| Your bank can blacklist you | ||
By Christian Science Monitor Hossam Algabri ripped open his statement from Fleet Bank one day after work last November, and began to read: "We regret to inform you that we have decided that it is not in our best interest to continue your banking relationship with us." Algabri assumed that a mistake had been made. He hadn't bounced a single check since he opened an account at the institution's predecessor, BayBank, 11 years earlier. As he dialed customer service, he began to wonder: Did this have anything to do with the war on terrorism? "You hear about it all the time, but you never think it will happen to you," says the Egyptian native, who came to the United States at age 12 and became a citizen this year. Algabri sat on hold that day for 20 minutes. Nine months later he is still, in essence, on hold. The bank has told him that his account was flagged for suspicious activity, but says that is all it is at liberty to reveal. He has since opened an account elsewhere. Banks have long played a role in stopping the flow of money among suspected terrorists, money launderers, and narcotraffickers. But the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, raised the bar. More watch lists have been generated, more institutions have become accountable -- and more consumers may feel the heat. No attention to consumer complaints And while alleged government violations of civil rights under the USA Patriot Act have received steady attention, consumer complaints in the private sector have fallen largely off the radar. "No one paid attention to the lists because they primarily affected foreign nationals," says Peter Fitzgerald, an expert on government watch lists at Stetson University in Florida. "Now it affects those who do business with those who do business with those who do business with someone suspected of terrorism." Financial institutions are under pressure from the government. They face stiff fines -- up to $1 million in some cases -- if they don't stop money flows or freeze accounts. Some observers worry, however, that financial discrimination has become an unwanted byproduct. Under an article of the Patriot Act, some investigations now are conducted in secret, and American consumers such as Algabri increasingly are finding their accounts closed without explanation -- and with little recourse. "Blacklisting was set up as a foreign-policy tool," but as the practice creeps into the realm of criminality, there are questions about whether the mechanisms in place protect those who are accused, Fitzgerald says. Targeted financial sanctions are widely supported, both in and out of the financial community, as a homeland-security measure. They are intended to punish "the bad guys," say sources, instead of an entire nation, such as Iraq. But are its tentacles reaching too far, gathering up batches of mistaken identities? And are financial institutions too often erring on the side of caution? A Treasury Department watch list Algabri's story probably dates back to his former employee, Ptech, of Quincy, Mass. The software company made headlines last winter when it became public that one of its financiers, a Saudi national, showed up on a Treasury Department watch list. The company was later cleared, but Algabri's account -- as well as those of four Muslim and Arab colleagues -- remains closed. Each received the same letter from Fleet on Nov. 2, about a month before the Ptech story broke, according to sources involved in the case. Algabri says he believes in the nation's war on terrorism, but not the "overzealous" one that is unfolding today. "I believe they closed my account because I am a Muslim," he says. He plans to file a discrimination complaint against FleetBoston Financial in the coming weeks. Fleet Bank did not return calls to discuss Algabri's account. Accounts closed, credit cards cancelled According to civil rights advocates, consumer complaints regarding account closures, canceled credit cards, and disrupted wire transfers have increasingly surfaced across the nation. In Boston, Fleet Bank has closed at least 15 accounts of Muslim and Arab holders without explanation, according to the Massachusetts office of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. In New Jersey and New York City, dozens of Muslims have been asked to provide large amounts of documentation without cause, or face credit-card cancellation, say several sources, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "Recently we have started to see a number of cases ... all of which seem to have something to do with the Patriot Act," says Christopher Dunn, a legal adviser with the New York branch of the ACLU. But it is a nascent issue, he says. "We are only now trying to understand what is happening." In fact, the pockets of complaints that have bubbled up are thought to signal a much deeper problem. "Many of [those targeted] are immigrants. They don't want to draw attention to themselves," says Khurram Wahid, a legal adviser for the Council of American-Islamic Relations in Washington. "They don't want themselves on any system complaining about anything." Blacklisting drug traffickers, terrorists Blacklisting dates back to World War I, says Fitzgerald, when it was used principally as a political tool -- to make a statement about an unsavory regime. In the 1990s, President Clinton used blacklisting to stymie narcotics traffickers and terrorists. After Sept. 11, its role expanded once again. The government's principal watch list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) -- generated by the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) at the Department of the Treasury -- currently lists more than 5,000 individuals and entities with whom the United States is not to do business. Financial institutions are required to cross-reference their customers and the constantly revised, 80-page OFAC list to make sure they have no matches. They do so via outside vendors or within in-house compliance departments. Any time a transfer occurs, for example, the names of sender and receiver are run through a program comparable to a computer spell-checker, which pulls up all possible "hits." Cross-referencing is time consuming. "But it's the law, and we abide by the law," says John Hall, spokesman for the American Bankers Association. "We are doing our part in the fight against terrorism." While the OFAC list is available on the Treasury Department's Web site, investigations of suspected terrorists or money launderers under Section 314 of the USA Patriot Act are more controversial, at least from a consumer perspective. Section 314 authorizes the government to communicate with financial institutions about suspicious activity. The institution then reports to the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The customer is unaware that authorities have contacted the bank, but may find his or her account inexplicably closed. For months, Fleet Bank refused to give Algabri -- and his lawyers -- a reason for shutting down his account. After two meetings with bank officials, Algabri found out that a one-time withdrawal of $7,000, as well as his habit of depositing different checks in individual envelopes at the same time, constituted suspicious behavior. While banks are not required to shut down accounts -- as they are when a name appears on the OFAC list -- the government does instruct institutions to be prudent. In most cases, that means closing down the account. "The institution has to make a decision," says John Byrne, senior counsel at the American Bankers Association. "A 314 is a serious demand. ... If they are contacting you, it's for a good reason." Banks hiding behind Patriot Act But doubts remain about mistaken identities. "People get accused, then cleared, and there is no repercussion for accusing anyone," says Merrie Najimy, president of the Massachusetts branch of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. "Banks can hide behind ... the Patriot Act and can get away with what they want." Consumers have also found themselves on unofficial lists spun from an FBI suspect list generated after Sept. 11. "That list got into private hands," says Lara Flint, staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington. "Many on that list have long since been cleared, but they are still feeling the ramifications," she says. "It's one example of how a list can get out of control." Financial institutions acknowledge that closing customer accounts is not good business. Wire companies, for example, have been hit hard by having to disrupt customer transfers. "And it has created a good deal of acrimony (among customers)," says Jorge Guerro, president of the National Money Transmitters Association. "They don't understand that we are under obligation by the government." What are the protocols for investigations? As Sept. 11 showed, seemingly insignificant transfers can support colossal terrorism. Now, corporate America is especially eager to show it is doing "the right thing," says W. Michael Hoffman, executive director of the Center for Business Ethics at Bentley College. Still, there is a fine line between violating customers' rights and allowing terrorist money to flow through an institution, he says. "They must set up clear and transparent protocols for conducting any investigation." Some call those protocols unclear. "The question is, how does one get oneself off one of these secret government watch lists?" asks Flint. "I think that's still an unanswered question."
Of the 15 people whose accounts have been closed in Boston, only Algabri has fought back. The Power given by the Patriot Act is very frightening any person can have this happen to them. Little by little our rights are getting chipped away. X. |
Frightening.. did you know your bank can blacklist you ?
by Xandria 3 Replies latest jw friends
-
Xandria
-
ashitaka
This is ridiculous. The Patriot act is frightening. Poor guy. He's going to have a helluva time doing anything being 'blacklisted' like that.
ash
-
Yerusalyim
Once again and for the final time...The PATRIOT ACT didn't create new powers for the Federal government...it simply extended authority that all ready existed in the investigation of organized crime, wife beating, and being pro-life into the arena of investigating terrorism. No one complained before...why now?
-
Xandria
Yeru:
No one is arguing that the Patriot Act is an expansion of certain things that were already in place. The Son of the Patriot Act II ( the revisiting) is terrifying.
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/son-of-patriot.draft.pdf
The Sequel~ to the Patriot Act would give the government more power. This is in conjunction with several anti-terrorism acts. Gives the government broad, sweeping new powers to increase domestic intelligence-gathering, surveillance and law enforcement prerogatives, and simultaneously decrease judicial review and public access to information.
This proposed law, "would radically expand law enforcement and intelligence gathering authorities, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create a DNA database based on unchecked executive 'suspicion,' create new death penalties, and even seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups."
Justice Department have been working secretly to create new, 120-page draft legislation that, if enacted, would expand greatly upon these already sweeping powers.
This daring sequel to the USA Patriot Act is known internally as the Domestic Security Enhancement Act. It is also nicknamed Patriot II (the name by which I'll refer to it here), or Son of Patriot. On February 7 of this year, a January 9 draft of Patriot II was revealed to the public - but not by the government. It was made public only through a leak.
Even Congress itself, strikingly, appears to have played little or no part in Patriot II's drafting (though it seems that Speaker of the House Hastert was, at least, given the opportunity to review the draft last month, as was Vice President Cheney.).
Perhaps the Bush Administration is looking to repeat its experience with the original USA Patriot Act. Amidst the emotional turmoil after September 11, the Administration introduced the Act and got it enacted in a matter of weeks. The Senate Judiciary Committee had only a brief, one-and-a-half-hour hearing on the Act, in which Attorney General Ashcroft testified but took no questions. In the House, meanwhile, there was no testimony from opponents of the bill.
After September 11, there was at least some rationale for this expedited consideration. Now, however, there is far less exigency. If the introduction of Patriot II in Congress coincides with the Iraq war, it may well be because the Administration has planned it that way, to take advantage of circumstances to ram the bill through both Houses quickly.
Even if Patriot II does end up being introduced in wartime, citizens and their representatives should fight this legislation tooth and nail, for it threatens to take even more of our liberties away. It is a wholesale assault on privacy, free speech, and freedom of information.
Making Total Information Awareness the Law
Admiral Poindexter's proposed Total Information Awareness (TIA) program, which sought to build data profiles of all Americans, sparked a wide public outcry. Congress recently warned against using TIA as a tool against US citizens. Nevertheless, Patriot II, as draft by the Attorney General and his staff, would begin to make TIA the law.
For instance, under Patriot II, federal agents would not need a subpoena or obtain a court order to access our consumer credit reports. This provision would open the wedge for TIA to be implemented through a huge database. Our credit reports are repositories of a great deal of sensitive information - from our employment history to where we shop, borrow and transact.
To see the information, the feds would only have to certify that they will use the information "in connection with their duties to enforce federal law." Note that they would not have to certify that the person whose information was accessed was suspected of terrorism, or indeed, any other crime. And no one would be notified that their records had been accessed. When a commercial entity requests a consumer's credit report, a note is made in the consumer's file alerting him to this fact.
A Mandate to Collect Genetic Information
Meanwhile, not only data, but genetic information would also be collected by the government if Patriot II were passed.
DNA would be put into a "Terrorist Identification Database." It would contain information not only for proven terrorists, but also "suspected terrorists." And that term would include anyone who was associated with, or had provided money or other support for, groups designated "terrorist."
It might also include protesters, or anyone else the government dislikes. Remember, the original USA Patriot Act defined the new crime of "domestic terrorism" broadly, to encompass "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law."
Certainly one could envision a disruptive war protester who resisted arrest being tagged as a "suspected domestic terrorist," and forced to provide DNA. Would the government need to get a court order to procure the DNA? Not under Patriot II.
And what if the protester wouldn't comply? That would be a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine. Anyway, the protester's refusing to give up DNA might be futile - if any other government agency happens to have a blood sample, Patriot II gives the government the right to put it in the new database. ( ie: Hospital Blood tests, etc.)
Incredibly, DNA would also be collected from anyone who is, or has been, on probation for any crime, no matter how minor. State governments would be required to collect DNA samples from state probationers and provide them to the federal government.
Increasing Surveillance Powers
Database surveillance, under Patriot II, would also be combined with increased active surveillance of citizens.
To assess the change, it's important to remember that the Patriot Act itself already greatly expanded surveillance powers. Now Patriot II would, if enacted, makes it even easier for the government to engage in surveillance of U.S. citizens, without having to establish traditional probable cause under the Fourth Amendment. It would do so by making it easier for law enforcement to avail itself of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which issues warrants more easily than federal district courts will.
The FISA Court is meant to address international terrorism, involving mostly noncitizens. Patriot II, however collapses the distinction between domestic and international terrorism, treating wholly domestic criminal acts as subject to the same, looser legal rules that apply to foreign intelligence gathering.
Remember, domestic terrorism is defined very broadly as "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law." That means anything from getting into a raucous bar fight, to driving recklessly over the state speed limit, could theoretically count. And if the government finds a particular person suspicious, they could cite law violations as far from terrorism as these as a valid excuse for surveillance.
Worse, even those persons who cannot be deemed "domestic terrorists" because they have not broken any law, can alternatively be deemed "foreign powers" under Patriot II - even if they are American citizens or permanent residents. This allows the FBI to get pen registers on American citizens for a foreign intelligence investigation - without having to show any criminal or terrorist connection.
Gagging American Citizens and Cutting Off Their Rights to Sue
If you don't like the government's policies, including these, Patriot II says: Too bad. Don't try to make a federal case out of it - we'll bar you at the courthouse door.
What if you're lucky enough discover that you've been illegally spied on, in violation of your Fourth Amendment rights? Too bad. Patriot II would provide immunity from liability to law enforcement engaging in spying operations against the American people. The proposed act provides a defense for federal agents who engage unauthorized searches and surveillances relating to foreign intelligence when they are acting "pursuant to a lawful authorization from the President or the Attorney General."
What if a disgruntled business competitor chooses to falsely claim to the government that you're a "suspected terrorist"? Again, too bad. Don't consider suing the competitor, no matter what consequences ensure Patriot II eliminates civil liability for businesses and employees that report "suspected terrorists" to the federal government, no matter how malicious or unfounded the tip may be.
Like TIA, Operation TIPS - which would have enlisted government employees to spy on citizens - elicited public outcry. But this is TIPS all over again. If they like, your package courier or cable guy can report you to the feds with impunity.
Broadly Criminalizing Encryption of Evidence
Meanwhile, in your search for a shred of privacy that might remain to you, don't even think about trying to protect your email. Under Patriot II, the government may go after you for that, too.
Specifically, Patriot II, as currently drafted, would makes it a new, separate crime to use encryption in the commission of another crime. To be convicted, the defendant must be shown to have "knowingly and willfully use[d] encryption technology to conceal any incriminating communication" relating to a federal felony he is committing, or attempting to commit.
The "federal crime" limitation may seem significant, until you realize that "domestic terrorism" - which can be based on a state law violation - is a federal crime. Remember, too, how loosely "domestic terrorism" is defined, in a way that could encompass a protester's resisting arrest, and if you do, you may reasonably fear using encryption even if you are not engaged in any criminal activity at all.
What if your encrypted email about protest planning is deemed "incriminating evidence" of your plan to resist arrest at the protest? You could be looking at five to ten.
The penalty for this offense alone would be up to ten years in prison. In addition, a Justice Department analysis included with the proposal suggests that the illegal encrypting ought to carry a mandatory minimum term of five years in prison.
Notably, the federal felony relating to the "incriminating communication" need not be an act of terrorism. It could be any federal crime, from the most major to the most minor, the most violent to the most excruciatingly technical. And that's frightening.
For instance, if a peer-to-peer website's users swap files, thus violating the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and encrypt the files they are swapping, they may automatically face five years in prison, and could serve ten, for the encryption alone.
What is most shocking about the new encryption crime is that it is not limited to terrorism. This is the first attempt to regulate encryption domestically at all.
Shrouding Government Actions in Secrecy
While the government, according to Patriot II, has the right to know virtually everything about you, you have little right to know anything about the government.
Current grand jury secrecy rules apply only to jurors, prosecutors and courtroom staff. Patriot II would expand them to apply to witnesses too - meaning that ordinary citizens could not discuss their testimony with anyone but their attorney. In theory, they'd have to keep mum even with spouses or children, or face serious consequences.
What if they've been improperly subpoenaed in the first place? Under Patriot II, too bad: Neither individuals nor organizations may move to try to quash a federal grand jury subpoena.
Will the grand jury itself at least remain independent? Nope. Patriot II allows the federal government to place gag orders on both federal and state grand juries, and to take over the proceedings.
Detentions will be similarly shrouded in an atmosphere of dead secrecy. The Justice Department's position on detainees is that if they are held incommunicado indefinitely without being charged with a crime, they need not be publicly identified. Patriot II would make that dubious position the law.
Meanwhile, if you do happen to somehow find out the identity or whereabouts of - or anything else about - a detainee, it would be criminal under Patriot II to reveal it. And that's the case even if you are the detainee's parent, spouse, or child.
Okay, you might ask, this is a lot of secrecy, but isn't it at least somewhat limited? Can't I at least use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to figure out what the government is doing when it's not secretly detaining people, or secretly conducting grand jury proceedings?
No. Under Patriot II, FOIA would not extend to information "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute." What kind of statutes? Well, the USA Patriot Act might be one. Patriot II might be another.
It's a clever strategy: Collect private information. And then when citizens try to find out what you've collected, cite their own privacy right back at them as a reason not to divulge it.
If it seems farfetched to think the government could invoke privacy in this instance, consider that Ashcroft actually cited detainees' privacy as a reason not to release their names to the press, the public, or even their families.
Denaturalization: The Citizenship Death Penalty
In sum, Patriot II puts in jeopardy the First Amendment right to speak freely, statutory and common law rights to privacy, the right to go to court to challenge government illegality, and the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. But that's not all.
It also puts in jeopardy perhaps the most basic right of all: The right to walk the streets in safety without being "disappeared" by the government. Chileans have not always enjoyed this right. Americans, until now, always have.
Suppose you, as a citizen, attended a legal protest for which one of the hosts, unbeknownst to you, is an organization the government has listed as terrorist. Under Patriot II, you may be deported and deemed no longer an American citizen.
Under Patriot II, if you are simply suspected of terrorist activity, this can occur. More specifically, a U.S. citizen may be expatriated "if, with the intent to relinquish his nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United Stated has designated as a 'terrorist organization'."
How can you tell if the citizen wanted to relinquish citizenship? Under Patriot II, the intent can be inferred from conduct. So any association with even the legal activities of a designated group, plus any act that can be interpreted as disloyal to the United States, can mean you are deported, and no longer considered a citizen.
No Sunset Provisions for Patriot II Mean We Are Stuck with It If It Passes
The original USA Patriot Act has sunset provisions, under which the Act will expire if not renewed in five years. Patriot II, however, does not have such provisions. Indeed, it would go so far as to remove this important check from the original Patriot Act. So if Congress, and the American people don't focus carefully on Patriot II, even in the midst of impending war, we may be stuck with both Patriot Acts indefinitely.
Especially for that reason, Congress and the public need to learn more. Senator Patrick Leahy has argued, for instance, that before the Department of Justice asks Congress for more powers, it needs to disclose how it is using the ones it already has. Instead, the Department has so far repeatedly balked at both FOIA requests from the press and the public and requests from Congress for more detailed reporting pursuant to USA Patriot Act.
At the very least, Congress and the public should insist on a full understanding of what the Justice Department is doing before granting the executive branch still more authority via Patriot II .
If any one has ever seen that movie "Under Siege" with Bruce Willis.. at the time it seemed far fetched. But now, it is much more of a reality.
Scary indeed..
X.