New Federal Patriot Act Turns Retailers into Spies against Customers

The Boston Globe ^ | 11/28/2001 | By Scott Bernard Nelson, The Boston Globe

[nopardons]

It is a way to avoid paying tax on an item. Small stores used to do this, and some still do.

It is NOT done , when one buys a piece of jewelry from the likes of Harry Winston, Tiffany & Co., or Cartier. Neither can one haggle / get away with avoiding VAT, when purchasing jewels in England, France, or other European venues.

Revion,Maxmillian, Saks Fifth Avenue, Neiman Marcus, Bloomngdales,and the now defunct Best & Co., and Bonwit Teller's do NOT give one a " seal " for paying cash for a fur. Nether do Haute Cuture houses ! They will give " deals ", but NOT for cash.

[nopardons]

If you are inferring that I am not " normal ", then neither are YOU ; using your own deffinition.

Normal or NOT, I know / own / buy / wear far more about furs, jewelry, and designer clothes than YOU do. : - )

[savedbygrace]

Only lawyers think like that. In reality, an "unconstitutional" law is null and void from the moment it is signed by the executive. The national government won't recognize that nullity until the Supremes have ruled, but that doesn't change the fact.

[JD86]

Since you decided to lie on this forum about me how things went, I will point it out to you, off topic or not.

Keep saying it, maybe you will convince yourself. Just know that just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

[Native American Female Vet]

I stated and proved you are a liar. Now stay on topic and stop the nonesense please.

[JD86]

In reality, an "unconstitutional" law is null and void from the moment it is signed by the executive. The national government won't recognize that nullity until the Supremes have ruled, but that doesn't change the fact.

Guess what? If the federal government doesn't recognize the law is null and void....it isn't null and void. And the Supremes, as you so blithely refer to them, are a co-equal branch of goverment under the Constitution. So, under the Constitution, no law is un-constitutional until the US Supreme Court says so.
Sorry, your opinion of the law has no legal weight.

[JD86]

I stated and proved you are a liar.

You didn't prove anything to anyone except your politically correct self, NAFV.

And before you call me a liar again, please read the part about posting that says NO personal attacks.

[Native American Female Vet]

You need to go back through the posts. I did not personally attack you it is a fact you lied about how things went.

[JD86]

Whatever. Your posts weren't very coherent the first time I read them. I think I'll pass on the review.

[Elihu Burritt]

Smoke and mirrors.

Atta and his boys paid for their flying lessons which cost about 30K each. I wonder if this law would have caught that, or did they forget to include flying schools in the bill? You know, just to pretend it was really for protection from terrorists?

[Sandy]

you keep saying that...how is it a search?

It's a search in the same way that it would be a search if the feds came personally into the place of business, searched through all the records, and wrote down everything they wanted to know. The only difference is, the feds are requiring the citizens to do the dirty work.

Suppose a law was passed requiring you to make videotapes of yourself at home--enough videos per week so that the feds could watch what you are doing 24 hours a day. Would you call that a search? Or is it only a search if they come and search in person?

[JD86]

It's a search in the same way that it would be a search if the feds came personally into the place of business, searched through all the records, and wrote down everything they wanted to know. The only difference is, the feds are requiring the citizens to do the dirty work.

It is not the same...and the giving of information is avoidable. The consumer is on notice of the $10,000 cash transaction disclosure. All they have to do is not pay cash. No disclosure of information. Your scenario presumes unfettered access to all information by the government with no way to avoid it. Does not apply here.

Suppose a law was passed requiring you to make videotapes of yourself at home--enough videos per week so that the feds could watch what you are doing 24 hours a day. Would you call that a search? Or is it only a search if they come and search in person?

This is a specious and inflammatory argument. There is nothing in this law about going into anyone's home for any reason. Does not apply to the discussion at hand.

[Sandy]

It's an analogy. In both cases, a person is being required to send information to the feds--either videotapes or business records. Is it only a search if the feds come and do the searching in person? Is it only a search if it's at your home? Suppose the videos are of you in your place of business? Is that not a search? Come to think of it, wouldn't it be better to just put hidden cameras into all places of business? You know, we could just let the feds watch all the transactions themselves and save ourselves the time and paperwork. Not a search, right?

[JD86]

You know, we could just let the feds watch all the transactions themselves and save ourselves the time and paperwork. Not a search, right?

Instead of making up hypotheticals that have NOTHING to do with the law that was enacted....how about addressing the law as it is? Any comments on that?
Not bogeymen what ifs....just what is in the law.

[Native American Female Vet]

Well, liberals that want big government usually dont understand much about the constitution and rights. So I understand

[PatrioticAmerican]

Spy on your neighbors for big brother, eh? Arm up! They Have!

[Sandy]

You asked how it was a search. I explained and added an analogy to clarify my stance. My questions were not rhetorical, btw. When the government demands that I give them information about what I'm doing, whether I'm at home or at my place of business, and whether the information is provided via paper, video, or remote camera, I consider it to be a search.

[savedbygrace]

Our forefathers fought a war to break free from that kind of thinking. Rights are self-evident, meaning they don't need the blessing of the national government to exist.

You are wrong, very wrong, but because you've been trained to think that way, you'll never see the error in your thinking.

You think that just because the national government has the power to punish someone, that means the law they use to punish is legal. The one who knows the truth of inalienable Rights isn't persuaded by punishment.