While it's difficult to argue against allowing governments to monitor transactions that might be used to finance terrorism, it is becoming clearer that the guidelines for monitoring are hazy, at best. I have seen no compelling evidence that such monitoring has caught many terrorists, though I'm willing to be persuaded. The terrorists themselves, I suspect, have found ways around the monitoring, leaving innocent depositors under surveillance.

I know this, because I live in Lebanon and only last week the Atlanta-headquartered SunTrust bank informed me that my Washington D.C. branch would discontinue business with me, as an "individual residing in an OFAC [the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control] sanctioned or other high risk country."

The bank's behavior with me was appalling, but the real issue was that it was becoming a headache for SunTrust to maintain my account, because, I presume, flags were constantly going up on the U.S. account belonging to a Lebanon resident.

Fair enough, but I'm no terrorist. Beyond the impracticalities for business that would arise from U.S. banks' closing the accounts of depositors living in "risk" countries, this is a form of collective punishment.

Governments should better determine who qualifies as a potential risk and who does not. They should also respect that people are entitled to financial privacy once they've fulfilled their obligations under the increasingly tight rules for financial disclosure.

Thankfully, when the media breaks the story, it only helps push governments and financial institutions toward less paranoia. Not everyone should be tarred by the brush of suspicion.