Houston passes ordinance to fingerprint, photograph precious metal sellers

I didn't say they did. They had to do with the quote in my post where Tim essentially said he'd be willing to sacrifice anything in exchange for increased security. So no, they weren't an overreaction or a slippery slope argument.

I find it interesting that our rights can be incrementally chipped away to a point where if from the beginning a person would have been accused of presenting a slippery slope argument if they would have predicted where it was going:

- All we're talking about here is restricting and taxing fully automatic machine guns, short barreled rifles, and silencers, not all guns. (National Firearms Act, 1934)

- We're not banning all guns, we're just banning those guns from foreign countries without a "legitimate sporting purpose". (Executive order)

- Don't be silly, you can still defend your family with a handgun that holds less than ten rounds. (Gun Control Act of 1994)

- Feel free to carry a gun, just not within 1000 feet of a public, private, or parochial school. (Gun free school zones act of 1990) Have you ever plotted this out on a city map? A person essentially cannot cannot carry a gun inside a city and be in compliance with this law.

- You just can't carry a loaded gun, but you can carry a gun on your hip and ammunition in your pocket. (California law)

- Oh, I guess you can't carry an unloaded gun either. (California law a few years later)

- You can own a gun, but only the state approved guns on this list that are virtually worthless in a true self defense situation. (California)

- "Shall not be infringed" means there can be "reasonable restrictions". (Supreme Court)

- "Reasonable restrictions" means we can do whatever we want. (Chicago and Washington DC)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I see this happening right now with gun control. 90%+ favor background checks on all sales and a majority favor tighter gun control laws. It's a good thing the Bill of Rights protects the minority in situations like these.

 

Dude, I would never give that to them. If the day ever comes and a seller demands I give them my drivers license to photograph is the day that I LOUDLY tell them where they can keep their silver, exactly why I am upset, and NEVER do business with them for anything.

Why the heck would they need that for?

Sorry, I just refuse to go along with "policies" like this. There are other places to buy silver, why risk having such information like that out there needlessly?

 

I understand Jim, but those were reasonable requests previously and I understood the need.

I used to work at a place that had a payroll account at a bank, lets call Fells Wargo. One day something happened and for some reason I got a check and not a direct deposit. Fells Wargo happened to be closer to me than my CU so I decided to just cash it. They wanted a thumb print.

I do not view a bank asking for a thumbprint as a "reasonable request". I didn't cash the check. Not only that, but professionally now I refuse to even consider Fells Wargo for any banking relationship. I do not support businesses I believe violate people's rights to privacy needlessly.

I feel the same about all aspects of privacy. I actually turned down a nice job opportunity once because right before I was to start I found out for health insurance they demanded blood draws for analysis. I simply believe this is over the line as well.

Unless we start drawing lines in the sand, the various bureaucracies in life will suck every last liberty, freedom, and privacy away from us.

 

Of course not. Some people canot see beyond their noses.

 

And so it goes...............sheesh.

 

This has gotten to be the silliest thing I have ever read, in my entire life.

For one, urine tests are easily faked. People can go in with a bag attached to their gut, or in their pocket. There is all kinds of way to beat the "system". Kind of hard to cheat when they draw your blood.

How on earth is a blood draw "over the line". What are they gonna do with your blood? Copy your DNA and make a clone of you? I think it was silly of you to turn down a job over a blood draw.

Besides urine, some employers use hair or saliva samples.

What's wrong with a bank wanting your thumbprint? Unless your in IAFIS and have a warrant for your arrest, what's the big worry?

Banks use thumbprints to curb money laundering, identity theft, and check fraud. If you went to a bank and deposited some "dirty money", they have your fingerprint to turn over to the police.

Again, all of these measures are done for YOUR safety. Unless you have something to hide, what's to worry about?

There are cameras in the bank. About every bank has them. Even McDonald's has cameras. To think that these measures are being used against you is preposterous.

 

Blind trust in authority is simply idiotic, Tim. There's no nice way to put it.

Giving somebody a badge doesn't suddenly turn them into an angel. History is brimming with instance of misuse.

The police, the CIA, the FBI, all government authorities, and the workers at McDonalds are comprised of PEOPLE. People are proud, full of avarice, constantly prone to corruption, greed, and a host of self-serving, selfish motives. The less they know about you the better.

 

Wow, you really are naive.

These measures aren't for "YOUR" safety, they are a result of the bank looking out for its own best interest. How can I be sure of that? It's simple, really. My bank does not require a thumbprint for account holders or for checks written on accounts at my bank. They ONLY require them for people who don't have accounts at my bank and are cashing a check that isn't written on an account at my bank. If you are an account holder cashing a check and it bounces, they take the money out of your account. If you are cashing a check written on an account at my bank, they can check the available balance before cashing it. The only time the bank faces a liability is when they cash a check for someone that doesn't have an account at my bank and it isn't written on an account at my bank, and that's why they require a thumbprint for doing so.

If someone steals one of my checks or produces a check with my account number on it and writes a fraudulent check and cashes it at my bank, my bank will cash the check and give them the funds without taking a thumbprint. So, tell me again how this is protecting me. Or, if someone goes to my bank to cash a check and has a fake ID with my name and DL number on it, the bank won't ask them for a thumbprint. If the check bounces, the money comes out of my account. Again, how is this thumbprint policy protecting me?

...and how is requiring a blood sample to get insurance protecting me?

The comparison you make between urine and blood is irrelevant because they can test for so many more things using your blood than they can with your urine. Also, it is possible to collect a urine sample with zero chance of cheating the system. I used to be a drug and alcohol NCO in the Army. I was the guy observing the soldiers providing samples. I know for a fact that none of the guys I observed gave me someone else's urine.

The cameras in banks, McD's, stores, etc are not for your protection. The footage obtained from them will absolutely be used against you if the need ever arises. I had a friend who had something stolen from the bed of his pickup truck when it was parked in a Target parking lot. He asked if he could view or have a copy of the footage of the parking lot from the time in question and they refused to provide it.

"For YOUR safety my butt..." :rollling:

 

Also, there's a big difference between just having images/video of you taken by an "eye in the sky", and having a up close and personal mug shot taken of you that is associated with your fingerprints, a copy of your ID, your home address, etc.

...and what's to stop a dishonest merchant from abusing your information? You come in to the store and sell your legitimately obtained bullion, and he associates your information with items his friend sold to him earlier that he knows are stolen. You might not get convicted of selling stolen property, but at that point, the burden is upon you to prove your innocence.

As John mentioned, blind trust is idiotic... Especially when the information you're providing doesn't do anything to protect you, AND it probably won't accomplish it's intended purpose anyway. The risks far outweigh the rewards...

 

But of course, you have your receipt with price you paid and who you purchased it from ( Hopefully taken from their license) ~right, so how could they suspect you of being a fence?

Of course if it was done with no inquiry/receipt , then yes, maybe you received stolen goods and could be in difficulty, but whose fault is that?

 

Even if I brought in a receipt from when I purchased said bullion, it still means NOTHING. I will not surrender my receipt when I sell coins because I will need that receipt for my taxes. So, then I'm free to take that receipt to another coin store and use it when selling more bullion. Even if the store makes a photo copy of my numbered receipt, it could have been an honest mistake for me to use the same receipt twice. Or, maybe my receipt is for 100 ounces of silver and I sold 20 ounces to store A, 20 ounces to store B, etc.

(It's a little different for serialized bullion, since the serial number would likely be on the receipt, but I do not own any serialized bullion.)

If bullion can be as easy as cash to transfer, why bother with all the privacy invasion? Stores aren't required to take my fingerprints and obtain a mug shot when I essentially "sell" cash in exchange for merchandise. Tracking bullion and the sellers of bullion in an attempt to cut down on the sales of stolen bullion is every bit as futile as tracking stolen cash. I could write down the serial numbers of all my 100 dollar bills and then report them stolen. If someone does manage to track them down, will I get them back? Does possession of the cash I reported stolen constitute a crime?

My point is that bullion should be treated in much the same was as we treat cash. Do you ask where a person got the cash they pay you for something? Do you ask them for a documentation that shows they didn't steal it? If not, then maybe you're receiving stolen money!

The reason I think we should treat it the same way we treat cash is because it is just about as difficult to track as cash. If all the time, energy, money, and invasion of privacy is wasted because there is little to no chance of it actually accomplishing what they intend it to, then why bother? Just so we can say we're trying to do something about it? To that I say there's a lot more money stolen every day than bullion, so let's require fingerprints, mug shots, copies of ID's, and recording of serial numbers for every cash transaction.

 

What's to stop someone from murdering me?
What's to stop someone from running me over in a car?
What's to stop someone from hacking my computer and stealing information?
What's to stop someone from robbing a house?
What's to stop someone from mugging me?
What's to stop someone from blowing up a large building full of people?

The point is, even though laws exist, people still break them.

The information provided does protect me.

For example, I walk into the McDonald's, someone comes in and holds me a knife point, and steals my wallet.

The video camera captures the car in the parking lot. The police run the plate number, and make an arrest. I get my wallet back and the crook goes to jail.

Someone steals my coin collection. They take it into Joe's pawn and sell it. I tell the police my collection was stolen. They pull the tapes of the local pawn shops and find the robber selling my collection. Although I recover only half of my collection, and the crook goes to jail.

The argument that "bank employees can abuse your information" is invalid. They already have your account number on the screen, not much stops them wiring it to their own account.

I also believe that everyone should be GPS chipped at birth, when the technology becomes available.

Two benefits from the get go. Missing people can be found much easier, and criminals can be found as well.

 

Actually, you're making my point for me.

Whatever helps you sleep at night...

Actually, the video camera didn't "protect" you. If the guy decided to shove the knife into your gut, what would the camera have done to prevent it? Nothing. The video camera might provide evidence that could be used to assist in an investigation and prosecution, but it doesn't "protect" anything.

I didn't know I said "bank employees can abuse your information". You even put it in quotes. Care to point that out to me?

Here's your sign...

 

I wonder if this info collected by the government would have to be turned over in the case of a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request? I'm concerned with the security of the data collected since many cities don't have the resoucrces to protect their data like the states and Feds do.

 

These laws like this stop hardly nothing from changing other then honest people from doing what they chose.
This is just one more step in the direction of 1984 by G Orwell happening.

 

Do you sometimes get the feeling that folks are "watching you" from the bushes?

 

Ah, the old "unless you have something to hide what's to worry about". Favorite phrase of tyrants and oppressors. Let's see it in action, shall we?

Unless you have something to hide;

1.you should allow cops to stop you and frisk at will
2. You should testify against yourself
3. You dont need a jury trial, or a lawyer
4. Cops should be able to cueck your home whenever they wish
5. Your computer should be monitored as to what websites you go to (Tim)
6. You should report to "camp" to be questioned......

There literally cannot be freedom if the phrase " if you have nothing to hide" is allowed to exist. As such, I violently refute that phrase above all others.

Seriously Tim, that is the most repeated, and most dangerous phrase in the world. I uope to god your generation realizes that someday. I truly do.

 

You mean like the cities that have leaked concealed carry permit lists?

 

No, but I sometimes get the feeling that some people have a hard time arguing the facts, so they attempt to belittle the person instead...