Financial Search Raises Privacy Fears,GOOD FOR ME!

For most Americans, the confidentiality of their bank accounts and other financial holdings is a right to be cherished. The idea that government agents might be secretly scrutinizing the records of individuals arouses discomfort in people who view their wealth, income and other financial information as nobody's business but their own.

So questions of privacy arose yesterday after revelations that the Bush administration has been tracking clues about terrorists by searching the records of a Belgium-based banking consortium that handles millions of financial transactions daily across national borders.

Bush administration officials offered extensive reasons for comfort, noting that the newly disclosed program doesn't give them access to most routine banking transactions and was designed to prevent abuse. But some experts said the revelations underscore the degree to which the government is obtaining more financial information that used to be treated as confidential, especially since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They cited, for example, the intensifying pressure on banks to submit reports to federal agencies when their customers engage in transactions that may be considered suspicious, such as withdrawing an unusually large amount of cash.

"Maybe in the end, the public will be fine with it," said John D. ReVeal, a lawyer who specializes in financial regulation at the Washington office of Powell Goldstein LLP. "But it's always bothered me that the public has no idea about a lot of this. People seem to care if their bank shares information with an insurance company, for commercial purposes. But they don't seem to mind if the bank shares information with a government that puts people into Guantanamo without hearings and so forth."

The administration's assurances came in briefings and interviews that officials conducted even though they had hoped to keep the newly disclosed program under wraps because of its value in thwarting terrorism. They said they were forced to go public because the New York Times had made clear that it was publishing a major story about it.

In the first place, the officials said, the Belgian consortium, known by the acronym SWIFT, handles mostly transactions overseas, such as transfers of funds from a European country to a Middle Eastern country. And even when a transaction involves an American, a foreign national is typically on the other side.

"As a general matter, [SWIFT's database] does not contain the type of information on ordinary transactions that would be made by individuals in the United States, such as deposits, withdrawals, checks, electronic bill payments and the like," said Stuart Levey, undersecretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence.

Furthermore, the officials said, ever since the program was established, the government has taken elaborate precautions to ensure that SWIFT's data are not used for any purpose other than catching and disrupting terrorists. Investigators must provide evidence showing grounds for suspicion that the person whose transactions they are examining is involved in terrorism-related activities. SWIFT auditors may object if they view the search as unwarranted. The program even has its own outside auditors, from Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., who periodically review the searches to ensure that they are justified under the guidelines, according to Levey.

"We are not permitted to browse through this data, nor can we search it for any non-terrorism investigation," Levey said, adding that in one case a couple of years ago, an analyst was found to be conducting an improper search. "In my view, that shows that the audit process is working," he said, adding that "the person who conducted that search is no longer allowed to work on" the program.

Administration officials tacitly acknowledged that the information at their disposal is even greater than the initial press reports about the program indicated.

According to Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, when the administration first requested information from SWIFT after Sept. 11, in subpoenas that were fairly narrowly drafted , the consortium said it couldn't comply because it didn't have the ability to extract the particular information from its database.

"So they said, 'We'll give you all the data,' " Snow said, the idea being that federal agents would design methods of searching it. But he hastened to add that the data were handed over only on condition that strict safeguards would be implemented.

Under various bank secrecy laws passed by Congress over the past 35 years, U.S. banks are forbidden to hand over information about individual customers' accounts, unless government agents obtain a court-authorized subpoena in the course of an investigation.

But at the same time, banks risk severe penalties if they don't comply with federal "know your customer" requirements and fail to file "suspicious activity reports" to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network about their customers' out-of-the-ordinary transactions. Since 1996, when the rules were tightened, banks have filed more than 2 million such reports, and the pace stepped up significantly after Sept. 11, when failure to file began resulting in stiff fines.

"It's fair enough to say, we don't want to let the bad guys know that we're spying on them, and disclose every detail of how that's being done," ReVeal said. "But it's another thing to pull the wool over Americans' eyes and not disclose what end runs around the Fourth Amendment we may be doing."

Hoof Ailment Remains a Threat to Barbaro

Barbaro had another restful night in the intensive care unit of the George D. Widener Hospital for Large Animals, but his veterinarian said his situation remained serious.
Your guide to the Tour de France: commentary, stage by stage standings, profiles, complete route and more.

John Senden Interview - John Deere Classic

Q: Congratulations to John Senden the 2006 John Deere Classic winner. You played awesome out there today. You had those guys on your tail all day long. You did your job and got it done.

Link between obesity and depression

Link is strongest among Caucasians and those with more educationSeattle--There is a strong link between obesity and mood and anxiety disorders, especially among Caucasian Americans and those with more education and higher income, according to an analysis conducted by researchers from Group Health Center for Health Studies.

The study, published in the July issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry, and simultaneously released by EurekAlert, found that an obese person is about 25 percent more likely than a non-obese person to have a mood or anxiety disorder, such as depression. It also indicated that among Caucasian Americans and more educated people who are obese, that likelihood may be as high as 44 percent.

While the study did not show whether obesity leads to depression or vice versa, "it's almost certain that the association works in both directions," said Greg Simon, MD, MPH, a Group Health psychiatrist and the lead author of the study.

The researchers also found a negative association between obesity and substance abuse. That is, an obese person is 25 percent less likely than a non-obese person to have had a substance abuse disorder sometime in their lives.

"Understanding the connection between obesity and depression is an important public health issue because both of these conditions are so common and have a significant impact on our health care systems," Dr. Simon explained.

He pointed to the evidence that an average American has a 30 percent chance of being obese. This study shows that when a person is depressed, the odds of also becoming obese are as high as 40 percent.

About 20 percent of Americans are diagnosed sometime in their lives with depression. "Among those who are obese, that likelihood of depression jumps to 28 percent," said Dr. Simon.

The study is based on an in-person survey that the researchers from Harvard Medical School conducted among a nationally representative sample of 9,125 adult men and women. Obesity is defined in the study as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more.

While previous studies have shown a connection between obesity and depression, this is the largest and most representative study of the two problems in U.S. population. Also, this study included a much more careful assessment of mental health problems than earlier research, according to Dr. Simon.

Unlike many previous studies that show a link between obesity and depression among women only, this study revealed a strong link in both genders. There were significant differences among social and cultural groups. In groups where obesity is more common--that is, among non-white and less educated groups--there is less depression among the people who are obese. But in groups where there is less obesity, it is accompanied by more depression.

This may indicate that stigma accounts for some of the relationship between obesity and depression, said Dr. Simon. "Perhaps in groups where obesity is less socially normative, it's less acceptable and that's why there's a greater association with depression," he suggested. "But in groups where it is less stigmatized, obesity doesn't seem to be as depressing."

Research currently underway Group Health may lead to a better understanding of the link between body weight and mental health, and how these problems might be moderated.

Dr. Simon and his team are now conducting studies to address questions such as: Do depressed people have more difficulty increasing physically activity? Are their diets different than the diets of non-depressed people? Are depressed people less likely to be successful with structured weight-loss programs? Can weight-loss programs designed specifically for depressed people make a difference?

Simon's article was co-authored by Michael Von Korff, ScD, Kathleen Saunders, JD, and Diana Miglioretti, PhD, of Group Health Center for Health Studies; Paul K. Crane, MD, and Gerald van Belle, PhD, of the University of Washington; and Ronald C. Kessler, PhD, of Harvard Medical School.

Questions Answered in SWIFT Spying Case.so bad...

We learned more about the spying that the US Treasury Department is engaged in yesterday and today. The questions I raised in my blog yesterday are being answered. First of all the question “why wouldn’t Treasury mine SWIFT transactions?” The records of millions of transactions of international money transfers would be fruitful hunting grounds for Treasury to discover tax evaders, money launderers and supporters of terrorism.

The answer comes from an NPR interview with Stuart Levey, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the Treasury. From his bio at treasury.gov

In the role of Under Secretary, Mr. Levey directs the Treasury’s efforts to cut the lines of financial support to international terrorists, a critical component of the overall effort to keep America safe from terrorist plots. In addition to helping fight the financial war on terror, Mr. Levey also focuses on protecting the integrity of the financial system, fighting financial crime, enforcing economic sanctions against rogue nations and combating the financial underpinnings of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. He also oversees the Treasury Department’s newly-created Office of Intelligence and Analysis, ensuring that actionable intelligence is available to key decision makers and that the Department is fully integrated within the broader intelligence community.

According to Levey this is how SWIFT spying works: Investigators at Treasury “type in” their database queries along with an explanation justifying the request. Onsite auditors from SWIFT monitor those requests realtime and block them if they appear abusive or unjustified. And then, after the fact, there are two sets of auditors who review all the investigations; one set at SWIFT and another group at Booze Allen the independent consulting firm. So that answers the question “why is the spying so limited?” that I asked yesterday: because there are controls in place and oversight.

The other question is “where did those controls come from?”. Obviously there is nothing like this in place at ATT and the government side stepped the only controls that were in place to oversee wire tap authorizations. That answer comes from a Wall Street Journal report printed today in the Saturday edition.

Leonard "Lenny" Schrank, heads SWIFT in Brussels, Belgium. According to the Wall Street Jouornal he is:

A gregarious technology whiz who graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Brooklyn-born Mr. Schrank ended up working closely with U.S. intelligence officials on the project when Swift received subpoenas from the Treasury Department following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, people familiar with the program said.

In other words, the reason there is such a good program of oversight in this case is that the head of SWIFT negotiated and won controls. By doing so he protected SWIFT’s international reputation. I would not be surprised if he convinced the Treasury that there would be undesirable repercussions to international finance if the controls were not in place.

So now the question still remains: Why did not ATT impose similar restrictions on the NSA’s access to their data and voice traffic? Is leadership there clueless? Or, were they offered favorable treatment when competing for lucrative government contracts?

I see that Lenny Schrank is due to retire from SWIFT next year. Let me be the first to nominate him for CEO of SBC/ATT.