Re: [ISN] Feds Want Banks to Spy on All Customers...Even You! (fwd)

I spotted the *rhetorical* steel case in the first note. The disturbing thing here is the requirement to report deviations from a pattern. That is where it becomes a NaziReptilianProctoscope$ystem. It's my fucking money, I can do whatever the fuck I want with it, whenever the fuck I want to. I wish those fuckers would look at the Fourth Amendment. The structuring stuff looks like it could get pretty wierd: how I move my money should not matter but maybe it does. Why do reptiles have such a bad name? Some of my favorite politicians are reptiles. BTW - the FDIC site state that there is no statutory requirement for a 'Know Your Customer' system. You could also say that they are not interested in little guys, that they need this stuff to do their job, but if the laws are written so that anyone can be targeted without a warrant then there is a *big* problem. Especially worrisome is automated pattern analysis without a warrant - a violation of the 4th. So, what are the alternatives to keeping your money in a standard financial institution? Seems to me that keeping it at home is pretty risky - eventually some low-life will figure it out and then you'll have to choose between your cash and your left nut. Keeping it all tied up in goods is not any bargain either. A small fraction perhaps... Mike
From the FDIC site.
Pardon the formatting - it's straight from the .gov. ************************************************************************ http://www.fdic.gov/search97cgi/s97_cgi.exe?action=View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efdic%2Egov%2Fbanknews%2Fmanuals%2Fexampoli%2F98FINREC%2Ehtm&DocOffset=1&DocsFound=11&QueryZip=know+your+customer&Collection=www&SortField=Score&SortOrder=Desc&SearchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efdic%2Egov%2Fsearch97cgi%2Fs97%5Fcgi%2Eexe%3Faction%3DFilterSearch%26QueryZip%3Dknow%2Byour%2Bcustomer%26Filter%3Dfilters%252Fallwww%252Ehts%26ResultTemplate%3Dfdic%252Ehts%26QueryText%3Dknow%2Byour%2Bcustomer%26Collection%3Dwww%26SortField%3DScore%26SortOrder%3DDesc%26ResultStart%3D1%26ResultCount%3D25&ViewTemplate=view%2Ehts&ServerKey=Primary&AdminImagePath=&Theme=Power&Company=FDIC "Know> <Your> <Customer>" Policy One of the most important, if not the most important means by which financial institutions can hope to avoid criminal exposure to the institution from customers who use the resources of the institution for illicit purposes is to have a clear and concise understanding of each customer's practices. The adoption of "<know> <your> <customer>" guidelines or procedures by financial institutions has proven extremely effective in detecting suspicious activity by customers of the institution in a timely manner. Even though not required by regulation or statute, it is imperative that financial institutions adopt "<know> <your> <customer>" guidelines or procedures to enable the immediate detection and identification of suspicious activity at the institution. The concept of "<know> <your> <customer>" is, by design, not explicitly defined so that each institution can adopt procedures best suited for its own operations. An effective "<know> <your> <customer>" policy must, at a minimum, contain a clear statement of management's overall expectations and establish specific line responsibilities. While the officers and staff of smaller banks may have more frequent and direct contact with customers than their counterparts in large urban institutions, it is incumbent upon all institutions to adopt and follow policies appropriate to their size, location, and type of business. Objectives Of "<Know> <Your> <Customer>" Policy 1.A "<know> <your> <customer>" policy should increase the likelihood the financial institution is in compliance with all statutes and regulations and adheres to sound and recognized banking practices. 2.A "<know> <your> <customer>" policy should decrease the likelihood the financial institution will become a victim of illegal activities perpetrated by a customer. 3.A "<know> <your> <customer>" policy that is effective will protect the good name and reputation of the financial institution. 4.A "<know> <your> <customer>" policy should not interfere with the relationship of the financial institution with its good customers. At the present time there are no statutory mandates requiring a "<know> <your> <customer>" policy or specifying the contents of such a policy. However, in order to develop and maintain a practical and useful policy, financial institutions should incorporate the following principles into their business practices: 1.Financial institutions should make a reasonable effort to determine the true identity of all customers requesting the bank's services; 2.Financial institutions should take particular care to identify the ownership of all accounts and of those using safe-custody facilities; 3.Identification should be obtained from all new customers; 4.Evidence of identity should be obtained from customers seeking to conduct significant business transactions; and 5.Financial institutions should be aware of any unusual transaction activity or activity that is disproportionate to the customer's known business. An integral part of an effective "<know> <your> <customer>" policy is a comprehensive knowledge of the transactions carried out by the customers of the financial institution. Therefore, it is necessary that the "<know> <your> <customer>" procedures established by the institution allow for the collection of sufficient information to develop a "transaction profile" of each customer. The primary objective of such procedures is to enable the financial institution to predict with relative certainty the types of transactions in which a customer is likely to be engaged. Internal systems should then be developed for monitoring transactions to determine if transactions occur which are inconsistent with the customer's "transaction profile". A "<know> <your> <customer" policy must consist of procedures that require proper identification of every customer at the time a relationship is established in order to prevent the creation of fictitious accounts. In addition, the bank's employee education program should provide examples of customer behavior or activity which may warrant investigation. Identifying The Customer As a general rule, a business relationship with a financial institution should never be established until the identity of a potential customer is satisfactorily established. If a potential customer refuses to produce any of the requested information, the relationship should not be established. Likewise, if requested follow-up information is not forthcoming, any relationship already begun should be terminated. Structured Transactions Section 103.53 prohibits the structuring of transactions for the purpose of evading the currency transaction reporting requirements. Anyone who causes or attempts to cause a bank to fail to file a CTR or to file a false CTR is covered under this section as well as anyone who attempts to structure or assists in structuring any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions. A cash transaction in excess of $10,000, which is subsequently withdrawn upon realization that a CTR is being prepared, should be reported as a possible attempt to structure a transaction. See also 31 U. S. C. 5324. Examiners should be alert to consecutive transactions involving cash in excess of $10,000. Suspect transactions should be pursued further. The following are examples of types of transactions that may be reviewed for possible structuring activity: 1.Cashed checks - pay particular attention to multiple items cashed by the same person. 2.Cash deposits. 3.Savings withdrawals/certificates of deposit redemptions. 4.Personal money orders or official checks sold. 5.Official checks sold or cashed - look for consecutive items. 6.Savings Bonds sold or redeemed. 7.Traveler's checks sold or cashed. 8.Loan payments or loan proceeds made in cash. 9.Securities sold or purchased for cash if the financial institution acts as agent for an individual and the transaction involves more than $10,000.

At 9:22 AM -0800 11/25/98, Michael Motyka wrote:
BTW - the FDIC site state that there is no statutory requirement for a 'Know Your Customer' system. You could also say that they are not interested in little guys, that they need this stuff to do their job, but if the laws are written so that anyone can be targeted without a warrant then there is a *big* problem. Especially worrisome is automated pattern analysis without a warrant - a violation of the 4th.
This is not at all clear. If Alice has information about Bob, and the cops seek information from Alice about Bob, and Alice provides it, Bob cannot generally (as I understand constitutional law) claim any violation of his Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure. Now maybe Alice can, if they are her records. (As this transfers the "papers" she is "secure in" to her.) But not if she gives them up voluntarily or is subject to other regulations. Specifically, if the Alice Bank, subject to banking regs and suchlike, gives up information on Bob the Customer, no Fourth A. issues are likely involved. (There may be contractual issues, if Alice has promised Bob that she won't give up Bob's secrets, and so on.) I'm not approving of the Feds examining the records of banks, only noting that the Fourth is not implicated here. From what I know of the law. (Legal beagles would probably mutter about a penumbra of the Fourth, an expectation of privacy, etc.) --Tim May "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, just the way the President did." ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.

At 01:31 PM 11/25/98 -0800, Tim May wrote:
I'm not approving of the Feds examining the records of banks, only noting that the Fourth is not implicated here. From what I know of the law.
(Legal beagles would probably mutter about a penumbra of the Fourth, an expectation of privacy, etc.)
No quibbles from me, Tim is correct. Bank record privacy for individuals and small (< 5 partners) partnerships is governed by the Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 USC 3401 et seq). I've got a short discussion of it online as part of a larger (and incomplete) survey of federal privacy statutes at <http://www.parrhesia.com/fedpriv.html>. There are cites to a few of the bigger/older bank record privacy cases there, if people are interested in reading further. Don't expect confidentiality against the government from a US-chartered (federal or state) financial institution; you may be able to extract money from the bank following a disclosure which didn't conform to the complicated rules for disclosures, but banks are in the business of keeping cops and shareholders, not customers, happy. There's no real risk that customers will switch banks because of poor privacy policies because they've all got the same policies. As a general rule, there's no protected/significant expectation of privacy in information which is disclosed to third parties, absent a special relationship which would preserve that privacy. The class of special relationships (roughly, spouse, attorney, doctor, minister) is based on history/custom and legislation, so you can't create a new one just because you want to - not even with a contract, because the other party can be compelled to disclose the information (despite the contract) by subpoena or via a search warrant. (The Fifth Amendment would only bar such compelled disclosure if the information tended to incriminate the disclosing party, and the disclosing party were a natural person, not a corporation.) -- Greg Broiles |History teaches that 'Trust us' gbroiles@netbox.com |is no guarantee of due process. |_Kasler v. Lundgren_, 98 CDOS 1581 |(March 4, 1998)
participants (3)
-
Greg Broiles
-
Michael Motyka
-
Tim May