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

The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 130 posts

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#31

Post by wjnc »

delichon wrote: post #2

About two years post-seizure, the bureau returned Martin's money—shortly after she filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit. But while the bureau may have hoped that would persuade her to drop it, she has continued with her suit, which was back in court last week and seeks a ruling that will prevent the FBI from proceeding with others as it did with her. Hero.

I've listened to a series of podcasts (More Perfect) where it became clear to me that in the US to get lawsuits go all the way to the Supreme Court, you need both a case (de jure) and a plaintiff that is marketable. This is not a diss on Linda Martin. Going forward with this case in a attempt to get civil forfeiture more constrained after getting your money back is heroic. Just saying that the US legal system needs heroes and that there is a selection mechanism in place for heroes.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#32

Post by egorfine »

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a sort of bank or a financial system where money couldn’t be moved without the owner’s explicit permission? Like, at all. Perhaps the rules could be enforced with code, and with digital signatures required for any ledger changes. Would be nice if it were globally distributed in a p2p fashion with no government having a say.

If only such a system existed.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#33

Post by yakz »

egorfine wrote: post #32

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a sort of bank or a financial system where money couldn’t be moved without the owner’s explicit permission? Like, at all. Perhaps the rules could be enforced with code, and with digital signatures required for any ledger changes. Would be nice if it were globally distributed in a p2p fashion with no government having a say. If only such a system existed.

The rules would be enforced with a gun, same as they are now.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#34

Post by harimau777 »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #17
lupusreal wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed traps are frequently paired with abrupt and arbitrary changes to the speed limit which exist for the purpose of the speed trap. People who go fast through those are technically breaking the law, but morally they're doing nothing wrong (unless you're the kind of servile worm who derives morality from the law.)

I've never seen any strong evidence for this (only a handful of anecdotes), and my personal experience driving doesn't match. I saw speed traps all the time and don't remember a single one that was associated with a speed limit change. Additionally, even if the speed limit is changed, assuming there is appropriate signage it is your responsibility to follow the speed limit.

>> Additionally, even if the speed limit is changed, assuming there is appropriate signage it is your responsibility to follow the speed limit.

That's not how driving actually works in practice. Most of the time drivers rely on a learned sense of what the standard speed limit is based on the type of road. E.g. highways are 65 - 70, major roads are about 55, neighborhoods are 25 - 35, etc. When I learned to drive, the state's drivers manual literally had a section on what speed limit you should assume on different types of road if you haven't seen a sign.

That's to say nothing of situations where the sign is actually hidden. For example, I was once pulled over on a road that abruptly dropped more than 25 mph, on a significant downward slope, where a tree was growing in front of the speed limit sign.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#35

Post by potato3732842 »

brabel wrote: post #28
potato3732842 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current civil engineering best practices is that if a sufficient amount of traffic is violating the limit the limit is what's wrong. Several states use methods consistent with this to set their speed limits generally. Many do not. Regardless, this is a distraction. Law is the codification of acceptable behavior. Rules that come with force of law should not substantially deviate from what average people consider accep…

> Law is the codification of acceptable behavior. Good luck lobbying the town to change the speed limit. They don't care what you think about the limit, if you drive past that speed you'll have to pay. And just to rant a bit: as someone who lives on a too-straight street (but very local and with pedestrians, including, children, walking on often) where dickheads constantly drive well past the limit because they proba…

>And just to rant a bit: as someone who lives on a too-straight street (but very local and with pedestrians, including, children, walking on often) where dickheads constantly drive well past the limit because they probably think they know best what's "acceptable", I would love them to get hefty fines every time they did it.

Once again, you're doing a great job illustrating how we got to the status quo we have. You're littering in the park, ideologically speaking. You want heavy handed enforcement on your pet issue. Like litter it's not a problem a a few people do it but when you multiply by every other shortsighted person who does the same and the end result is the political will to allow law enforcement to get away with beyond the pale behavior like in TFA.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#36

Post by harimau777 »

egorfine wrote: post #32

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a sort of bank or a financial system where money couldn’t be moved without the owner’s explicit permission? Like, at all. Perhaps the rules could be enforced with code, and with digital signatures required for any ledger changes. Would be nice if it were globally distributed in a p2p fashion with no government having a say. If only such a system existed.

That works great until the user's explicit permission is coerced or scammed out of them. In those situations it's nice to have the protections of a conventional financial system.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#37

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

potato3732842 wrote: post #8
ajb wrote: post #6

Seizures allowed to be kept by the organisation doing the seizing is a terrible incentive. In other countries, seizures go to general revenue, which means that the incentive to do it is diluted enormously. This is especially a problem with small police forces, or small polities where fines become a large proportion of revenue. You'd think that for the FBI the incentive would be diluted, given how huge they are, but m…

General revenue is barely better. It's probably worse in many cases becase the elected part of the government can ask the thugs to seize harder to keep money coming in and then kick it back to them in the form of resource allocation or preferential treatment. That's how every speed trap town operates The only solution is to let the petty drug dealers get away with their cars and let the mob bosses get away with their…

Why not have the revenue go to victims of crime? Setup a general fund so that judges can allocate recovered funds to help the worst affected.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#38

Post by peterlada »

delichon wrote: post #2

About two years post-seizure, the bureau returned Martin's money—shortly after she filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit. But while the bureau may have hoped that would persuade her to drop it, she has continued with her suit, which was back in court last week and seeks a ruling that will prevent the FBI from proceeding with others as it did with her. Hero.

Wasn't this a story broke by Politico?

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#39

Post by inglor_cz »

tsimionescu wrote: post #24
cmeacham98 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen any strong evidence for this (only a handful of anecdotes), and my personal experience driving doesn't match. I saw speed traps all the time and don't remember a single one that was associated with a speed limit change. Additionally, even if the speed limit is changed, assuming there is appropriate signage it is your responsibility to follow the speed limit.

> Additionally, even if the speed limit is changed, assuming there is appropriate signage it is your responsibility to follow the speed limit. Legally, of course. But there is such a thing as an artificially low speed limit. If the road conditions allow driving in safety at 60 km/h but a town installs a sign that says that you have to drive at 10 km/h, with no pedestrian traffic or bends or anything at all that could…

In Czechia, the maximal jump between two signs is, AFAIK, 30 km/h, so as not to require abrupt braking.

Re: The FBI Seized This Woman's Life Savings–Without Telling Her Why

#40

Post by inglor_cz »

devilbunny wrote: post #29
cmeacham98 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen any strong evidence for this (only a handful of anecdotes), and my personal experience driving doesn't match. I saw speed traps all the time and don't remember a single one that was associated with a speed limit change. Additionally, even if the speed limit is changed, assuming there is appropriate signage it is your responsibility to follow the speed limit.

Then it wasn’t a speed trap. Just running radar is not a speed trap, it’s enforcement. Speed traps are as described by others: abrupt, significant changes in speed limit with minimal warning and poorly-visible signage. Look up the story of Waldo, Florida, which for years and years did this on US 301. The town lies on the main route between Gainesville, location of the University of Florida, and Jacksonville, where it…

Large jumps should be plainly illegal, and bad visibility of signage should be a defense in the court.

This has to be legislated at the state level, though, or the municipalities will go wild in their policing for profit.

Post reply on HN