Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

news9.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 517 posts

Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

#301

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

tajen wrote: post #278
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #74

Symptom of a bigger problem: nobody in the criminal justice system is punished for making the wrong move. There is no law enforcement downside to civil asset forfeiture. Officer-involved shootings are discouraged from prosecution or otherwise involve highly-paid "expert" witnesses saying the officer had no other choice - at taxpayer expense. Prosecutors are valued by the number of wins, not by how many innocent peopl…

Bonus question: In countries that are still exempt from highway police robbery such as in Europe, what can we do to avoid gliding towards it? Isn't HPR a natural evolution of the increased number of police agents after massive terrorist attacks, like the two we've just had in France?

Simple: pay for things you need.

Over the last few decades the American people have been conned into this idea that government is fundamentally too big and needs to be shrunk because of reasons. People save a few measly percentage points on taxes that help pay for the axle damage on their car after being driven over roads that are no longer repaired.

Municipalities had to find ways to recoup costs from slashed state and federal budgets, which is why there is such a big problem in poor, mostly black American cities, as people are pulled over and fined up the ass for every possible infraction just so the city can afford itself.

This kind of crap has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with fiscal irresponsibility.

Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

#302

Post by tremon »

facetube wrote: post #220
50CNT wrote: post #32

That is physically revolting. First you have civil-asset forfeiture that let's police seize money from you when you are carrying large amounts of cash (with a generous false positive rate potentially disastrous to victims). Now to get around that, you could try handling everything by card or bank transaction (unless you're one of the unfortunate few without access to a bank account due to low credit rating or other l…

A whole lot is wrong. I was born here and love the country, but increasingly fear for my safety and well-being: our employer pays nearly $20,000 per year for NHS-equivalent health insurance (two adults, no children), basic prescriptions cause multi-month fights due to claim denials on drugs my doctor instructed me to take, patent trolling is endemic and a real threat to small bootstrapped companies, a pathological li…

not sure where to go from here.

North?

Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

#304

Post by iaw »

zrail wrote: post #203
imroot wrote: post #153

This is a copy of the contract that the OHP with ERAD Group: http://oklahomawatch.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/E... Highlights: * ERAD is taking 7.7% of all funds seized. * Anywhere between 9.95 and 14.95 per each virtual terminal used to scan for the funds. * $1000-ish per physical terminal used.

Searching for "debit" brings up this: > In addition to presenting the value associated with a card, the terminal will read other card types such as credit and debit cards. While no value can be provided, the terminal will display a “card not supported” message to alert the trooper that this is not a prepaid card. The trooper can then compare the four digits displayed on the terminal with the last four digits shown on…

Thank you. This is the piece of information I was looking for. Essentially they will drain any prepaid cards while validating credit and debits. This makes the 'fraud reversal' technique mentioned elsewhere in this thread infeasible, as to my knowledge you can't do a reversal on prepaid cards.

Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

#306

Post by kpil »

eonw wrote: post #102
brbsix wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always wondered about the people engineering devices like this, the people at Harris Corp. creating Stingrays and other surveillance platforms, how they feel about their work. Listing individual employees might be a bit much, but we could certainly create one of companies involved. Unfortunately I fear it would be a long list.

im sure their most important hiring aspect is a certain mindset. once you get someone truly believing they are working on the side of good, they will do just about anything. zealotry is alive and well.

I'm sure Stingrays catches a lot of bad guys.

The problem is if the police is corrupted and are using it outside the law, or not by the intention of the law.

(As this civil case nonsense)

Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

#307

Post by morgante »

int_19h wrote: post #293
konradb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can prove can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money Exactly, why is it not incumbent upon them to prove that you have gained that money through illegitimate means?

Because this being a civil case, the legal standard is "balance of probabilities". In other words, if they can give a convincing explanation of how your money is likely to be tied to some criminal activity, so long as it's "more likely to be true than not true", they win - unless you offer a convincing rebuttal to make it less likely.

Here's the part which I don't understand: if it's a civil case, why do they get to seize the property before proving anything?

If I open a civil proceeding against you, I can try to prove that you owe me $5k and if I prove that to the appropriate standard you can be compelled to provide me with $5k. I can't hack your bank account, withdraw $5k, and then open a civil proceeding to retroactively legitimize my robbery.

The whole system is a massive violation of due process, no matter what legalese you try to use to justify it. If you're allowed to take people's property and then retroactively sue them if they complain, what is even the point of having the Fifth Amendment?

Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

#308

Post by phkahler »

jdavis703 wrote: post #299
Digit-Al wrote: post #255

As an Englishman, I have a couple of questions for you Americans on here. 1) Does anyone know who came up with these "civil asset forfeitures"? (Personally, they seem most un-civil to me.) 2) Can any of you defend America as "the land of the free" when more of the population are in prison than in almost any other country in the word and the police not only have the power to strip you of your property and assets witho…

It's never been "a land of the free." The original constitution didn't even include the bill of rights because it can't be easily reconciled with slavery. EDIT: I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. If you think it is wrong at least state why it is wrong.

" The original constitution didn't even include the bill of rights..."

I've heard this before and it's complete bullshit. The constitution as originally ratified by all the colonies included the bill of rights. Sure, there were many drafts and prior versions that didn't include it, but it has been there since its release. If you use that logic, the original was a blank sheet of paper and didn't include anything.

Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

#309

Post by dragonwriter »

phkahler wrote: post #308
jdavis703 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's never been "a land of the free." The original constitution didn't even include the bill of rights because it can't be easily reconciled with slavery. EDIT: I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. If you think it is wrong at least state why it is wrong.

" The original constitution didn't even include the bill of rights..." I've heard this before and it's complete bullshit. The constitution as originally ratified by all the colonies included the bill of rights. Sure, there were many drafts and prior versions that didn't include it, but it has been there since its release. If you use that logic, the original was a blank sheet of paper and didn't include anything.

> > "" The original constitution didn't even include the bill of rights..."

> I've heard this before and it's complete bullshit.

Well, except for the part where its completely true.

> The constitution as originally ratified by all the colonies included the bill of rights.

No, it didn't. The Constitution, without amendments, was ratified in 1788. The 12-amendment Bill of Rights was passed by Congress and submitted to the States for ratification in 1789. Of those 12 amendments, the last 10 were ratified in 1791 and became Amendments 1-10 to the Constitution (what is popularly now known as the "Bill of Rights"), while the second was ratified in 1992 and became Amendment 27, and the first is, technically, still pending and open for ratification.

Re: Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards

#310

Post by daveloyall »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #95
redditplebs wrote: post #93

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.

With luck, you'll get in touch with me on the right afternoon, and I'll immediately put plenty of energy into this.
Post reply on HN