Dear SEC, I write to express grave constitutional and legal concerns with the proposed amendments to the custody rule under the Investment Advisers Act. Protecting client assets is crucial but must be achieved without infringing upon core freedoms. Less intrusive alternatives exist to balance enforcement needs and rights. The digital asset reporting and oversight violates informational privacy under Whalen v. Roe, NASA v. Nelson, and Carpenter v. United States. Broad warrantless surveillance of routine financial transactions exceeds permissible bounds absent individualized suspicion. Americans maintain reasonable privacy expectations regarding sensitive personal data. Indiscriminate transaction tracking offends 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Furthermore, the vagueness of "digital assets" enables arbitrary enforcement per Sessions v. Dimaya, Connally v. General Construction Co, and Reno v. ACLU. Without precise definitions, advisors cannot reasonably understand obligations under law. Vague standards allow viewpoint discrimination against disfavored associations under Roberts v. United States Jaycees. Lack of clear notice violates due process. Compelled disclosure of unnecessary transaction details contravenes 1st Amendment protections against mandated speech under Wooley v. Maynard and Riley v. National Federation of Blind. Reporting gross proceeds rather than capital gains compels speech not essential to prevent misappropriation. Narrowly tailored measures are required. Warrantless surveillance also chills expressive and economic association under NAACP v. Alabama and Roberts v. United States Jaycees. Overly intrusive tracking deters participation in digital asset communities. Americans possess freedom of association against undue governmental interference. Cryptocurrencies warrant defense as protected expression under Junger v. Daley, Bernstein v. DOJ, and Universal City Studios v. Corley. Code constitutes speech shielded from regulations that are vague or overbroad. In sum, I strongly urge tailoring amendments to uphold both consumer protection and constitutional freedoms. Please contact me for additional analysis on balancing enforcement and core individual rights to privacy, due process, association, and free speech. Guarding consumers need not come at the cost of liberty. Sincerely, Chadri Rather