Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

The Fourth Amendment Is Meant To Protect People From Government Abuse

by September 19, 2023
September 19, 2023
The Fourth Amendment Is Meant To Protect People From Government Abuse

Norbert Michel

This new Forbes post provides a brief overview of my testimony last week in the U.S. House of Representatives at a hearing titled Digital Dollar Dilemma: The Implications of a Central Bank Digital Currency and Private Sector Alternatives. Naturally, Cato’s scholars don’t see much of a dilemma—the United States government should foster more private alternatives in the payments sector and should not issue a digital currency.

While the hearing went pretty much as expected, there was a strange moment that should be addressed. Around halfway through the hearing (see the 1:20:00 mark), minority witness Raúl Carrillo implied that the other witnesses had mischaracterized the nature of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He then blamed privacy problems in the financial sector on the “connection between the private and public sectors.” Here’s the passage in full:

…this question allows me to first clarify a point regarding Fourth Amendment doctrine, which I believe has been mischaracterized on this panel. The third‐​party doctrine creates problems precisely because of the connection between the private and public sectors. So, to suggest that it is just going to not apply to the public sector, and will apply to the private sector, is to fundamentally misunderstand constitutional doctrine. We could have a system wherein private companies work with public companies, and that still could lend itself to mass surveillance. So, these conclusory statements about application of the 4th amendment are not particularly helpful here. The laws and the technology of the models being suggested do not lend themselves to application of the Fourth Amendment.

First, I don’t believe anyone suggested that the third‐​party doctrine (or the Fourth Amendment) would apply to the public sector. I’m positive I didn’t make that claim. And, if Carrillo meant to say that a system where private companies working with the government—as opposed to, in his words, public companies—could still result in mass surveillance, he’s probably right. Any system that requires private companies to record information so that the government has unfettered access is ripe for government abuse.

However, I have to take issue with whether “the laws and the technology” lend themselves to the application of the Fourth Amendment. It’s a baffling statement that caps off an otherwise confusing analysis.

The purpose of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is to protect people from government abuse (unreasonable searches and seizures). Yet, the Bank Secrecy Act requires private companies to keep financial records that the government can access without a search warrant. So, while it’s useful to distinguish between what private companies are doing and what the government does, there’s no doubt that the government has commandeered the private sector to implement the Bank Secrecy Act regime.

And we’ll have an even bigger problem if we move to a CBDC because the government will start collecting the data directly, thus making it even easier to access citizens’ financial records. The important principle, though, is that regardless of what type of money Americans use, the government should not have access to citizens’ financial records without first demonstrating probable cause and obtaining a search warrant. Nonetheless, since Congress enacted the Bank Secrecy Act in 1970, the government has had access without obtaining a warrant.

So, as Cato scholars argue, Congress should explicitly prevent the Fed (and Treasury) from issuing a CBDC. Separately, Congress should amend the Bank Secrecy Act so that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to access citizens’ financial records. Anyone interested in these topics should check out the full hearing.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
The 2022-2023 Cato Supreme Court Review
next post
New Economic Freedom Report: Hong Kong Falls from Top Spot

You may also like

Corporate Welfare Spending

March 4, 2025

ProPublica Profiles Army Corps Failures

November 17, 2023

House Judiciary Committee Report Documents More Evidence of...

May 13, 2024

New Cato Study: “Biden Short‐​Term Health Plans Rule...

March 14, 2024

Parsing the Factual Errors in the Montana Climate...

August 21, 2023

A Crackdown on Crypto Won’t Stop Hamas

October 18, 2023

Let’s Fix the Quorum Quandary at FERC

February 15, 2024

Congress Has Questions about California High-Speed Rail

June 3, 2024

Certificate of Need Laws and Health Care Expenditures

January 13, 2025

Have We Learned Anything New About Who Pays...

August 20, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • TSA tells Americans their Costco cards won’t fly at airport security despite love for hot dogs

      June 7, 2025
    • Trump announces China will restart rare earth mineral shipments to US after productive call

      June 7, 2025
    • Musk feud presents ‘unprecedented’ dynamic compared to past Trump disputes: expert

      June 7, 2025
    • Snub of Musk’s NASA nominee ally preceded sudden ‘big, beautiful bill’ criticism, Trump feud

      June 6, 2025
    • Supreme Court rules DOGE can access Social Security information

      June 6, 2025
    • US sanctions money laundering network aiding Iran as regime faces nuclear reprimand at IAEA

      June 6, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,149)
    • Investing (2,019)
    • Politics (15,558)
    • Stocks (3,134)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved