Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or on prepaid cards • Hacker News Board

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

#471

Post by djrogers » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 3:50 PM UTC

hackaflocka wrote: post #329

dragonwriter wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not a particularly surprising choice of examples for a Republican politician upset about the practice that wants to highlight targeted groups to whom his constituency is likely to be sympathetic.

I agree 100%. Still, one group (single moms) is generally despised by them, and the other is favored.

> generally despised by them

That's a ridiculous statement. My church (both as an organization and the people in it) gives tons of money to single moms for everything from subsistence to fully paid Disneyland vacations. We run a volunteer group that does things like yard work, handyman work, and moving for single moms. The most visible charity outside a church in my city is for single moms. There are single moms who work in important positions at my church. The bible specifically points out on many occasions that those who follow Christ should show love and compassion to people such as single moms as Christ would.

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

#472

Post by CamperBob2 » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #455

CamperBob2 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes to the state after due process. That's not what's being described here.

There is due process for civil asset forfeiture.

There's a process, but it's not "due" to anything but avarice and corruption.

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

#473

Post by djrogers » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

deciplex wrote: post #406

tajen wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Don't fall for the trap of believing civil rights and due process are something only law-abiding citizens deserve. At this point in America enough people think that if you're accused of a crime basically from that point forward any "rights" you may enjoy are solely at the indulgence of society / the criminal justice system and can be (and, often, should be ) taken away at any time. Unless it's really obvious you're i…

> At this point in America enough people think that if you're accused of a crime basically from that point forward any "rights" you may enjoy are solely at the indulgence of society / the criminal justice system

I don't actually know any individuals in the US that believe this - the problem is that our government is so far out of our reach these days we can't effect significant change by simply voting for one of the two similar parties.

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

#474

Post by Shivetya » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 3:56 PM UTC

snuxoll wrote: post #183

tremon wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, when I'm pulled over, I definitely want my phone to be recording audio.

Agreed. Opening the settings and disabling the fingerprint scanner would be easier and allow you to still use the device to record audio.

would be better to have an app that does it so you don't need to fumble through settings

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

#475

Post by arca_vorago » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

hnal943 wrote: post #469

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.

Ridiculous. The reason the Bill of Rights was not included in the constitution proper is that the enumerated powers clause states that the federal government is assumed to have no authority other than that explicitly granted to it. The Federalists were concerned that as soon as you started listing rights that were specifically protected, people would get the idea that those were the ONLY rights protected, which was c…

I wish I could upvote you more than once. This is an important factor that during the foundation of our country that seems to be playing out in real time in our modern times, and it's a discussion that needs to be had.

The government needs to be reminded the people are what give it any legitimacy in the first place, and such blatant unconstitutionality needs to be prosecuted and denounced loudly and publicly.

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

#476

Post by djrogers » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 4:02 PM UTC

barsonme wrote: post #294

harryh wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the police catch a person running away from a recently robbed bank holding a bag of money do you think they should have to convict the person before taking back the money? If there is reason to believe that someone is in possession of property that doesn't belong to them it seems perfectly reasonable for the police to confiscate said property.

I don't think the argument is "police shouldn't confiscate [stolen] property from somebody they're detaining because of suspicion the individual has committed a crime", it's "police should not take property unrelated to the crime and, in the event the individual is cleared of any wrongdoing, return _all_ property", the latter of which isn't happening. If it turns out the guy running away from the bank just likes jogg…

> police should not take property unrelated to the crime

How about "police should not take property where no crime is known to have been committed"

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

#477

Post by djrogers » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 4:13 PM UTC

maxaf wrote: post #14

This can't possibly be legal or even technically feasible. The victim can call her bank and report a fraudulent transaction, which pits the bank against a warrantless seizure that's impossible to defend in court. Surely banks can catch on and frontload an "identity protection" mechanism that'll simply block transactions from anything matching "ERAD" or however they identify themselves to the ACH. It's doubtful that l…

> The victim can call her bank and report a fraudulent transaction

This only works to seize the funds on prepaid cards, not bank accounts.

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

#478

Post by incongruity » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 4:18 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #456

incongruity wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where else would it go? A disinterested third party - not the police department that had the power to confiscate it. The state or a specific public good - i.e.: housing/food banks etc. could work.

I do agree with this actually. Rather that going straight to law enforcement budgets the money should go to the general coffers to be allocated by the legislature.

I'd rather see it directed, specifically, to needed public goods. Otherwise it becomes just another generic revenue source (i.e.: a tax) and, over-time, it becomes all too tempting to still milk it for more money. Red light cameras are a good example of this. Revenues from them (in Chicago, at least) went to the city's general fund. That didn't stop the city from reducing yellow light times to increase revenues.

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

#479

Post by djrogers » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 4:21 PM UTC

sundvor wrote: post #322

As a Norwegian/Australian, I'm just shaking my head reading this. Sorry, I have nothing but reactionary drivel to add - but I wouldn't be surprised if this was to further (if that's even possible) increase US gun violence. For personal protection against robbery. This now appears as a marginally valid reason for your gun ownership; if they're going to take all your assets on a whim, leaving you with nothing to fend f…

> "no handout" US

Roughly $2trillion of the nation's $3.8trillion spending in the 2015 [1] budget was healthcare, social security, food assistance, and unemployment. This doesn't include any of the substantial spending on welfare and 'handouts' as you call them by state and local governments.

The problem isn't that we aren't willing to redistribute money, the problem is that the politicians do a crap job of it, and do it in ways that often seem specifically designed to keep the poor people poor.

[1] https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/budget-graphic....

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

#480

Post by geggam » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 4:25 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #452

facetube wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depriving someone of their property – even temporarily – and forcing them to spend otherwise profitable time making a claim to get it back is a form of damage. What you're proposing would allow agents of the government to damage people as frequently as they wanted, with impunity.

You realize you can be arrested and held in jail before a trial right? That's exactly same thing as confiscating assets pending a trial.

only for a short period of time before getting to address a judge