The Feds Didn’t Bring Spitzer Down - His Bank Did

You will have your own view as to the aptness of poetic justice that was served up to Eliot Spitzer this week.

But if you’re concerned about actual, legal justice, you should be worried. The Spitzer case illustrates loud and clear the extent to which the banking industry has been turned into an arm of federal law enforcement. In particular, anti-money-laundering laws, such as 1970’s Bank Security Act [BSA], originally designed to fight terrorism and organized crime, give the federal government the right to peep in on the financial affairs of philandering pols like Spitzer—and people like you and me, as well.

Banks have no choice in the matter. They are required to snoop on the private financial affairs of every single one of their customers, and are then required to report to federal authorities anything irregular that they find.

In the case of Eliot Spitzer, the soon-to-be-ex-governor's fall began when his bank reported to the Feds (as it’s legally required to) certain cash withdrawals out of his bank accounts. So this massive invasion of privacy serves up yet another politician, snared by never-ending and intrusive Federal regulations and laws.

Most banking customers don’t have a clue—nor should they accept—that they no longer have a shred of financial privacy. Big Brother, in the form of your bank, is watching everything you do.

The Feds caught Martha Stewart--and now they want the banks to catch Osama bin Laden. Instead we caught poor, pathetic Eliot Spitzer. Last time I looked, bin Laden was still at large, yet the financial privacy of every single American is in tatters.

These laws aren’t catching the people they were designed to help catch. Yet once our customers realize how intrusive the laws are, they’ll blame us for this huge invasion of their privacy. That will further erode any trust our customers have in us.

Comments

[dixie]

I disagree with your assessment. I, like most people, have nothing to hide and therefore nothing to fear. Spitzer got his just due but in an unexpected way. He was self absorbed, not minding the peoples' business and a good law brought his priorities into the light. NY and the nation will likely benefit by having a new governor without an abusive and reckless agenda. Life has a way of delivering justice.

[Dragant]

I agree with the author. This is clearly an invasion of our civil liberties. The government clearly has no business snooping in ordinary citizens financial accounts. This is clearly just another example of government intervention: laws designed for one purpose are used for another purpose/have unexpected side effects. In this case laws designed to help track "terrorism" are used to prosecute American citizens. This is clearly not the land of the free anymore.

[yohoho]

"These laws aren’t catching the people they were designed to help catch. "

Seems to me that Spitzer broke the law, and was caught. So, you are wrong.

Iin this article you make a very weak case for it. You seem to be trying to rally the troops for the cause of liberty... but your only call to arms is a generic "its an invasion of privacy". Thats not enough, for discerning readers. HOW is my freedom being hurt? HOW? Answer that simple question. HOW am I hurt? Just because it breaks your philosophy, in relation to privacy... doesn't equate to it causing HARM to you (or me).

[zb]

Ok I will try Yohoho. It hurts your liberty by changing the power dynamic between the individual and the state. Basically, the state has become more powerful than you and diminished part of your liberty. The state is less and less accountable to you. No warrant, no reason. Just power wrested away from you. You have less liberty, less autonomy, less captain of your own ship-ness, if you will. They no longer have to respect you. Again: the dynamic is different without accountability and cause.
Ok, for the second part of your question. This hurts you because lack of accountability inevitability leads to abuse of that power and coercion of the lesser party. Men are not angels and you need the most transparency and equal rights and respect you can get. You quit asking for respect and you're gonna hurt real, real bad.
BTW, none of this is supposed to mean solicitation is OK.

[zb]

Let me put it this way: your bounds can be violated with greater impunity. The entity who can violate bounds at will is the stronger party. Therefore, more government power, less individual liberty and independence.
Still not defending prostitution or the Guv. But I'm concerned that many Americans don't perceive this dynamic of permission, privacy and accountability as directly related to individualism.

[zb]

Oh, my last thought for now is addressed to Dixie. Dixie, you don't get to decide whether or not you have anything to hide. They will.

[yohoho]

ZB, I was really trying to get the author to dig deeper. My real feelings are this...

ZB, you're living in the past. Seriously, these losses to our liberty aren't occurring NOW... they occurred long ago. You live in a fantasy if you think you are free. Don't pay your taxes, and sit in the house and wait for the men with guns to show up. Thats not freedom, and thats using powers from a hundred years ago.

[Bill Bailey]

I have written a rather extensive post on this same subject here:

60733066.blogspot.com/...