Treasury confirms private bank transaction searches

[Dekster]

WEF/Democrats only understand power.

If you are in power, you rule, if you are not, you submit.

RESIST!!!!

 

[Dekster]

^^^ This post is retarded and racist.

As are conservatives, and both are true.

 

[Dekster]

Amendment IV​

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


BTW commie, the courts have long held, for the government, at any level, to access your phone or bank records, requires a warrant. It's really no different than them walking into your home and going through your paper files.

.

No it has not. In US v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), the court held there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in banking records or anything else in the possession of most third parties so the 4th amendment doesn't apply. Try harder to make unsubstantiated claims.

 

[j-mac]

And none of those things were searched and if they had been searched it still would only mean it couldn't be used against them in court, not that it couldn't have been taken.

Fan of the stasi approach?

as the old saying goes, which applies to you, “Better to let people think you’re stupid, than open your mouth and prove it.”

 

[Blaster]

LOL. The conservatives are the ones that destroyed any notion of privacy in the name of making sure no black folks got off on a technicality

Nonsense.

 

[Dekster]

Fan of the stasi approach?

as the old saying goes, which applies to you, “Better to let people think you’re stupid, than open your mouth and prove it.”

Just how the law works. I didn't invent it. I mean if I were that inventive, I would invent a non-existent right and then call people names who dare point out I was wrong.

 

[j-mac]

Just how the law works. I didn't invent it. I mean if I were that inventive, I would invent a non-existent right and then call people names who dare point out I was wrong.

Invent it? Hell, you don't even know it...Hence my post...

 

[OKTexas]

The right to financial privacy act isn't in the constitution. That is statutory.

No shit captain obvious. It's still the law.

.

 

[OKTexas]

No it has not. In US v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), the court held there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in banking records or anything else in the possession of most third parties so the 4th amendment doesn't apply. Try harder to make unsubstantiated claims.

And the pendulum is swinging the other way.

Supreme court bans police access to phone records without a warrant

Court bars police from accessing call listings and location without a warrant, in ‘most consequential privacy ruling in a generation’

www.theguardian.com

.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

They have been doing it since the GOP allowed it on 2001.

You mean the bipartisan PATRIOT Act?

 

[Dekster]

No shit captain obvious. It's still the law.

.

It is a law that has exceptions to it. Something you would know if you actually knew anything about it.

 

[22lcidw]

Surveillance in all ways will expand more and more. The human species has this trait that we have to know what everyone is doing. It is a sickness and causes malaise and apathy in the general population where it is used to subdue citizens. No shortage of authoritarians who will enforce this.

 

[OKTexas]

It is a law that has exceptions to it. Something you would know if you actually knew anything about it.

And I foresee a similar SCOTUS decision coming on banking that was rendered on cell phones. Most all of the same principles apply. And everything has exceptions, even the 4th, but at least they're heading in the right direction.

.

 

[Dekster]

And I foresee a similar SCOTUS decision coming on banking that was rendered on cell phones. Most all of the same principles apply. And everything has exceptions, even the 4th, but at least they're heading in the right direction.

.

This could have fallen under Class 2 or Class 6 permissible disclosures to the government under the RFPA. I am really not sure why you think the courts are heading in any direction let alone a "right" one when it comes to search and seizure cases. Hasn't been that long ago that they refused to hear several cases that would have resolved cellphone searches at the border. It is a freaking hot mess of rulings at both the federal and state level and the government just outsources its data collection of phone records to AT&T.

 

[OKTexas]

This could have fallen under Class 2 or Class 6 permissible disclosures to the government under the RFPA. I am really not sure why you think the courts are heading in any direction let alone a "right" one when it comes to search and seizure cases. Hasn't been that long ago that they refused to hear several cases that would have resolved cellphone searches at the border. It is a freaking hot mess of rulings at both the federal and state level and the government just outsources its data collection of phone records to AT&T.

Yeah, that's what they claim, AT&T is code for the NSA.

.