Colonies had become dependent on slaves and would not join with the other Colonies if they made it illegal, and without the southern Colonies joining in, they would stand little chance against the British.
Strat
No one cares what a bunch of racist landowners in the 1700's wanted, they are dead now. Those that are living will decide what is and isn't valid.
A couple of historical notes FYI.
The person responsible for making slavery a legal institution in the Colonies and who also was the very first slave-owner was a land-owning black man named Anthony Johnson. He petitioned the courts and after a lengthy legal battle became the legal owner of John Casor (a white man) in 1654 in Virginia. Johnson went on to acquire other white slaves.
Thomas Jefferson neither bought nor sold a single slave. He inherited slaves from his family and his wife's family. It was highly illegal to free a slave at that time in the Colonies, so he would have likely been hung if he'd tried to set them free. Things like the "underground railroad" were still about a century in the future.
It's OK to be angry at injustice, but one must be very careful one has the correct target(s) first or you become part of the problem.
Strat
So, tab out, read the Tenth Amendment, then go through the body of the Constitution and find the text discussing education as a Federal Power. Then get back to me...
Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....
Constitution!? Pfft!
The US government has been wiping its' collective ass with that thing since the 1800s and these days it's a tired joke.
Is it only coincidence that the further the US government has strayed beyond the limits set forth in the Constitution, the worse things have gotten?
Personally, I'm for a Convention of States as set forth in Article V of the Constitution. The size, expense, power, and scope of the Federal government has exceeded all reason and any semblance of a "limited" government. Things such as term limits for Congress, among others, must be enacted to prevent eventual collapse into anarchy or some form of authoritarianism, and possibly even civil war that turns into global war as the US' enemies seek to take advantage of a crippled US.
"May you live in interesting times", indeed.
Strat
LOL!
Careful, HW!
His head may asplode, and *nobody* wants *that* mess around! :D
Well played, Sir!
I'm sure this will work perfectly, and everybody will respond honestly and accurately based on whether the story is factual, rather than whether or not it follows the correct political opinion.
"Working As Intended(TM)"?
Perhaps filtering of politically "sensitive" topics in the "news" feed is the goal and not an unintended consequence under the guise of filtering "fake news"?
Strat
reagan trashed the mental health system.
That's some nice revisionist history except for one detail.
It's wrong.
It was Progressive Democrats who had a majority in Congress that thought they were 'defending the rights of the mentally-ill' and pushed through the de-institutionalization of the mentally ill and forced them out on the streets and also 'defended the right to refuse medication' for the mentally ill so they are now wandering the streets un-medicated or self-medicating with street-drugs.
Republicans at the time opposed these moves but were outvoted in Congress and demonized in the media for their opposition.
Strat
Because the Democrats couldn't figure out ways to both bring Castro back from the dead and get him elected as POTUS so they had to settle for the runner-up, HRC?
Strat
Current state of ISPs in the US is a pretty good example of government-granted service monopolies acting like typical monopolies. Actual capitalistic competition would be a vast improvement.
FTFY
Strat
Correction:
"You never had any privacy." Full stop.
Not with mysterious government cameras appearing on utility poles, "Stingray" type cell-site MITM units used by local PDs, even being near others with cellphones/tablets/etc, ALPR systems, biometric ID matching, NSA/TLA/Five-Eyes data-slurping anything they can, etc etc etc.
The ways in which individuals can be and are tracked if/when authorities wish makes an amazingly-long list.
Not saying you should accept this crap from MS, just the opposite. Just pointing out that this is only one small front in a huge war for your private data and thoughts and who has control of them, the individual or TPTB. Information is power and they mean to be hold a monopoly on their control of it and remove any ability for the individual to make choices about what they share.
Strat
MS: "Gosh we feel awful about it, but this is gonna hurt you a lot worse than it hurts us."
Strat
I'm always careful to grab mine, but with all the bullshit rules these days I have FOUR FUCKING BINS plus my bag to take through TSA.
It's complete fucking security theater. Stop requiring removal of all these devices that just slow down lines and lead to lost items. It's all bullshit.
...This is a friendly reminder to please leave these items at home.
How about we leave the TSA at home? And DHS along with them? They don't actually keep US citizens safe, they keep the US government safe from citizens.
Strat
Of course nature has a feedback method to automatically correct the damage we do: extinction (or a major culling at least)
It couldn't possibly be some other mechanism or combination of mechanisms nobody has thought about or understands yet coming into play. That's unpossible. The science is settled. It has to be extinction. Because alarmism gets attention and funding.
Strat
I think our fingers have been good and well fucking up that balance for a few hundred years, with the mass removal and burning of countless tons of coal.
You assume humans are not and and human activity is not 'natural' or 'normal' or that the planet does not already have sufficient feedback measures in place we are not yet aware of to compensate for human activity without harmful/dangerous rates/amounts of climate change. We, ourselves, are a product of nature, after all. How many times in the past has nature created species that upset the global climate? Are we so arrogant as to think that just because we've developed a higher intelligence and self-awareness that we are somehow beyond/above nature and nature's ability to mitigate changes caused by life that is nature's own product?
Human understanding of the global climate system is in it's infancy. CAGW may well be akin to the warnings scientists were voicing in the 1940s that detonating an atomic bomb would start a chain reaction destroying the Earth and killing all life, or at least the planet's ability to support life.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for advancing both our knowledge in this area and for finding *pragmatic & economically viable/practical* ways to pollute less and impact the environment less overall. I don't believe it warrants extreme measures bordering on emergency status that will harm people by destroying economies and lowering standards of living while empowering authoritarianism to enforce those measures.
Strat
....have developed a new, super-efficient method for living organisms to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Yeah, let's genetically engineer plants and microbes to be unnaturally efficient in removing atmospheric CO2. It's not like the biosphere has spent millions of years achieving a balance or that the balance is important.
"What could possibly go wrong?"
This could be a plot for a sci-fi novel or movie. One of those that predict a not-happy outcome for humans due to their own shortsightedness and hubris.
Strat
I'm a lefty, and I would never do or propose one of the things you claim lefties would do ... just for your interest. And neither would any other lefty in my country ...
I believe that more speech is always the solution. Let ideas compete equally out in the open without censor regardless of how revolting some may find some speech. After all, it is only unpopular opinions that need protecting. Nobody tries to suppress speech they agree with.
If one's ideas and speech can only gain acceptance by silencing/suppressing others' ideas and speech, then one should re-examine and re-evaluate their own ideas and speech, for that is where the problem lies.
If what you say is true then carry on, Sir, whether we may agree or not. If I may ask a favor, please have a heart-to-heart with the US Left. Sad to say, they are currently not only harming themselves but the US as well with the tactics I outlined above, which are just a fraction of the things they discredit themselves with without help of opposition.
Hell, I really don't want either faction to gain too much power. That leads to tyranny. However, the US Left has swung the pendulum quite a ways Left in the US and I fear the counter-swing, of which Trump could be just the beginning. That the pendulum has swung so far Left in the US (by US standards) is what's driven extreme political views, opinions, and policies from both sides.
A far-Right fascist authoritarian regime and a far-Left socialist authoritarian regime are nearly indistinguishable from the general populations' viewpoint.
Strat
perhaps you have misinterpreted their role. they aren't there to gather intelligence.
Oh, but they are and they do!
It's simply that their job is to spy on and propagandize the US population for domestic political/ideological control.
Strat
However, if this is an investigation of individuals, the Fourth doesn't apply because they're not searching the individual's effects. If it's an investigation of the exchange, then it isn't a general warrant.
The quotes from the investigators said they were wanting to see if any of the exchange users were using it to evade taxes. That's an investigation of the individuals. They did not say they were investigating the exchange because they had probable cause to believe the exchange was evading taxes. They have no specific probable cause to search the private financial data (papers and effects) of the individuals. It's a fishing expedition using a general warrant. That's the reality.
Of course, a Venn diagram of reality and the US legal system would show only a very modest area of intersection, particularly in more recent times.
Strat
No idea where you get that idea. For a start I can go anywhere in the EU, moving from country to country without even a passport in many cases, and not being watched while I do it.
And I can travel from State to State within the United States just as easily. The EU is a collection of member-states as well and so similar travel freedoms are the norm there too.
What's your point?
Similarly, when I visit Japan I don't even need a visa, and no-one keeps "tabs" on me.
So there have been special agreements made between Japan and your nation/the EU. What about visitors to Japan from Somalia or Syria?
Corner/special cases where special agreements/arrangements have been made are not equivalent to general visa/immigration policies. Try again.
Strat
What does this have to do with immigration? Border controls are one thing, but you said "keep better tabs on", as in watch them once they are inside the country. That requires extensive surveillance. And not just immigrants, visitors too.
You don't even seem to understand the implication of what you are saying.
Apparently you've never traveled internationally much. Almost every other nation on the planet keeps far closer watch over people entering/visiting/immigrating to their countries and while they are there than does the US. The US has one of the most open and liberal immigration/visa systems of any nation and keeps far fewer tabs on them once here than almost any other nation.
You talk like implementing sane foreign visitation/immigration policies are equivalent to going full-'Big-Brother'. It's hyperventilating like yours that prevents rational debate. Of course, derailing rational debate may be the goal.
Strat