Earlier quoted context omitted.
Time to lookup ERAD Inc. online. Fun times ahead!
I'm already spinning up a comprehensive FOIA request with MuckRock.com. Feel free to reply to my comment if anyone would like to collaborate.
Thank you for this
Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards
121–130 of 517 posts
Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, sure, let's turn that into a war between ourselves instead of demanding better legislation and more transparency from governments. Blacklisting individuals isn't going to solve any problem whatsoever and we run the risk of alienating a whole bunch of people who will then might go out and do even worst things than writing software for questionable companies. We need laws that prevent those things. That's the onl…
> let's turn that into a war between ourselves instead of demanding better legislation and more transparency from governments The government is made up of it's constituents, we should absolutely blacklist those people to let them know we are not OK with this. You'll never get more transparency from the government, it's not in their best interest to do that, nor is it for them to implement 'better' legislation. Ideall…
The government is made up of it's constituents [..] You'll never get more transparency from the government, it's not in their best interest
I don't think you meant what you wrote there. You're saying government transparency is not in the best interest of its citizens?
Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards
#123Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards
#124From Article: "If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," Vincent said about any money seized. Under no circumstance should i have to PROVE where my money came from nor how i got it. this is assumed guilt and utterly unamerican IMO. Where is the burden of proof that must be reached before taking my assets and forcing me to prov…
> Where is the burden of proof that must be reached before taking my assets
But... that would make police less productive.
Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards
#125Thus begins a new round of escalation and avoidance - cash is seized? No longer carry it. Credit Cards maxed? Keep it in a separate account and load only as required. In an account but you can direct funds from your phone? Hand that over. At some point you just rely on biometrics for every transaction, it turns into an automated shakedown scheme or you just learn to avoid the state of Oklahoma.
What do you think will happen if you're arrested with a thumbprint lock on your phone? They may not be able to force you to recite your password (at least without lengthy legal proceedings beforehand), but they can certainly grab your finger and use it to unlock the device. They may not be able to do this if you've only been detained, but I wouldn't chance it.
when you are pulled over you turn the phone OFF.
Its simple and its fast.
Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards
#126From Article: "If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," Vincent said about any money seized. Under no circumstance should i have to PROVE where my money came from nor how i got it. this is assumed guilt and utterly unamerican IMO. Where is the burden of proof that must be reached before taking my assets and forcing me to prov…
Asset seizure, under the same conditions, happens in many states.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591250
And many more stories ...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=asset+seizure+site%3Aycombinator.c...
Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards
#127From Article: "If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," Vincent said about any money seized. Under no circumstance should i have to PROVE where my money came from nor how i got it. this is assumed guilt and utterly unamerican IMO. Where is the burden of proof that must be reached before taking my assets and forcing me to prov…
> Under no circumstance should i have to PROVE where my money came from
That's language is too vague to mean much: Are you saying this is illegal, or are you saying it is unconstitutional, or are you saying it is immoral?
Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, sure, let's turn that into a war between ourselves instead of demanding better legislation and more transparency from governments. Blacklisting individuals isn't going to solve any problem whatsoever and we run the risk of alienating a whole bunch of people who will then might go out and do even worst things than writing software for questionable companies. We need laws that prevent those things. That's the onl…
The laws you're talking about will never occur if the people making those laws are non-technical. As an industry we need to self-regulate, and have our self-regulation have the weight of law behind it. This system works fairly well, for example, in the medical profession, where you can lose your license to practice medicine based on principles set forth by other doctors.
That's essentially an argument for a professional licensure system for software development.
Setting aside that professional licensure requirements are anathema to the spirit of the hacker movement, they would likely have prevented the creation of a massive pool of technology companies, including Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook. Even that proposal would stifle innovation.
However, what's being suggested by the OP is not even a professional licensure system.
It's mob justice.
The difference is that professional licensure organizations follow fixed sets of rules, procedures, and principles. These rules are established, agreed upon, and promulgated in advance of enforcement. Most importantly, the procedures generally allow for the basics of due process.
Mob justice has no set of fixed procedure, and no assurance of due process. Its enforcement is governed by caprice, and subject to a set of arbitrary, inconsistent, and constantly shifting "rules."
The OP is proposing an arbitrarily enforced "refusal to hire" policy people from an ill-defined set of "undesirable" companies.
First, there are no rules for establishing which companies are undesirable.
What fields of technology exactly are undesirable? And exactly how closely did an engineer have to be involved with such technology?
Second, many companies develop "dual use" technology, which has both civilian and military uses. This includes manufacturers of everything from CPUs to jet engines. Is the designer of a gyroscope used on spacecraft and on missiles banished from our ranks?
Third, many of these companies are also huge conglomerates. GE makes jet engines, as well as washers and dryers.
Where do we draw the line?
Should a GE employee be blacklisted under this "system"? One from Intel? How about Facebook for taking money from the CIA? Google for Boston Dynamics?
Most importantly, who decides, and how?
If it's determined by whim and popularity, as proposed by the OP, then I want absolutely no part of it.
Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards
#129From Article: "If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," Vincent said about any money seized. Under no circumstance should i have to PROVE where my money came from nor how i got it. this is assumed guilt and utterly unamerican IMO. Where is the burden of proof that must be reached before taking my assets and forcing me to prov…
Why would you say it's 'unamerican'? Your police force does similar things in almost every state don't they?
Because of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing?
Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed: "We've seen single mom's stuff be taken, a cancer survivor his drugs taken, we saw a Christian band being taken. We've seen innocent people's stuff being taken. We've seen where the money goes and how it's been misspent," Loveless said. It boggles the mind that this doesn't violate due process.
The despicable logic they use is that they're not charging the person with a crime (because people have due process rights), they're charging an inanimate object, the money, the car, etc. Property doesn't have due process rights, apparently. Seriously. If you look at the court cases for asset forfeitures, it is titled "The State of Oklahoma vs $1,534.32 in cash" or "Iowa vs 2014 Mercedes".
> Property doesn't have due process rights,
Apparently, property doesn't really belong to us.