Businesses that accept credit cards now must sign into their own tyranny
The below was part of a credit card processing application that I was considering changing to. I was told that this changed a couple years ago and that all account must now sign it. I cannot do it.
SECTION 5 PATRIOT ACT AND BACKGROUND AUTHORIZATION
To help the government fight the funding of terrorism and money laundering activities, the USA Patriot Act requires all financial institutions to obtain, verify and record information that identifies each person (including business entities) who opens an account. What this means for you: When you open an account, we will ask for your name, physical address, date of birth, taxpayer identification number and other information that will allow us to identify you. We may also ask to see your driver's license or other identifying documents.The undersigned entity(ies) and individuals hereby unconditionally authorize NPC and Member Bank or its agents to (i) investigate the information and references contained herein, and to obtain additional information about the Merchant and such individual(s) by pulling credit bureau and criminal background checks on the Merchant and its principals, including obtaining reports from consumer reporting agencies on individuals signing below as an owner or general partner of Merchant, or providing their Social Security Number on the Application (if such individual asks NPC or Member Bank whether or not a consumer report was requested, NPC and/or Member Bank will tell such individual and, if NPC and/or Member Bank received a report, NPC and/or Member Bank will give the individual the name and address of the agency that furnished it) and (ii) update such information periodically throughout the terms of service of the Merchant Agreement. By providing your SSN and signing this Application, you, in your individual capacity, unconditionally authorize NPC and Member Bank to obtain your consumer credit report.
SECTION 5 PATRIOT ACT AND BACKGROUND AUTHORIZATION
To help the government fight the funding of terrorism and money laundering activities, the USA Patriot Act requires all financial institutions to obtain, verify and record information that identifies each person (including business entities) who opens an account. What this means for you: When you open an account, we will ask for your name, physical address, date of birth, taxpayer identification number and other information that will allow us to identify you. We may also ask to see your driver's license or other identifying documents.The undersigned entity(ies) and individuals hereby unconditionally authorize NPC and Member Bank or its agents to (i) investigate the information and references contained herein, and to obtain additional information about the Merchant and such individual(s) by pulling credit bureau and criminal background checks on the Merchant and its principals, including obtaining reports from consumer reporting agencies on individuals signing below as an owner or general partner of Merchant, or providing their Social Security Number on the Application (if such individual asks NPC or Member Bank whether or not a consumer report was requested, NPC and/or Member Bank will tell such individual and, if NPC and/or Member Bank received a report, NPC and/or Member Bank will give the individual the name and address of the agency that furnished it) and (ii) update such information periodically throughout the terms of service of the Merchant Agreement. By providing your SSN and signing this Application, you, in your individual capacity, unconditionally authorize NPC and Member Bank to obtain your consumer credit report.
positioning themselves between me and those with whom I do business. My business has a credit card, but only because the members outvoted me.
Of course if you traffic in armament, you very well may have your customers analyzed and be told by your bank that you are a "high-risk" business and have your credit line cut off...
What are your options? [It's tough questions day!]
Remember, they really don't care [and some of them do enjoy] that you don't understand how signing your right away could lead to anything.
I have recorded in my commonplace book a conversation that goes something like "You need to sign this form"
"Why?"
"It's new."
"What is the purpose of the form?"
"It's a new form"
and then, an explanation followed which was not in any way true; I read the 2 sentences to the OL and asked "now where in those sentences does it say what you said it said?" She didn't even follow the question.
and I HAD to sign it so I could pee in a cup so they'd prescribe my meds. grrrrr.
This kind of thing even happens at local units of government. I was an elected county supervisor for the last 4 years. A couple years ago our emergency management director brought an emergency management plan to the board. He told us that we had to vote for the plan because it was a federal law that we pass it. Needless to say I did not vote for it.
I try to look at these things for potential for abuse. I am NOT saying if you're law abiding you shouldn't need privacy. People who say that should post YouTube videos of them going to the bathroom, having intimate conversation/activities, talking about firing and employee, etc; b/c if they're not doing anything illegal why should they care?
When I see gov't requesting info, I think of scenarios where the gov't could abuse the power. If you sign this gov't gets to know who you are, which they already know. Maybe they get to know who your credit card customers are; I can't tell. Is there a scenario where this hurts you, e.g. where a crooked politician or gov't agent could threaten to reveal some sensitive information about your business unless you go along with something he wants? Could they reveal it to a competitor to help them steal your clients.
I don't know of a way, so every year I just package up my huge Quickbooks file and send it to my accountant. I never worry about him sharing the info b/c I struggle to understand how that would matter. He could send it straight to the IRS for all I care.
I bet people here can think of scenarios why this is a bad practice that I never thought of.
While other things may provide them a way around fourth amendment protection, I don't see any verbiage that does it here.
Now, IMO, this agreement should go both ways. Present them with a form so you can run a background check on them.
Not signing this doesn't prevent the scenario you posit in any way either. Nor does signing it make it easier or more likely to happen.
I'm all in favor if drawing a line in the sand, just not an arbitrary one based on reasons which are not tenable.
As to your last question, well it frankly doesn't make sense as it turns the fundamental position on its ear.
Do I need permission or enter your house? Absolutely. Without it, it would be a violation. But that doesn't mean entering your house ever is a violation of your property rights.
More specifically, read the precise requests, don't add others.
The above requests you understand and accept that the financial institution will talk to other nongovernmental agencies to get your credit report. It also says it will need to know who you are and will get this by collecting information about you which you will provide. Specifically your government issued ID, name, address, and "other information to ID you".
This is all done by the business. The only portions if this which involve government are:
The requirement for a government ID
GIving your name, ID no., address, etc to the government
The government mandating they have to get your personal permission to ask another private party questions about you.
The government requiring the private organization to ask your permission to ask the government if you are a criminal and if so what you did.
There is no verbiage here to indicate the government is handling the credit check, nor is there verbiage to allow them access to your financial records at will.
Indeed, pull out the first sentence and read it again. I suspect it is coloring your reading of the text.
I agree the government doing illegal things is a problem, and consider it a non sequitur to this posting. This agreement as posted does not provide permission for the government to ransack your financial data. While it exists elsewhere, this specific agreement isn't one if them and as such is a red herring to chase down and cite as an example of overreach and attempted evasion of the right of privacy.