Should the U.S. Gov be involved in online transactions?

[Anthony]

US unveils plan to make online transactions safer

In the murky world of the Internet, how do you ever really know who you're talking to, who you're buying from or if your bank can actually tell it's you when you log in to pay a bill?

Amid growing instances of identity theft, bank account breaches and sophisticated Internet scams, the government is looking for ways to make those transactions in cyberspace more secure.

But officials must tread carefully, as efforts to create identity cards, personal certificates or other systems of identifiers raise privacy worries and fears of Big Brother tracking its citizens online.

In a draft plan released Friday, the White House laid out an argument for a yet-undeveloped, voluntary identification system and set up a website to gather input from experts and everyday Internet users on how it should be structured

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-unv....html?x=0&.v=7


After reading this I just don't have a warm, fuzzy feeling.
Do I really need the government protecting me online?
I just see it as a way to control transactions online. I could be wrong and this might be a good thing against fraud.
Has UIGEA just made me not trust anything the U.S. Government does?

[dhayman]

Government involvement is only good if the government adds value to the process. If it does not, and it is purely a big brother scenario, then it is a waste of time, and an infringement on privacy. The last 10 years of government (Bush and Obama), IMO, has been more government involvement, with poor results. I am NOT for the U.S. government touching anything these days.

[toughheeb77]

Well for the US market this would be a great thing. This would mean all companies would be able to process. You would be suprised if you knew what went into processing. It is very tough. Back when neteller was around anyone could get into this business.

[universal4]

There is absolutely no way whatsoever that Government involvement in money transactions will make the public safer.

The US Governemnt can't do anything without adding a fair amount of overhead (and therefore costs) into everything they touch.

In addition, they will waste hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) doing studies and market testing etc before they do anything.

In addition, they will waste hundreds of thousands more (probably many millions) creating an entire agency to run and maintain what they want to accomplish....

Oh, and bytheway, every study, market test and agency will be rife with fraud as well as pork barrel addons along the way....and my guess is the entire thing will place even more burden on the banking indusrty in the end....

Rick
Universal4

[Amateur]

Government involvement is only good if the government adds value to the process. If it does not, and it is purely a big brother scenario, then it is a waste of time, and an infringement on privacy. The last 10 years of government (Bush and Obama), IMO, has been more government involvement, with poor results. I am NOT for the U.S. government touching anything these days.

The mandate our govt already has to regulate has been an abysmal failure!! Can anyone really believe this would be any different?

And add money transactions to he mix? Oh please, just **** on my leg and tell me it's raining!!

Rick had it nailed. It's just a way for lawmakers and greedy bureaucrats to get their sticky fingers in ppl's pockets. Once they have their hands in there, it's no way to get them out!!

Do AIG and Bank of America ring any bells?? Bernie Madoff?? General Motors? Enron? They had responsibility there, and the good ole boys' network did a fine job on that! And who is paying for it?

That's why it is imperative to stop the madness, before it becomes business as usual. It's always portrayed as "protecting....etc.", but always works out to be "robbing...".