OK, it's been quite awhile since the whole flap about the New York Time's "outing" of the NSA's oversight of banking transactions in America. While I don't think the Times acted responsibly, I am still puzzled as to why there's a story there.

See, I know (as does every red blooded American who uses banks) that banking oversight has increased greatly since 9/11. In fact, there's a sign on the wall of our credit union stating the government's need to have information such as our social security number, etc, for us to even establish an account there. It really doesn't take a heck of a lot of grey matter upstairs to deduce why the government would want this information in the first place. To track banking transactions (DUH!)

And even that presumes that tracking banking transactions is a NEW thing. I hate to break it to you, folks, but the vast majority of readers of this article (if not all) have lived in a time when their banking transactions were monitored. Grampa knew this. That's one of the reasons he kept the money he made from selling his tractor stuffed in the mattress instead of the First National Bank. That's one of the reasons he dealt in cash with every merchant with whom it was practical. And that's one of the reasons people like me, who've grown up knowing this, have done the same. It's not a paranoia, per se. Frankly, I think for an organization with access to so much information, the government USUALLY acts responsibly. While I AM worried about those exceptions, however rare, I rest pretty well assured that, unless I give them good reason, I'm not likely to be one of those exceptions. They've got too much legitimate criminal activity at the federal level to really worry that much about me.

The New York Times' reminder of the federal government's oversight of banking transactions may have certainly been ill timed. And it was almost definitely ill advised. But it wasn't NEWS, by any stretch of the imagination.