'Alarming' surveillance'
 

"EXCLUSIVE: Federal investigators asked banks to search and filter customer transactions by using terms like "MAGA" and "Trump" as part of an investigation into Jan. 6, warning that purchases of "religious texts" could indicate "extremism," the House Judiciary Committee revealed Wednesday.

Fox News Digital has learned the committee also obtained documents that indicate officials suggested that banks query transactions with keywords like Dick's Sporting Goods, Cabela's, Bass Pro Shops and more."
Source: https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in...ons-terms-maga

What's the alarming part? :study:

I don't think it's my government's (insert pejorative) business if I'm buying a Bible, Koran, guide to Buddhism or anything else if I'm not a suspect in a crime. Privacy is already virtually non-existent as it is.

I hope I don't sound querulous, but a couple of question come to mind.

How do you feel about Facebook, Google, not to mention anonymous data scrapers and the like, slopping up everything you do online without the governance of rules, procedures, and regulations, requirements for warrants, and the like?

Also, looking for clues in the aftermath of crimes is not the same thing as surveillance.

Just a couple of thoughts.

This is a disturbing event which has an extended impact as a legal precedent. It seems to me a contradiction in terms that Law Enforcement can be allowed to break the Law to enforce the Law. The concept of Democratic Law is that everyone is level playing field accountable. This is not only shameful, it's very dangerous. This is not at all about "whose ox is gored".

Simple solution => go to bank, draw cash => go to book shop, buy book with cash!

If you don't want to be traced online, don't use the internet!

Of course, there are thousands of cameras watching you everywhere you go these days too.... :D

I do agree but in the case I presented in the op I think the gov. is in essence just throwing a huge trawling net out there and seeing what they can catch. I have no problem with directed searches at a specific target. If I am a suspect in a crime, either committed or in the planning stage, do everything allowed by the 4th Amendment. The 'Patriot Act' was recently extended again and I'm not sure if anything was changed in it but this excerpt from a page on surveillance by the ACLU is, to me, alarming by the scope of the powers it has expanded for the government:
"The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas:

Records searches. It expands the government’s ability to look at records on an individual’s activity being held by a third parties. (Section 215)
Secret searches. It expands the government’s ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
“Trap and trace” searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects “addressing” information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).
1. Expanded access to personal records held by third parties

One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens’ activities being held by a third party. At a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all – including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers – to turn over records on their clients or customers.

Unchecked power
The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals’ financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse:

The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an “agent of a foreign power,” a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for “probable cause” that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge – with no need for evidence or proof – that such a search meets the statute’s broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person’s First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches." https://www.aclu.org/documents/surve...usapatriot-act

The linked article shows no 'evidence' of any kind but only rumors, the 2nd paragraph as an example. It indicates Mr. Jordan's committee 'obtained documents' but there is no sign of them. Did Mr. Jordan lose them? Did Fox lose them?

The source Fox News, are proven and admitted liars (Dominion) so bear that in mind.
Jordan and his committee have been making all kinds of accusations but have been short on proof. He's been at it for years with no results so apparently there is a lack of competence in these investigations or maybe there is nothing to be found. If they can print accusations, why not the documentation to back them up?

[QUOTE][But a source familiar told Fox News Digital that "the effort by FinCEN to work with law enforcement to assist with their post January 6 efforts began under the previous administration."/QUOTE]

What's that about? That would be the Trump administration. The article linked is almost a month old?? Trump has already indicated that he would do exactly this if he is elected again, go after those who disagree with him.

It's a sad state of affairs when they best that can be done is to have cowardly incompetents such as Biden and Trump to choose from.

House and Senate committees on both sides of the aisle often put out press releases about documents we in the general public rarely get to see. Jordan has tried to schedule interviews with people alleged to have been in control of what, I believe, to be invasions of our privacy. Will we see more, who knows?


"Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has requested transcribed interviews from Peter Sullivan, Senior Private Sector Partner for Outreach in the Strategic Partner Engagement Section of the FBI, and Noah Bishoff, former Director of the Office of Stakeholder Integration and Engagement in the Strategic Operations Division of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)."
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/pr...rump-financial


https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/ev...ti-request.pdf

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/ev...ti-request.pdf

Agreed.

This is very old news. Edward Snowden let the cat out of the bag by informing us that the intelligence agencies are recording all of our calls, texts, and Internet activities.
You can always use a VPN to mask online activity or as previously mentioned pay for items with cash. Big Brother is indeed watching; we've been living in a surveillance state for quite some time.

VPNs are pretty safe at the moment but the bi-partisan RESTRICT Act has been read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ostensibly it is aimed at TikTok and several foreign countries deemed hostile to us. At present actions taken in the name of this bill are not subject to FOIA or court review except secret FISA court proceedings. Critics are a very diverse group - Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACLU, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Mises Caucus, Tucker Carlson, and even Alex Jones, lol. TikTok by the way is not even mentioned in the bill. There is a lot of concern on both sides that just as with the Patriot Act that once enacted this thing would be with us for a long time and could eventually be used to kill all anonymous internet traffic.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-...ll/686/actions

Nasty! Hopefully hackers are able to keep us one step ahead of the surveillance state.

Yes sir, hopefully!

Thomas Massie
@RepThomasMassie
�� "This week, the House will vote on whether the US government must get a WARRANT to search for your private communications that are collected in the digital dragnet used to surveil foreigners.

This landmark vote will show which members faithfully uphold the Constitution."
8:48 AM · Feb 13, 2024

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/...16378330419712

"Q Thanks, Jake. On FISA, there are a couple of amendments that are being considered. One of them would require a warrant for every query of lawfully collected data. If that were to pass and get into the bill, would the President veto that bill?

MR. SULLIVAN: So, I’m not in a position to stand here today and make veto threats on behalf of the President. Those are –- are, you know, decisions for him to make.

What I will tell you is that we do not believe that that serves the national security interests of the United States. And, in fact, today, I will be making that case to a number of members — that the warrant requirement as conceived is not the best way actually to ensure the protection of the personal privacy of Americans. There are a number of other elements of the bill that we have supported that would reform and update FISA to protect the civil liberties of Americans, but a warrant requirement from our perspective would go too far in undermining the very purpose of FISA, and, frankly, it would put victims at risk." https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...e-sullivan-11/

Video clip here: https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/...JLZKoGCA4fu3LQ