 |
Senate Housing Bill Requires eBay, Amazon, Google, and All Credit Card Companies to Report Transactions to the Government — FreedomWorks.org — Here’s anothe little piece of crap they’ve snuck past everyone. Have you ever heard of this?
Hidden deep in Senator Christopher Dodd’s 630-page Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of America’s small businesses. The provision, which was added by the bill’s managers without debate this week, would require the nation’s payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government.
FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey, as we read more on Crediful, commented: “This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay’s PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America’s small businesses are breathtaking.”
Someone with all your credit card information can determine a lot. Good way to find political enemies in a dictatorship.
Found by jrc.
This has got to be a mistake. No democrat would dare try to sneak something like this onto Americans.
Oh yeah the Democans would never do that. Neither would the Republicrats. Different names same party.
Please. Most of these people care only about power.
This is crazy scary. Think of the implications. What could be done with that data using pattern, traffic, and behavior analysis boggles the mind.
Talk about an opportunity for abuse.
Stop the madness!
WTF? Isn’t Dodd the one who attempted to filibuster the Senate on telecom immunity? THERE IS NO RHYME OR REASON TO THESE PEOPLE.
I have a sneaking suspicion this has something to do with sales tax.
Trust ’em.
This is one of those shining examples of government abuse that should make us consider the possibility of not dividing ourselves as Democrats and Republicans.
I suggest a more practical approach of “the people” against power mad politicians.
I just read the entire article and yes, it IS about taxes and backup withholding taxes. They’re looking for billions of dollars from this. They couldn’t tax Internet sales and now they will anyway. Using one law to circumvent another one.
Yet another reason to insist on paying with money orders for online purchases.
Reading the entire summary of that housing bill it appears that the government will be helping out mortgage homeowners in trouble by raising revenues that will pay for the bailouts by tracking credit card transactions and taxing them accordingly as well as raising others fees and increasing IRS and other penalties. Almost the entire program for mortgage bailouts will thus be paid for. However, the program still falls short by about 2 billion dollars. It’s just another way the government will dip into our pockets to pay for this mortgage scam.
From Dodd’s website.
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) today made the following statement in response to the compromise reached on the legislation that would reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA):
“I cannot support the so-called ‘compromise’ legislation announced today. This bill would not hold the telecommunications companies that participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program accountable for their actions. Instead, it would simply offer retroactive immunity by another name.
“As I have said time and time again, the President should not be above the rule of law, nor should the telecommunications companies who supported his quest to spy on American citizens. I remain strongly opposed to this deeply flawed bill, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to join me in supporting American’s civil liberties by rejecting this measure.” … I can however sneak a different law in via my 630 page housing legislation that pretty much tramples all over American’s civil liberties and privacy because well ya know I’m a two faced rat and since that is what we do here, I am rather good at it, thank you very much.
Note* Everything after the quotes is straight from the thoughts of Senator Dodd, because I’m good at mental telepathy. – The Psychic Pirate
#12 ROFLMAO!!! Spot on!!!
It’s rather depressing.
Weird All the usual Bush and Republican bashers are quiet on this one. Nothing to say? Typical.
Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee
So, Dick Armey, as well as those who don’t read more than the headlines, wouldn’t understand that this is a measure in favor of the small merchants. It is the third party billing agents such as PayPal that have to report the GROSS amount, not the small individual merchant. This way they can check what the large collection giants are paying the small merchant compared to what the small merchant actually receives. It isn’t YOUR credit info out there, it is the gross amount.
I think this is only codifying what is being done now, and has been done for years. The only difference is that the IRS can now see it (versus intelligence and law enforcement).
From the article:
I’m not sure I see the bfd:
will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee. Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction. Participating payees include persons who accept a payment card as payment and third party networks who accept payment from a third party settlement organization in settlement of transactions.”
So they have to report “the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee”. How does telling the IRS the annual gross amount of reportable transactions violate privacy? Seems to me that the mentioned parties already “track” this information. So putting it into an Excel spreadsheet and forwarding the total on to the IRS is some kind of police state activity?
#18 You really are a piece of work. If Bush or a Republican was calling for this, you would screaming bloody murder. Glad to see you are living up to my expectations of a ideologist zealot.
@16,18: Language is murky and although on the first glance your interpretation is correct, need of bureaucracy to grow can easily place more and more detailed requirements via future laws. The very first step must be blocked (slippery slope,…).
Also, who do you think will pay those 9+ Billion $? Merchants? Ha… (though Democrats like Dodd and Obama definitely stop thinking at that point). Govt. will get it from merchants and they from us, effectively taxing all Internet commerce with all related consequences.
Wow, Dick Armey (I assume THAT Dick Armey) blowing the whistle on Chris Dodd over far reaching surveillance. You just can’t make this stuff up.
#19 – Qualigula
>>You really are a piece of work.
So. Is that the best you can do?
Do you have an explanation as to what the bfd is, or are you just going to yammer on about me being a commie pinko fag?
The gummint wants summary stats on what these companies are doing financially. I’d be hard-pressed to get worked up over that, even if Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh sponsored the bill.
Now, do you have an explanation? Or are you just going to slink of into the sunset with your tail between your legs, as usual?
I am pretty damn glad that Dodd and my own Menendez are pushing back hard on the telecom amnesty nonsense.
On the other hand it’s not over till the fat lady sings and I still cannot tell if there is enough votes to drag that bastard before a judge instead of just granting amnesty/immunity/get out of jail free when all is said and done.
#18–Mustard–you are right on the money again. I don’t see any problem with this scheme.
This is another issue that goes to our identity as citizens and their government working out acceptable solutions/mechanism to enforce the law while respecting privacy.
This provision does invade/violate/affect and individual’s privacy BUT it also is a rather non-invasive way to prevent fraud. Where should the proper dividing line be?
Personally, I don’t think my “privacy rights” should go to what I DO, as much as to what I think, say, write, and read. Doing, like buying stuff with credit cards, is inherently a non-private activity already involving other people–the vendor, the bank, the credit card company==why should the government be excluded from this? What possible legitimate goal does it violate, what legitimate goals does it protect?
It all goes again to too many people interpreting “privacy rights” with a desire to be anonymous. Thats just stinkin thinkin.
“This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years.”
The fact they are estimating how much money they are going to steal should be a warning sign in itself. This needs to be stopped.
Is this the same bill with the fingerprint requirements?
stormcoder has it right. Different names same party.
I think some of the above analyses are correct. This is, or is in preparation for, a tax on the internet. Not just for sales tax on transactions, but income made on the internet (ebay sales etc) will have to be reported as income or the IRS will get you.
We have a right to privacy, its not stated directly in the constitution, but between the 4th and the 9th it is heavily implied. Some of the founding fathers did not want a bill of rights because they are “obvious”. Too bad it is not obvious to our current leaders in Washington.
#28–Ariane==stinkin thinkin. There should be no privacy right to violate the law and get away with it when a paper trail is provided to stop the violation of law.
If you don’t want internet transactions to be taxed, that is a debatable issue. If it becomes a law, there is no good reason not to enforce it.
Silly to think otherwise.
F U Dodd.
Bin L 1 The US public 0.
Ya, that will make us safe.