Lazzaro Rossi | Patriots Freedom
Can you imagine if someone rummaged through your personal belongings when you weren’t looking? You would feel violated, wouldn’t you?
That’s how many Bank of American customers are feeling after learning that their financial institution shared personal data from many of their customers with the federal government.
The story came as a bit of a shocker to thousands who have, until now, trusted their bank.
Turns out certain Bank of America customers were flagged as potential terrorist suspects if they met all of the following criteria:
1). Customers who used debit of credit cards in D.C. on January 5th or 6th.
2). Customers who paid for hotels or similar accommodations in D.C., Maryland, or VA any time after 1/6.
3). Customers who shopped at a weapons-related store between Jan. 6th and inauguration day.
4). Customers who made airline purchases after Jan. 6th.
In all, 211 customers were flagged and turned in to federal law enforcement because they met the criteria.
It’s possible you were one of them. Heaven help you if you happened to be in D.C. on that date.
This whole thing raises so many questions:
- Doesn’t there have to be some degree of evidence of wrong-doing before a search can take place?
- Was this even legal? Can a bank do that?
- Don’t they have to have a search warrant, court orders, or subpoena to search through an ocean of bank accounts belonging to innocent people to “see” if we might be criminals?
- Why is the federal government suspecting “the all” to find “the few?” Does the constitution allow this broad-sweeping search of innocents?
- Were the customers told their data was being reviewed and flagged?
Francie Hakes, former prosecutor, was interviewed by FOX news. Here’s what she had to say about this move on Bank of America’s part:
The 4th amendment does not allow these kinds of searches when it’s not particularized. . .searches. That is, a federal agent has to go to a federal judge or appear before the Grand Jury and get an order or a warrant or a subpoena and hand it to someone like the bank and say, “Person A, Francie Hakes, is suspected of committing a riot or insurrection or incitement on this day at this time in Washington D.C. and we expect that the evidence you hold in your bank would show that she was there, which will help us prove that she committed a crime.” That is required by the constitution.
She went on to say:
It does not look like that was done here at all. The Supreme Court has held many times that federal agents cannot rummage through data in order to try to find evidence of a crime. Financial information is highly private in this country and is given high protections.
I don’t know about you, but this new process of suspecting “the all” until we find “the few” is terrifying. And I’m guessing it’ illegal. I can see where it’s headed, for sure, to a place that’s not good. (Man, does my imagination kick in!)
This is not the way our constitution works. This is not how I want my money to be handled. Tomorrow morning, I might just drive on down to the Bank of America and make a withdrawal, then place my money elsewhere.
- Like under my mattress
- Or in gold
- Or in real estate
- Or in products from My Pillow
Just saying. There are better options than an institution that’s happy to search my private data over a crime I didn’t commit.