The recent New York Times story on the SWIFT program — a secret collaboration between a financial industry co-operative known as Swift, the CIA and the Treasury department — misses an important point. The issue is not simply that the U.S. government is sifting through the financial records of its own citizens. In fact, one could argue that government oversight of major financial transactions within and across its borders is a good thing. The real problem is that Swift, an exclusive private sector co-operative, owns and operates its own global financial data-mining system (even if it is merely a byproduct of the group’s other financial services). But now that the Times has let the cat is out of the giant money bag, some Swift executives have qualms about collaborating with U.S. agents and are insisting on stricter access to their data. Their solution, as reported in the Times, is to place Swift representatives alongside intelligence officials while they search through mountains of financial data. These representatives could then “block any searches considered inappropriate”. Really? And who watches over Swift during the rest of the year, when the CIA is not parked in front of their terminals?
Now consider the level of surveillance experienced by the majority of citizens (a group that will never transfer money to offshore bank accounts): When I walk down any urban street a camera may be watching. When I put gas in my car, get cash from an ATM, buy junk food from the local convenience store or walk into any mall or big box store, the cameras are rolling. If, as a law-abiding citizen, I am to be subjected to the probing eyes of a thousand surveillance cameras, then I want real-time data-mining and forensic-accounting reports on all national and international money transfers. Why the hell not? If someone is laundering money through an offshore Andorran bank or transferring copious amounts of cash to Saudi Arabia, I wanna know about it. I would love to be able to browse a web site to learn the intimate details of Conrad Black’s financial dealings. Or Kenneth Lay’s. Or Dick Cheney’s.
Although some groups are opposed to all forms of surveillance, it seems the cameras are here to stay. More serious is the fact that every American citizen already endures widespread surveillance of personal data through private companies such as Acxiom Corporation that correlate data from a variety of government and financial sources. So, if data surveillance can’t be abolished because “9/11 changed everything”, then let’s up the ante and shine as much light as possible on all large national and international financial transactions. This little light ‘o mine — I’m gonna let it shine. This little light ‘o mine…
[update] - Yesterday Canadian media reacted to Privacy International’s decision to take legal action against SWIFT for disclosing global bank transaction records to the CIA. SWIFT has done plenty of good work over the years in bringing attention to surveillance issues and other global threats to democracy such as policy laundering. I don’t particularly like surveillance, but arguing that people should be able to hide large sums of money all over the world is to argue for a right that can only be enjoyed by the wealthy. If we must live in a surveillant culture, then let us distribute the cameras, the microphones and the data-mining systems equally among the wealthy, the middle class and the poor.
