*sigh* maybe you should read it? what qualifies for suspicious activity pretty l...

rayiner · on March 27, 2013

It is not every transaction more than $10,000. That's a lie some people like to perpetuate.

unclebucknasty · on March 27, 2013

>That's a lie that some people like to perpetuate

Including, apparently, the author of the article:

"Banks, for instance, are required to report all personal cash transactions exceeding $10,000, as well as suspected incidents of money laundering, loan fraud, computer hacking or counterfeiting"

Did you actually read the article?

And, it appears that the author sourced that nasty lie from the federal government (FinCEN) itself:

http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/materials/e...

rayiner · on March 27, 2013

What about the distinction between "any transfer" and "cash transactions" is lost on you?

unclebucknasty · on March 27, 2013

The part where it's of no material consequence with regard to this discussion.

Edit: BTW, while you're burrowing down into irrelevant minutiae to make who-knows-what point, why not see my questions above regarding your material misread of the actual article. That, and my points regarding your glossing over of the actual problems with this issue.

rayiner · on March 28, 2013

"Transactions over $10k" and "cash in or out over $10k" is a huge fucking difference. It's the difference between a SAR filed for many peoples' paychecks and one filed when someone brings a fistful of cash to deposit.

unclebucknasty · on March 28, 2013

Well, you're cursing again so you must be right.

Ok, so you were talking about cash vs non-cash, instead of solely threshhold amounts, as initially appeared to be the case. We get that. But, it doesn't matter. Again, you are missing the point about EXPANDED GOVERNMENT CAPABILITIES, irrespective of whether this one point about threshholds is about cash vs. non-cash. The article itself is about far more than just what's reportable. It is about things like broader access for sifting data, which also catches up innocent citizens, and under liberal retention policies.

You seem to be getting stuck. This is why you need to re-read the article instead of demanding that others do the same. And this is why you have failed to respond to my previous post, which clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're just angry and making meaningless, half-baked points. Why are you so pissed anyway?

And, do I need to drop f-bombs to help you understand the article/discussion here?

Or maybe you should start over from the top:

Step 1: Read the article (for comprehension this time)... Step 2: Form a relevant conclusion...