Live data from Hacker News

A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

washingtonpost.com

201–210 of 286 posts

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transferring money from China is easy via a wire. Converting RMB tO USD, on the other hand is a PITA and you won’t succeed if you don’t have the right documentation in triplicate. You can use wechat to pay for things as a foreigner if you have a resident permit, or so I here. Carrying more than $10k of cash is actually ok as long as you report it.

> xferring is easy via wire No, it's not, you cannot wire it unless the recipient is a Chinese national. > If you have a resident permit The only requirement is a Chinese phone number which requires hours in line, a visa, facial recognition scan, and passport, and the same requirements for the bank account. Once you have a Chinese bank account, you can hook it up to wechat. The only ways to fund it are via cash howev…

> No, it's not, you cannot wire it unless the recipient is a Chinese national.

I’ve wired money from my Chinese account to my overseas account plenty of times. I’m most definitely not a Chinese National. I’ve also had money wired to my Chinese account before. Still, if you don’t want to wait in line, don’t go to BOC (or ICBC).

I still have a Chinese phone number also. Passport + resident permit was good enough in my case for both account and phone number. But it could have changed since I got those a few years ago.

BOC and China mobile see the worst companies to deal with. CMB (China merchant bank) isn’t an SOE so their customer service is better. Also, Unicom is better than China Mobile for foreigners.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#202
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the vile idiot who potentially ruined an ongoing trial by broadcasting sensitive details all over facebook directly outside the court , which was widely and thoroughly reported by the UK press? I would check where you are getting your facts from.

Of course people will defend big brother, that's not especially surprising just disheartening. Meanwhile a man goes to jail for 13 months for speaking about potential child grooming, rapist gang. He was sent to jail in the period of 6 hours all during a government enforced media blackout. So what you think him vile, speaking about a public trial doesn't send any Americans to jail for 13 months. I would check where yo…

He wasn't jailed for "speaking about potential child grooming", he was jailed for jeopardising a trial. If you are speaking out against child grooming, doing so in a way that jeopardises trials is counter to your cause.

Furthermore, he had already received a suspended sentence for doing the same thing. He wasn't immediately jailed without warning.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#203
post #14

It amazes me when people think the government should be the go-to solution to society's problems. The government can indeed be used for good, and it has solved many problems, and regulations can be a good thing. But government should be applied very carefully, and probably as the last solution, after we see the failures of non-government solutions. The government is all powerful. They can destroy any business, destro…

>> The more power you give to the government, the less power the citizenry has.

Well, unless the citizenry controls the government. This is the case in some political systems, e.g. democracy.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your government currently arrests people for criticizing the government online Citation needed - I have _never_ heard of this happening. > covers up child-rape gangs Mostly local government and the police, not central government (who organised an inquiry into it). > mandates whether citizens should receive health care or die For the NHS, _maybe_, and even then it is only limiting care on the very fringes. Nothing i…

> > Your government currently arrests people for criticizing the government online > Citation needed - I have _never_ heard of this happening. A British teenager was arrested and charged for posting on Facebook that UK soldiers should go to hell.[0] [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/201...

OK, I don't agree with that, but attacking soldiers (and saying they "should DIE & go to HELL!" is somewhat more to just saying they should go to hell) is different to criticising the government - they are NOT the government, and saying they should die is far more than criticising them.

Furthermore, his final sentence is "Azhar Ahmed must do 240 hours of community service"[1]. Whilst I disagree with him being charged at all, that doesn't seem _grossly_ disproportionate.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/09/community-sentenc...

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#205
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Wrong. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... >...The only difference is they've chosen to draw the line somewhere just offset from what you're used to. There's still a line in these here United States. It looks like the US probably has the strongest free speech protections of any country in the world - that isn't a bad thing.

…right. That article bemoans the use of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" as a rhetorical device, but doesn't actually discuss the legality of such speech. (IANAL, but there exists such a thing as depraved indifference murder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder )

The ruling standard is Brandenburg v. Ohio, which draws the line at incitement to "imminent lawless action." Which is to say, you have to be rallying people to start a riot right now. Doing something that is merely provocative, such as marching a neo-Nazi parade through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors, is protected First Amendment speech.

Literally shouting fire in a crowded theater in an attempt to cause a panic and perhaps kill people, would not be protected speech, but pretty much anything less would be protected speech.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said. I guess the problem is that not enough people know that civil forfeiture is a thing yet. I'm just blown away that such a thing could ever be written into law. I think it's a pretty clear-as-day violation of our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

I guess the problem is that not enough people know that civil forfeiture is a thing yet. ...or that not enough people have experienced it yet, and probably never will. There's a lot of "it won't happen to me" thinking around this, and to be honest, how many people do take large amounts of cash with them while traveling? The fact that this item is newsworthy is enough to show that it happens rarely. I'm almost willing…

> There's a lot of "it won't happen to me" thinking around this

And probably thinking "They had a reason to do it", which I don't think has shown to be the case.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#207
post #163

What is the rationale behind civil forfeiture? Besides a convenient way to get more funds into the state pocket if you don’t like someone’s face? I first saw it in The Shield (still one of my favorite shows) and remember thinking that it looks more like some army controlled region in Africa or something than a civilized country. But yeah, so does privatising prisons.

The rationale, such as it is, is that proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is too hard, and the Constitution does not apply to civil forfeiture (civil=$$$, criminal=imprisonment). The 4th Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures) is quietly ignored.

Is the 4th Amendment ignored, or is the threshold for search (assuming "reasonable suspicion" or something similar) just lower than for (criminal) seizure?

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#208
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an outside perspective, how do you quantify, that only "Few cops and agents are bad". If your job contains robbing people, I would rationally word it the other way around. Hopefully there are quite a few cops who dont follow the rules and subvert the system of organized theft. But if you take policies like civil forfeiture or for example police union cards for family members this sounds like organized crime to qui…

Well, it's criminal, and it's organized. Classic quote from Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

[deleted]

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's truth to it, without understanding the govt's rationale about this, it looks about as un-American and un-capitalistic as it gets.... goes against the grain of who we are as a country.

Now you understand why it's so upsetting, welcome to the same page. Edit: The part that most filled me with rage; The CBP seizure notice gave the Kazazis a number of options for proceeding with the case. They could abandon the cash completely, or they could make an “offer in compromise” — letting CBP keep a certain percentage of the seized cash if it returned the rest.

I wondered about the bribery comparison above, as you aren't offering the money and aren't getting someone to do something for you, but how is that last part anything but ("If you let us keep some, we will return your money")? That whole thing seems to suggest there isn't a legitimate reason for seizing it-either they should be keeping ALL of the money, or NONE of it.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#210
post #133

Only as I get older do I realize how incredibly bad elements of law enforcement in the US can be, and legally so. Few cops and agents are bad, but it is a system with little filtering, personally or institutionally, of the bad elements. Civil asset forfeiture is overwhelmingly unpopular, but when states try to reform it the law enforcement groups rally around it mightily. Essentially they want the right to steal mone…

> it is a system with little filtering, personally or institutionally, of the bad elements Wrong. It is a system that explicitly filters out the good elements. "US Court Ruling: You Can Be “Too Smart” to Be a Cop. Police department disqualifies anyone whose IQ is “too high" ( https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-court-ruled-you-can-be-too-... ) "Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops"( https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-ba…

That's the same thing as barring someone for being overqualified, isn't it?
Post reply on HN