Yep, exactly the type of non-response I was expecting.
No one thinks the banking system is perfect. We just think it is a small problem in the grand scheme of things, it would cost a ton of money to even institute and maintain such controls, and the work arounds are obvious and infinite for anyone who dreams up these types of plans. It has all the problems of something like gun control and yet still manages to be more inconvenient and even dumber to many more people. Ever hear about concepts like cost-benefit analysis, shutting the gate after the cows have gotten out, relative risk versus personal freedoms?
It appears that you don’t understand the problem, the solution, or the story. Nothing you’ve said seems to apply to the case in question, which didn’t use banks, routing numbers, or hidden users. No one has done anything that you accuse them of.
Take a step back and see if you can identify a person or bank who has done something wrong, besides the extortionist.
You didn’t have to tell me you were against gun control, although this was a simple banking question you have relegated it that vast left wing conspiracy that wants to solve the country’s real problems like crime with big government instead of private initiative like arming every good person to protect them from the criminals. We have what, 20 times the guns per capita than Britain, more guns than people I think, and still seem to have more crime than Britain. So the answer there is to bring in more and more guns, more powerful guns with scopes and silencers? And what, give them to all the bankers to keep the extortion victims in question from storming the bankers in their marble offices?
But you digress. There are no guns in this question, despite your best efforts.
And you are funny, albeit predictable, to try and make it so.
Shagnasty merely mentioned that your proposed solution “has all the problems of gun control.” If you doubt that current gun control regulations work imperfectly, I invited you to take a stroll in the gun-free paradise that is Washington D.C.
You’re the one who launched into a paragraph long barely-sensible digression on guns. You’re the one proposing a ridiculously complicated and expensive overhaul of international banking regulations based upon your misunderstanding of a rare-as-hen’s-teeth robbery method. You’re the one attributing opinions to your opponents and using inflammatory terms.
Did you even read the posted article?
“Sherry Johnson, a spokeswoman Western Union, said the company was working with the FBI and U.S. Secret Service to trace the money sent through the service.” In other words, there’s no freaking problem!
<mod>
Let’s move this overseas to Great Debates.
Have at it, chaps.
</mod>
I don’t know the politics of all the people you’re arguing with, but they’re making a hell of a lot of sense to this flaming liberal. You really don’t seem to understand the situation, or the extent of the changes you’re demanding, or why the changes, if instituted, wouldn’t solve the problem you’re complaining about.
I used to work with Western Union, when they bough up my company for their computer stations. They certainly have the capability to decide before they send money whether or not to do so. They constantly have changing conditions in different receiving countries. They have quite an elaborate handshake before any money goes anywhere. Recieving stations go out every hour for all sorts of reasons. Power failure, expired contracts and mergers of the receiving company, fires, robberies and riots.
Of course they can block any particular station. If the feds say: Nothing to this border town in Pakistan, then that station gets no more from the US, but can still receive from elsewhere.
So the short answer is, sure it’s possible, and some of that is done now for tacing drug and gun-running money.
Ok lets try it:
Extortionist: “Pay up or else”
Store: “We tried to xfer the money but it’s blocked”
Extortionist: “Ok, then I will blow up the store now”
Store: “Aaaaaa, we’ve just blown up”
Well, that didn’t work.
Hmmmm, hey I’ve got an idea, what about mixing ketchup and mustard in one container…
Here’s the problem, Micro Dot.
You’ve imagined a situation where a criminal extorts money, and orders that it be transfered to an offshore account. So far, so good.
Next you imagine that when the victims of the crime go to the cops, the foreign bank tells the cops to buzz off, they won’t cooperate.
And then you imagine that something must be done about this.
Except the second part of your scenario, where the foreign bank refuses to help American law enforcement, simply doesn’t happen. Even banks in the Caiman Islands will help in a situation like this. They do cooperate with law enforcement.
So what exactly is the problem? Your complaint is that foreign banks don’t help American cops. That complaint is baseless. So given that, do you have any remaining complaints?
Well, let’s review the complaints against the question: 1) It would be impossible, and 2) It’s already being done. Well, then you must both be right. So I withdraw the question. Time to move on.