This title comes from one of the articles from the Dealbook, and it's pretty interesting.
One of the main discussions in this article is that 1. Mass shooters use credit cards to purchase weapons and finance their shooting as they cannot afford them 2. When they purchase large amounts of weapon in a short period of time, the government argues that banks should track their spending and report them 3. But the credit card companies argue that it is not their job but the government's job 4. But the government does not have access to consumers' behavioral pattern compared to credit card banks.
So what do you think? Banks argue that if they track "suspicious spending" (well, you have to define suspicious spending first, which is a grey area) and report that to the government, doesn't that violate our freedom and privacy? Banks also think that once they implement these measures, the boundaries may get blurred and be exposed to potential abuse from the government.
This is just passing blame. Why not blame the stores then why not blame the gun makers? It’s a vicious cycle but ultimately I don’t think that’s the banks responsibility nor do I want them tracking me and making a judgement based on what I buy to report to the feds, it could be a slippery slope.
Ppl contort themselves logically in an effort to blame anyone and everyone except for the actual shooter. If you're going to expand the sphere of blame by one degree, you should often blame the shooter's family as good parents typically don't raise mass-shooters and, if they do, good parents should be in touch w/ their kids enough to realize there's something wrong w/ them, ring the alarm, and intervene.
Another enormous problem w/ the argument that the data should be handed over to the government is that it presupposes that government would be able to prevent shootings if it had the data. Governments are, by and large, extraordinarily inept organizations who would prevent precisely 0 shootings if they had access to this data. A cursory glance at most recent mass shootings in the U.S reveals that authorities had actual knowledge as to the potential danger posed by the shooters and was able to fuck all w/ that information.
I don't think anyone's getting blamed. The argument is more forward thinking (i.e., if they have the ability, should they use the existing data they have to try to prevent future incidents).
Hate to break it to you, but they already track you and report potential AML issues. This would just be another dimension they screen for.
How about we blame the car companies / car dealerships for people who drink and drive too?
I have no subscription to the NYT so was unable to read the article but that is laughable. Gun stores will always strongly prefer CC purchases for items that reach over a certain price point due to the % taken and not wanting to have that much cash on premise. Then again, if a person was trying to do mass mayhem wouldn't they pay with cash instead of a traceable transaction?
Large amounts is a term that varies greatly depending on who is using it. Among anti 2A people I would be said to have an army cache of ammo in my home versus a standard gun owner would say it's nothing unusual. Banks have mountains of data already and could very easily send reports left and right but they know their job is NOT that. I do believe some banks are dancing in that direction though.
The CC companies are correct. The less government the better.
Are we sure they don't? This is a very funny subject matter where social media becomes huge in terms of what FB, etc. are doing. I personally ensure nothing political, 2A, etc. is on my FB wall.
Banks of had the authority since 9/11 to crawl up our asses with regards to so many measures and rapes our freedom and privacy left and right. IF implemented is funny because the boundaries have been blurry for a long time now.
Open your browser in incognito and you get unlimited free articles to NYT or Bloomberg. Doesn't work with WSJ because they only offer a portion of the article for free.
I mean from working in the AML field, it isn't like every single bank doesn't go through their customer's credits and debits anyway. And if they don't then they get dinged by regulators.
But I guess it comes back to how you want to codify suspicious spending of this sort. And due to the 2nd amendment, I think it would be difficult to codify suspicious spending, how do you differentiate a $500 credit card purchase for a legal gun vs. a $500 credit card purchase for ammo.
Yes you could report anything that may seem suspicious but unless the government is willing to investigate every instance that is reported. Though it could help boost banks social reputation. A mass shooting occurs and in the investigation a bank who reported the activity could easily take the stance of "well we reported the activity it just wasn't followed up on by government officials"
Agreed - if our null hypothesis is "this person isn't doing anything suspicious" there are two types of errors to check: Type I error would be a false positive, i.e. rejecting the null hypothesis when in fact it is true. In our case, reporting that a person is suspicious when in fact they are not. Not much blow-back to the CC company because the person would never know.
Type II error would be a false negative, i.e. failing to reject the null hypothesis when in fact it is false. In our case, a CC company not reporting a person when they do in fact go on to commit an atrocity. The blow-back to a CC company could be immense in a world where this system is in place.
The above creates the Big Brother atmosphere that kills freedom. In the above case, it's better in all scenarios to track / report everything regardless of how seemingly innocuous so that you do everything possible to reduce the risk of a Type II error.
you sound like you once took a high school stats class lol
There’s a difference between seeing a transaction at say Wal-Mart vs seeing a transaction for Wal-Matt with the items bought, which it sounds like that’s what the idea is
Aliquid omnis voluptatem nulla aut qui architecto. Perspiciatis unde non quidem sed vero nesciunt. Similique praesentium id voluptas impedit.
Dolores repellat doloribus eveniet quaerat voluptatum. Natus quasi laboriosam ex sint quos. Ut ab tempore non et sit. Consequatur eos atque dolor numquam voluptates iste. Nisi aspernatur qui odit. Reprehenderit quos ipsum est ut aut. Voluptas eligendi accusantium tempore reiciendis.
Sint dignissimos debitis et est. Velit fuga unde sapiente aliquid. In qui enim eos reiciendis. Excepturi libero non non quo vero voluptas animi.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...