Chase Bank: "No Cash in your Safe Deposit Box" -- Really?

I just received a letter from Chase Bank about my annual renewal for safe deposit box rent.  I scanned through the letter, and it looked like sort of the standard stuff that we get every year from banks.  It had a cover letter and 5 pages of typical "boilerplate."  Then I spotted something that said "Contents of the Box:  You agree not to store any cash or coins other than those found to have a collectible value"  -- That seemed like something new!  I didn't remember that!
I always thought that the reason people had safe deposit boxes was to keep extra cash, so that if the banking system collapsed they'd have cash to use to survive.  I figured that most of the boxes probably had bundles of $100 bills.  However, I don't think we have ever kept money in a safe deposit box.  It always seemed dumb to not be able to get some sort of interest on the money -- particularly if it was losing value each year due to inflation.  So if I left $100 in the box for a year, I would then only be able to buy $97 worth of stuff if we had 3% inflation.  But if I could get 6% interest on the money, I could buy $103 worth of stuff.  But, during the past few years, we've had almost zero (officially) inflation, and the interest I'm getting on a $6000 bank balance is less than 10 cents/month, so maybe people would be tempted to keep money in their bank box!
After I read this letter, I looked on the internet.  Apparently Chase's change in policy did hit the news in April.  See this link.  Some people and organizations are concerned about this change.  I found this web page: http://www.infowars.com/report-jpmorganchase-bans-storage-of-cash-in-its-safety-deposit-boxes/
Paul Joseph Watson wrote an article for Alex Jones "infowars" website that the "war on cash" continues, and attributes it to the banking industry trying to get away from handling cash.  It doesn't seem like anyone else is concerned.  Apparently there is an obscure law that prohibits taking cash out of "circulation" --which is interpreted as putting cash into a safe deposit box.  I suppose the Feds could prosecute someone for putting currency in a safe deposit box.  But according to this Marketplace Report, 80% of US Currency is in $100 bills, at least 30% of that is outside the country, and the US ships overseas pallets of $100 bills, each worth $64 million--sounds like moving a lot of cash outside of US circulation, doesn't it?  .
I'm very suspicious that this change in policy may be coming from our Government's war on individual privacy.  Could this change have been part of the Government's settlement with Chase for their part in the mortgage industry meltdown?  I'll bet we will see other banks do the same thing -- probably due to Government pressure.  Government would like to be able to see every financial transaction we make at any time they want.  It makes it easier to catch bad guys, drug dealers, blackmailers, etc.  We saw in the recent Dennis Hastert case that the Government is charging him with money transfer crimes and lying about it.  Not any concern about child molestation, of course.  Government was concerned when he withdrew amounts less than the $10,000 limit for being reported.  By forcing everyone away from cash, the Government will now be able to track us much closer.  Yes, they may be able to catch criminals -- but they will also be able to know more about who we donate to for political campaigns too!  Of course the multi-millionaires like Koch Brothers will still be able to keep their donations anonymous -- but not the rest of us!

FBI Behind Mysterious Surveillance Aircraft over US Cities

This article By JACK GILLUM, EILEEN SULLIVAN and ERIC TUCKER Associated Press was in the San Diego Union Tribune reveals the huge flight of aircraft used by many of our Federal law enforcement agencies.  Apparently they use lots of "tricked out" Cessnas  and fake companies to "protect the pilots & crew."  

FBI behind mysterious surveillance aircraft over US cities | UTSanDiego.com

The fact of the planes being used doesn't surprise me!  I can picture myself in a leadership position with one of these agencies trying to do my job in "fighting crime"  I would try to use every tool possible to do the job, and would attempt to balance the cost/benefit of each technique.  I'm sure that there are a lot of crime-fighting situations where use of small aircraft with photo and electronic eavesdropping equipment would be much more effective than using agents on the ground.   The article quotes the FBI as saying that the planes weren't a "secret" -- but it is clear that the FBI wasn't telling everyone about it either!  

One reason that the FBI is flying planes rather than using drones is that their policy currently allows "piloted planes" to do the spying, while it forbids drones from doing it.  Was this a "loophole" in the rules?  Or is it intentional?  I find it difficult to understand the differences between a drone carrying cameras and listening devices relaying information back to an agency and a plane piloted by a human doing exactly the same thing. 

The flying of planes is very expensive!  Pilots are relatively expensive too!  Think of the costs involved to the taxpayer for just this FBI effort.  Now imagine these costs for border patrol, DEA, as well as State and Local police forces -- it will really add up!  The employment of so many pilots doing this may be part of the reason for the current dire shortage of pilots that is causing many of the small regional airlines and airports to have to shut down.  I'm sure pilots would much rather fly these cesna-based FBI missions than passenger flights!  I'd bet that the FBI can also offer much higher pay than the small regional airlines.  

However, drones are now starting to be used!  Drones will be much cheaper to operate, won't require licensed pilots, and will have fewer constraints.  Because they will be cheaper, I would imagine that the cessna planes and pilots will be reduced and replaced with drones.  Because drones will be less expensive, I would think that the agencies will use them even more than they do today!  What effect will that have on our privacy?  

My other concern is that I believe that most of the efforts of our FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshalls, Border Patrol, and State & Local Police involves fighting the "drug war"  -The agencies like to tout how much the "street value" is of the drugs that they confiscate -- but we NEVER hear about the total cost to the various Government agencies in order to make that arrest.