Today, a peak into your portfolio for good intentions of chasing after fraud and predatory brokers. Tomorrow, seizure of your 401K and other investments.
Welcome to the world of the RoboRegulator.
The unconstitutional federal agency, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, is pushing for implementing an electronic system that would regularly collect data on balances and transactions in brokerage accounts.
Yet another way, other than Obamacare, for the federal government to dip into your privacy and confidential data. And of course their use of technology is nothing to worry about. Just use the Obamacare website as an example.
I get it. There are bad guys out there, and the federal government wants a better way to catch the corrupt types in the act.
Will there be a minority report, too?
The Comprehensive Automated Risk Data System (Cards) would be used to electronically collected a record of activity at all of the more than 4,100 brokerage firms nationwide.
Now remember, the Obama administration blamed the economic slowdown partly on risky investments. . .
Now remember, the Obama administration blamed the economic slowdown partly on risky investments. . .
How long before that regulatory agency began to consider anything other than investing in government bonds too risky, and a sign of a firm or broker taking advantage of a client?
Plus, the federal government adding to their chest of options in regards to gathering information on us is beyond dangerous, unconstitutional, and should have people up in arms.
In law, the way things are supposed to work is that if something criminal is committed, it is then reported, charged, and then due process kicks into action. What the federal government is trying to do is something akin to "pre-crime." They are trying to use technology to monitor every move, hoping to recognize tendencies so that they can stop the wrongdoing before it happens, or as it happens. But when you begin allowing that to happen, how long before the federal government begins defining allowable actions, and disallowing activities they believe may lead to wrong doing even though those actions may not necessarily be a part of corruption in all cases?
In law, the way things are supposed to work is that if something criminal is committed, it is then reported, charged, and then due process kicks into action. What the federal government is trying to do is something akin to "pre-crime." They are trying to use technology to monitor every move, hoping to recognize tendencies so that they can stop the wrongdoing before it happens, or as it happens. But when you begin allowing that to happen, how long before the federal government begins defining allowable actions, and disallowing activities they believe may lead to wrong doing even though those actions may not necessarily be a part of corruption in all cases?
How long before the system is used to grant political favors?
Do we want the federal government watching the every move of brokers, and having potential access to our private information?
Give an inch, the federal government will take a mile. Eventually, they will use this as an excuse to watch every move of everybody, if we let them have this inch.
“This goes beyond mere concerns about Big Brother,” says Henry Hu, who oversaw data analytics as former director of the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis at the Securities and Exchange Commission and is now a law professor at the University of Texas in Austin. “I think Cards creates a new form of systemic risk.”
In addition to the Minority Report actions, and the snooping into personal data risk, Mr. Hu worries that Cards would take data that is widely dispersed (after all, it's good to not keep all eggs in one basket in the financial industry in the sense of data, as well) and centralize it for the first time. That could make it more vulnerable.
In addition to the Minority Report actions, and the snooping into personal data risk, Mr. Hu worries that Cards would take data that is widely dispersed (after all, it's good to not keep all eggs in one basket in the financial industry in the sense of data, as well) and centralize it for the first time. That could make it more vulnerable.
“It’s a Pearl Harbor problem,” Mr. Hu says. “All the ships and airplanes are in one place at the same time.”
The probability of the data being breached by a disgruntled employee, a terrorist or an unfriendly government is probably very low, Mr. Hu concedes—but the consequences could be dire.
The opportunity for such a systemic risk would be created with Cards. No matter how low the risk, we have learned many times that centralizing anything can be disastrous once the safety mechanisms in place are breached.
"But we will be able to reduce fraud," claim the supporters. Isn't that kind of security worth a little loss of freedom?
Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
Final approval is expected next year, and advocates claim this is a way to get tough on the brokerage industry, like Obama and gang did to banks with Dodd-Frank.
In other words, another disaster waiting to explode due to bad, liberal left, policy.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Get Ready for Regulators to Peer into your Portfolio - Wall Street Journal
No comments:
Post a Comment