This is just factually wrong. The Bank Secrecy Act specifically requires that banks to provide this info. The 4th amendment does not prohibit this. If a bank refused to provide this required information, the government would go in and get that information directly.
Again, no law is being avoided. You just don't like the law.
> A blanket sweep of everyone's information willy nilly by the government is not 4A compliant, that's why they've had the bank do it on their behalf.
Wrong again. If retrieving this info was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, then banks could just say "no" when the government asks them for customer data data.
Groups did sue following the passage of the Bank Secrecy Act, and argued that it violated the Fourth and Fifth amendments. But they lost, and the Supreme Court determined that it did not violate the constitution.
For the third time: no law is being "avoided", you just don't like the law.
> Always easier when you can avoid the law and just buy it off the shelf. (Emphasis mine)
No law is being avoided, neither in your banking example nor in the situation with Clearview. To be sure, people can have whatever opinion on the law that they want. But I do want to make it clear the the government is not "avoiding" any law here.
Following the conversation, this reads as too strong a statement. The Constitution is law, and it (the fourth amendment) is being avoided via the Bank Secrecy Act. The Constitution supersedes any conflicting Acts of Congress.
> Shortly after passage, several groups attempted to have the courts rule the law unconstitutional, claiming it violated both Fourth Amendment rights against unwarranted search and seizure, and Fifth Amendment rights of due process. Several cases were combined before the Supreme Court in California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974), which ruled that the Act did not violate the Constitution