ordering seeds with my own credit card?

[Jhhnn]

Using your credit card will not get you busted. Usually police are tipped off by someone who knows you grow.

After you are arrested, the DA may acquire all sorts of evidence to shore up their case. Any grow related equipment, material, refuse, bags, scales, paraphernalia, stems, trim, weapons, credit card & bank statements, etc.

They can't and won't look into financial records unless they already have plenty of evidence to charge you.

IMO, there are other things to worry about.

That's always been the problem with growing- you're a sitting duck for rollovers & snitches. Even dealers who move considerable weight might get raided when they have no product- I saw that happen many years ago- but growers always have something going.

It starts with a fuckup or a lie, or a little of both. Your best buddy lets his fuckup cousin know that you grow. Months later, the fuckup gets popped for something, anything, and he'll swear to the cops that he's seen your grow. A little surveillance, a little snooping around reveals corroborative evidence for a warrant, so Whamalama! You're busted.

After that is when they check the electric bill, your financials, whatever they can get to increase the load on you, probably including the dog's vaccination record. Building an airtight case increases the chances that you'll cop a plea, which is what they want. Down you go.

Anybody who has ever received the green customs tape should realize that they have a little bit of a line on you. OTOH, if they wanted to bust you, they'd have proceeded differently. Your seeds would have arrived, followed by the bust some time later, if they could come up with corroborative evidence. Just because they intercepted some seeds with your name on 'em doesn't mean you ordered 'em nor apparently is it grounds to search your financials, either. As the whole thing gets more computerized, having your name come up too many times probably isn't a good thing, but it remains to be seen if even that is a real problem.

Here in Colorado, seed growers shouldn't need to deal with the hassle or the anxiety as good genetics will be available OTC come Jan 1. Customs doesn't matter when there's no border between the seed producer and the grower.

 

[Nadicus_Maximus]

One problem with NOT using a Card is that you can't get in on those time-sensitive promos unless you time it out just right so that your cash or M.O. order gets there during the promo hours. I know a lot of vendor promos run out of stock in the first day so you need to get your order in before that happens. A card lets you order as soon as the promo starts. Just my 2 centavos. I use a Walmart debit moneycard.

 

[The OrigF/clred]

while i don't doubt they will use the credit card info after the arrest, not sure if you guys are aware, the DEA apparently has it's own section at the NSA hdqtrs, and shares info it catches in it's own electronic nets, one of which i would assume, would be the cc transactions with stateside customers

interesting article, apparently, when the bust isn't big enough for the DEA (ie not enough publicity, news worthiness etc), they pass the tip onto local LE and tell them to reconstruct the case to hide the source of the info - just slightly illegal or unconstitutional

my point is, if they're not doing it now, they will be - and local LE, if they're not busy, or want to justify the need for more boots in the narc unit + equipment, will likely follow up on leads provided.

fwiw

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering




August 6, 2013 | By Hanni Fakhoury


DEA and NSA Team Up to Share Intelligence, Leading to Secret Use of Surveillance in Ordinary Investigations



UPDATE: Add the IRS to the list of federal agencies obtaining information from NSA surveillance. Reuters reports that the IRS got intelligence tips from DEA's secret unit (SOD) and were also told to cover up the source of that information by coming up with their own independent leads to recreate the information obtained from SOD. So that makes two levels of deception: SOD hiding the fact it got intelligence from the NSA and the IRS hiding the fact it got information from SOD. Even worse, there's a suggestion that the Justice Department (DOJ) "closely guards the information provided by SOD with strict oversight," shedding doubt into the effectiveness of DOJ earlier announced efforts to investigate the program.
A startling new Reuters story shows one of the biggest dangers of the surveillance state: the unquenchable thirst for access to the NSA's trove of information by other law enforcement agencies.
As the NSA scoops up phone records and other forms of electronic evidence while investigating national security and terrorism leads, they turn over "tips" to a division of the Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") known as the Special Operations Division ("SOD"). FISA surveillance was originally supposed to be used only in certain specific, authorized national security investigations, but information sharing rules implemented after 9/11 allows the NSA to hand over information to traditional domestic law-enforcement agencies, without any connection to terrorism or national security investigations.
But instead of being truthful with criminal defendants, judges, and even prosecutors about where the information came from, DEA agents are reportedly obscuring the source of these tips. For example, a law enforcement agent could receive a tip from SOD—which SOD, in turn, got from the NSA—to look for a specific car at a certain place. But instead of relying solely on that tip, the agent would be instructed to find his or her own reason to stop and search the car. Agents are directed to keep SOD under wraps and not mention it in "investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony," according to Reuters.
"Parallel construction" is really intelligence laundering
The government calls the practice "parallel construction," but deciphering their double speak, the practice should really be known as "intelligence laundering." This deception and dishonesty raises a host of serious legal problems.
First, the SOD's insulation from even judges and prosecutors stops federal courts from assessing the constitutionality of the government's surveillance practices. Last year, Solicitor General Donald Verilli told the Supreme Court that a group of lawyers, journalists and human rights advocates who regularly communicate with targets of NSA wiretapping under the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) had no standing to challenge the constitutionality of that surveillance. But Verrilli said that if the government wanted to use FAA evidence in a criminal prosecution, the source of the information would have to be disclosed. When the Supreme Court eventually ruled in the government's favor, finding the plaintiffs had no standing, it justified its holding by noting the government's concession that it would inform litigants when FAA evidence was being used against them.
Although the government has been initially slow to follow up on Verrilli's promises, it has begrudgingly acknowledged its obligation to disclose when it uses the FAA to obtain evidence against criminal defendants. Just last week DOJ informed a federal court in Miami that it was required to disclose when FAA evidence was used to build a terrorism case against a criminal defendant.
Terrorism cases make up a very small portion of the total number of criminal cases brought by the federal government, counting for just 0.4 percent of all criminal cases brought by all U.S. Attorney offices across the country in 2012. Drug cases, on the other hand, made up 20 percent of all federal criminal cases filed in 2012, the second most prosecuted type of crime after immigration cases. If the government acknowledges it has to disclose when FAA evidence has been used to make a drug case—even if it's a tip leading to a pretextual traffic stop—the number of challenges to FAA evidence will increase dramatically.
SOD bypasses the Constitution
Even beyond the larger systemic problem of insulating NSA surveillance from judicial review, criminal defendants whose arrest or case is built upon FISA evidence are now deprived of their right to examine and challenge the evidence used against them.
Taken together, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee a criminal defendant a meaningful opportunity to present a defense and challenge the government's case. But this intelligence laundering deprives defendants of these important constitutional protections. It makes it harder for prosecutors to comply with their ethical obligation under Brady v. Maryland to disclose any exculpatory or favorable evidence to the defense—an obligation that extends to disclosing evidence bearing on the reliability of a government witness. Hiding the source of information used by the government to initiate an investigation or make an arrest means defendants are deprived of the opportunity to challenge the accuracy or veracity of the government's investigation, let alone seek out favorable evidence in the government's possession.
Courts must have all the facts
The third major legal problem is that the practice suggests DEA agents are misleading the courts. Wiretaps, search warrants, and other forms of surveillance authorizations require law enforcement to go to a judge and lay out the facts that support the request. The court's function is to scrutinize the facts to determine the appropriate legal standard has been met based on truthful, reliable evidence. So, for example, if the government is using evidence gathered from an informant to support its request for a search warrant, it has to establish to the court that the informant is reliable and trustworthy so that the court can be convinced there is probable cause to support the search. But when law enforcement omits integral facts—like the source of a tip used to make an arrest—the court is deprived of the opportunity to fulfill its traditional role and searches are signed off without the full knowledge of the court.
Ultimately, if you build it, they will come. There's no doubt that once word got out about the breadth of data the NSA was collecting and storing, other law enforcement agencies would want to get their hands in the digital cookie jar. In fact, the New York Times reported on Sunday that other agencies have tried to get information from the NSA to "curb drug trafficking, cyberattacks, money laundering, counterfeiting and even copyright infringement."
Teaming up to play fast and loose with criminal defendants and the court, the DEA and NSA have made a mockery of the rule of law and the legal frameworks intended to curb abuses.

 

[ProvisionSeeds]

I dont see why not

 

[The OrigF/clred]

and another story specific to the NSA and credit card transactions - note the red highlited text and then decide, after reading both stories, on how much paranoia you feel offers you sufficient security

http://www.infowars.com/government-using-nsa-to-change-amount-in-bank-accounts-warns-panel/
Government Using NSA to Change Amount in Bank Accounts, Warns Panel

Americans at risk of enforced Cyprus-style bail-in
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
December 19, 2013
A White House review panel report into the activities of the NSA suggested that the government was using the spy agency to launch cyber attacks against financial institutions and change the amounts held in bank accounts.

The 300 page report prepared for President Barack Obama by the Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology called for the NSA to be stripped of its power to obtain bulk collections of telephone records.
Page 221 of the panel’s report states;
(1) Governments should not use surveillance to steal industry secrets to advantage their domestic industry;
(2) Governments should not use their offensive cyber capabilities to change the amounts held in financial accounts or otherwise manipulate the financial systems.
Trevor Timm from the Electronic Frontier Foundation responded to the report by suggesting that the NSA was targeting major financial institutions.
In the aftermath of the Edward Snowden revelations it was confirmed that, “The National Security Agency (NSA) widely monitors international payments, banking and credit card transactions,” under the auspices of an international branch called Follow the Money (FTM), and that the spy agency has full access to the VISA and SWIFT payment systems.
“Top financial experts say that the NSA and other intelligence agencies are using information gained from spying to profit from this inside information. And the NSA wants to ramp up its spying on Wall Street … to “protect” it. “Whose money, exactly, is the NSA “protecting” … and how are they protecting it?” asks Washington’s Blog, “What about the money of people that the U.S. government considers undesirables?”
The government’s ability to use the NSA to directly amend bank accounts increases the risk of Americans being subjected to a Cyprus-style “bail-in” where a tax on savings deposits is directly levied in the name of austerity.
Earlier this year, Chase Bank customers attempted to withdraw their cash from ATMs only to be shocked at seeing their balance reduced to zero by a mystery system “glitch”. Was this in any way connected to the NSA’s activities?
With banks increasingly moving towards capital controls in a bid to stave off the risk of a sudden flight from the US dollar, the prospect of the US government relying on cyber attacks launched by the NSA to manipulate financial markets and bank accounts remains a genuine possibility.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
This article was posted: Thursday, December 19, 2013 at 6:07 am

just came across this next story and it ties right in with the above
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-12-18/former-top-nsa-official-“we-are-now-police-state”

Former Top NSA Official: “We Are Now In A Police State”


Bill Binney is the high-level NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information. A 32-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency, Binney was the senior technical director within the agency and managed thousands of NSA employees.
Binney has been interviewed by virtually all of the mainstream media, including CBS, ABC, CNN, New York Times, USA Today, Fox News, PBS and many others.
Last year, Binney held his thumb and forefinger close together, and said:

We are, like, that far from a turnkey totalitarian state.
​

But today, Binney told Washington’s Blog that the U.S. has already become a police state.
By way of background, the government is spying on virtually everything we do.


All of the information gained by the NSA through spying is then shared with federal, state and local agencies, and they are using that information to prosecute petty crimes such as drugs and taxes. The agencies are instructed to intentionally “launder” the information gained through spying, i.e. to pretend that they got the information in a more legitimate way … and to hide that from defense attorneys and judges.
This is a bigger deal than you may realize, as legal experts say that there are so many federal and state laws in the United States, that no one can keep track of them all … and everyone violates laws every day without even knowing it.




The NSA also ships Americans’ most confidential, sensitive information to foreign countries like Israel (and here), the UK and other countries … so they can “unmask” the information and give it back to the NSA … or use it for their own purposes.
Binney told us today:

The main use of the collection from these [NSA spying] programs [is] for law enforcement. [See the 2 slides below].

These slides give the policy of the DOJ/FBI/DEA etc. on how to use the NSA data. In fact, they instruct that none of the NSA data is referred to in courts – cause it has been acquired without a warrant.

So, they have to do a “Parallel Construction” and not tell the courts or prosecution or defense the original data used to arrest people. This I call: a “planned programed perjury policy” directed by US law enforcement.

And, as the last line on one slide says, this also applies to “Foreign Counterparts.”

This is a total corruption of the justice system not only in our country but around the world. The source of the info is at the bottom of each slide. This is a totalitarian process – means we are now in a police state.
​

Here are the two slides which Binney pointed us to:

​

(Source: Reuters via RT; SOD stands for “Special Operations Division,” a branch of a federal government agency.)
We asked Binney a follow-up question:

You say “this also applies to ‘Foreign Counterparts.’” Does that mean that foreign agencies can also “launder” the info gained from NSA spying? Or that data gained through foreign agencies’ spying can be “laundered” and used by U.S. agencies?
​

Binney responded:

For countries like the five eyes (US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand) and probably some others it probably works both ways. But for others that have relationships with FBI or DEA etc., they probably are given the data to used to arrest people but are not told the source or given copies of the data.
​

(See this for background on the five eyes.)
View past discussions between Washington’s Blog and Binney here, here, here and here.
Bonus:

• “These Programs Were Never About Terrorism: They’re About Economic Spying, Social Control, and Diplomatic Manipulation. They’re About Power”