[tinalumfoil]

> If they allow anyone to send money anywhere, they get fined by the government for supporting criminals.

They could allow the transactions, but secretly support anything suspicious to government anti-terrorist agencies. They wouldn't get called racist because any transactions they block were at the behest of the government. They wouldn't get in trouble with the government because they're handing all their data to them. And customers wouldn't complain they're divulging private data customers people wouldn't know. It's a win-win-win.

[wonder_er]

Then it would just be the HN crowd mad that an organization is secretly passing data to the authorities...

[CaptainZapp]

What, exactly, do you think your bank does when they stumble over transactions that they deem suspicious?

Exactly: They report it to the authotities.

[PakG1]

At least it would all be just a conspiracy theory espoused by tin foil hats until another Snowden shows up.

[zeroer]

If people couldn't be bothered with the actual Snowden leaks, surveillance of money transfers to Pakistan isn't going to move the needle either.

[drinkjuice]

Why does it have to be "any suspicious activity", and why "anti-terrorist agencies"? Why not start with "things that are obviously crimes" and "the police"?