The proposed FinCEN rule is specific to non-financed (i.e. all-cash) transfers to companies or trusts. That in itself rules out the vast majority of private individuals. I'm sure they could also add carve-outs for primary residences or otherwise reduce the impact of this rule on private individuals.
That being said, I think the number of people who live in fear of being swatted in their homes is at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the number of people who rent a home owned by a mysterious and unaccountable corporate landlord.
That’s really nice to know. I’m not sure whether my situation would qualify under that rule, thought. I do appreciate you sharing that detail. Carve-out for a primary residence would be nice but in that circumstance, it still seems like someone over at the government knows where I live, which is suboptimal.
That being left aside, I am concerned about home intrusions much more than I am with economic equity for all _and_ I don’t think this measure will be a particularly effective control on the latter.
If a person knows where another person lives, the first person can send a heavily armed SWAT detachment to the second person’s home. This is one reason my home is held in trust, so it’s a little more difficult for some idiot to try this.
I imagine if this route was banned, it would be a lot easier to figure out where a person lives, which would generally result in decreased privacy, safety, and security.