[tptacek]

When I called payday loan companies "fraudulent", I was letting my biases show. The more accurate way to describe them is with the phrase I used in my latter comment: a high-fraud business, one that hosts quite a bit of fraud.

[hga]

So an acceptable solution is "Kill them all, God will know his own"? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_B%C3%A9ziers#.22Ki...)

[tptacek]

If you want to write an impassioned case on behalf of payday loan companies, be my guest. You asked a question: what did the OP mean when it pointed out that this issue was being driven by op-eds from banking lobbyists? I provided a possible answer.

[hga]

My impassioned case is for the Rule of Law.

Do the ends justify the means?

[tptacek]

Investigations and prosecutions of fraud --- OCP includes criminal prosecutions --- are part of the rule of law. Meanwhile, banks profit directly from fraud by collecting transaction fees. The banking lobby wants to convince the government thank the banks will self-police, but the issue at hand is an externality to the banks.

What I'd like to know is, why are EFF and Reason casting this as suppression of pornography? It's the payday lenders and prepaid card scams that are driving the lobbying effort.

[hga]

You know very well if the DoJ was "containing" problems through legit fraud prosecutions nobody would be raising a huge fuss.

(ADDED: one wonder how many of these prosecutions are legit vs. "the process is the punishment" well nigh unlimited budget DoJ vs. likely small fry.)

It's the lawless abuse of regulatory powers---e.g. why the FDIC is part of the operation---to try to shut down entire sectors of the finance industry that has people figuratively up in arms.

[tptacek]

I do not know that very well. In fact, I don't think that's true at all.

[gnoway]

Maybe EFF and Reason jumped the gun/got duped?

[hga]

Given that both explicitly mention payday lenders, I would say not, they're just adding their weight to the current propaganda effort.

The EFF's motive would seem to be obvious; after talking about the porn star situation, they note an online case:

"This is particularly troubling because “pornography” itself is subject to interpretation. While the crackdown currently affects mainstream, prominent performers, it could quickly turn into a bank account ban for radical and feminist porn. We’ve seen examples of this in the past. For instance, Cindy Gallup, who hopes to revolutionize pornography and cultural acceptance of human sexuality through her website MakeLoveNotPorn.com, struggled to find any bank that would do business with her in the United States. Artists of all stripes should be concerned about this unnecessary encroachment on free expression."

And then they immediately segue to Operation Check Point with its less sympathetic victims.

Reason is the the leasing popular libertarian journal of opinion, they have no reason (sorry) whatsoever not to defend payday loan companies and other free market entities our betters frown upon. Their second paragraph jumps right to Operation Check Point and lists these as "undesirable" lines of business it's suspected as attacking, "payday lenders, ammunition sales, dating services, purveyors of drug paraphernalia, and online gambling sites", every one of which they unquestionably defend as a class. Leading off with payday lenders is telling, I'd say.

[dkural]

Don't you find it offensive that you're purposefully misled by the two industries - who prefer to not defend themselves directly and instead use Porn as the innocent victim?

[hga]

Not at all. The general principle is the defense of the Rule of Law, and of course those fighting for it are going to use the most sympathetic victims as leading examples.