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

TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 200 posts

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#141

Post by version_five »

godelski wrote: post #128
version_five wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a sort of "war on the poor" going on (or escalating really). Not specifically organized, but pushing into areas that have an outsized impact on the poor and finding no resistance because they don't push back. Think of most consumer facing environmental laws (emissions, charge for bags, bike lanes etc), car seat laws, health stuff - like basically any covid rule, it's all super regressive. I think the…

> Not specifically organized, but pushing into areas that have an outsized impact on the poor and finding no resistance because they don't push back. I would definitely call this emergence[0]. For example the IRS has been known to push more against poor people than rich people because it is simply easier. That isn't IRS officials taking the stance "fuck poor people" but rather that it is extremely frustrating to go a…

I definitely agree with you that most of what looks like deliberate planning in complex systems is emergent behavior. Deliberate planning (in complex systems I mean) can usually be recognized because of how poorly it works.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#142

Post by hakfoo »

mywittyname wrote: post #57
dangus wrote: post #42

Let's step back and pretend like the TSA/police never engage in civil asset forfeiture in the first place. That issue aside, this is still a colossally stupid way to make a transaction. A thousand bad outcomes that are possibly more likely than this scenario could have happened. The bag could have been lost in the taxi, lost by the airline, stolen by a passerby, left at home, and the list goes on. Has this guy ever h…

People trust cash. A lot of people dealing in used goods only accept cash. It's substantially more difficult to forge a load of $100s than it is to forge a money order. All you need to verify a stack of $100 bills is a $5 marker.

I collect coins. Many dealers are cash-only, especially for items where they're trading near bullion value. The 3% or so transaction fee is pretty much your entire margin if you're dealing with a commodity 1oz gold coin.

I've been hoping to go to one of the big national-attraction bourses after the Covid crisis ends (all the budget not spent on vacations in 2020 and 2021 would pay for a nice $3 gold piece) but I've been thinking about this exact scenario.

I've noticed my bank, despite being a large national bank, has a habit of not having branches in the places I want to visit. So there's a fair chance I can't just do an in-person withdrawl on arrival. The ATM is limited to like $500 per day and might incur distasteful fees. So the obvious idea is to pull $5000 before I leave and carry it on my person. Except now I've got to worry about the TSA grabbing it. Since we have no large notes anymore, trying to pack fifty Franklins in my wallet is going to be pretty obvious when you put it in the little X-ray bowl.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#143

Post by kelnos »

romwell wrote: post #93
gamblor956 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil asset forfeiture is an extralegal action. This is categorically wrong . CAF is outside of the criminal legal system, but is very much part of the civil legal system, and the governments loses CAF cases more often than they win them in CAF cases preceding or not involving related criminal cases. (But conversely, the governments almost always win CAF cases that occur after succesful criminal cases involving drugs…

>CAF cases make the news when the victim doesn't get their money back in a timely fashion, for the same reason that fires and earthquakes do: because that's not the normal state of things. Yeah, and we have an awful lot of news like that. >The OP asserted that CAF was extralegal, and it absolutely is not. In practice , there have been enough cases to justify saying that. We live in a country where the authorities can…

I think you're conflating ethics/morals with legality. Something that is legal, by definition, is not extralegal. Civil asset forfeiture is legal, and is therefore not extralegal.

> We live in a country where the authorities can confiscate cash when they see it without reason and consequence. That, to my eyes, is extralegal.

No, it's not, because it is, unfortunately, legal. "Your eyes" aren't really relevant here; the law is what matters.

> Whether the law gives them this de-facto power is beside the point

No it's not; "legal" and "extralegal" mean specific things. You can't just redefine them to mean whatever you want.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#144

Post by em-bee »

biztos wrote: post #129
bserge wrote: post #7

Can't get paid more than 1500 in cash in France. 2000 Pounds is "a lot of money" to exchange in the UK. The limits are suspiciously higher if you're well dressed and stepping out of an expensive car or moving millions. Tells you how pathetically poor the poor really are.

Meanwhile, in the eastern parts of the EU, it’s totally common to transact tens of thousands of Euros in cash, with lawyers preparing the contracts and observing the counting of the cash, especially for real estate. Less common but not exactly rare in Spain, I would assume also Greece and Portugal. Can’t comment of France but in Germany it would be really weird, though probably legal.

there is a tv show in germany where people are selling rare art-works to dealers which routinely hand over 10000-20000 euro in cash. still unusual, but it's definitely happening.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#145

Post by kelnos »

dragonwriter wrote: post #115
treeman79 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a girl lists you as the parent on the birth certificate, some places will require you to make child support payments even if you prove that your not the father, never had anything todo with the child, etc. Welfare office Argument being is that someone should pay for the kid.

> If a girl lists you as the parent on the birth certificate, some places will require you to make child support payments even if you prove that your not the father, never had anything todo with the child, etc. “Some places”? Really, which exactly? The only case I am aware of in any US jurisdiction where child support is required even in the face of proof of biological non-paternity is for children born in wedlock (s…

That's... still pretty terrible.

Let me see if I have this right. A man and woman marry. The woman cheats on the man and gets pregnant, but lies about it and passes the kid off as the husband's child. After the birth, husband is suspicious, gets a paternity test, finds out he's not the father, and divorces the mother. And yet the now-ex-husband is still required to pay for child support?

If that's a thing that happens, that's genuinely awful. That is not something I (or anyone?) would want to legally sign up for; presumably people in those jurisdictions get married without knowing about this.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#146

Post by lolwut09883 »

q1w2 wrote: post #135
hapless wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Surrender your cash & no investigation" is pretty plainly an extra-legal demand -- a civil asset forfeiture process was the threat in that discussion! The officer's preferred option was that the money was seized without any investigation, without any process at all, via the victim "voluntarily" surrendering it. I don't care who was planning to pocket the money, specifically. The end beneficiary is not the primary pr…

> "Surrender your cash & no investigation" is pretty plainly an extra-legal demand No. Your big assumption here is that that seize wouldn't have also been done under Asset Forfeiture rules. It was used as a threat to try to get a suspect to confess to a crime. Remember that officers can lie during interrogations. > I don't care who was planning to pocket the money, specifically. Well that's what makes it legal or not…

Yeah, fuck that guy for expecting the laws to line up with not stealing peoples shit with a badge.

Doesn’t he know what isn’t illegal is just fine for America and the people who chose to be there?

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#147

Post by lolwut09883 »

q1w2 wrote: post #137
8note wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uncontested can mean two different things, either the action was right, or even if it's wrong, you won't get your stuff back. Also, you can't skip work to go contest it because you won't be able to pay your bills. I'd guess that one covers most cases and that police target people who can't afford to take time off to go to court

You have to show up to court to defend yourself. This is an unfortunate reality of the world. ...but poor folks working hourly jobs that cannot schedule a day off - are not usually the people having tens of thousands of dollars in cash seized.

When someone steals your cash and makes you go to court to beg for it back, I think that might make a significant difference in your rich/poor status, huh?

Perhaps you can finish that thought with some compassion, and agree that this is a stupid system?

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#148

Post by lolwut09883 »

kelnos wrote: post #143
romwell wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>CAF cases make the news when the victim doesn't get their money back in a timely fashion, for the same reason that fires and earthquakes do: because that's not the normal state of things. Yeah, and we have an awful lot of news like that. >The OP asserted that CAF was extralegal, and it absolutely is not. In practice , there have been enough cases to justify saying that. We live in a country where the authorities can…

I think you're conflating ethics/morals with legality. Something that is legal, by definition, is not extralegal. Civil asset forfeiture is legal, and is therefore not extralegal. > We live in a country where the authorities can confiscate cash when they see it without reason and consequence. That, to my eyes, is extralegal. No, it's not, because it is, unfortunately, legal. "Your eyes" aren't really relevant here; t…

I think you’re conflating the systems outcomes with the systems intents, and you think if we made the system with good intent, the outcomes cannot be questioned.

But in reality, the system is poorly constructed, and often co-opted by bad actors in law enforcement. All apples in that barrel are bad, when they’re strong arming money from people, wouldn’t you agree?

If this was a story about China, I bet your little angry dick would be shuddering with rage, wouldn’t it?

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#149

Post by lupire »

hapless wrote: post #99
gamblor956 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil asset forfeiture is an extralegal action. This is categorically wrong . CAF is outside of the criminal legal system, but is very much part of the civil legal system, and the governments loses CAF cases more often than they win them in CAF cases preceding or not involving related criminal cases. (But conversely, the governments almost always win CAF cases that occur after succesful criminal cases involving drugs…

In the incident described in the local news story, an officer of the law demanded the money extra-legally, and only resorted to civil asset forfeiture after the victim refused to play along. I think it's important to note that it began with an extra-legal demand, no matter the legal substance of the procedure that followed. Civil asset forfeiture proceeds in the USA are already a larger amount than substantially all…

> Civil asset forfeiture proceeds in the USA are already a larger amount than substantially all losses to property crimes combined, a

No it's not. Civil AND Criminal forfeiture is, including Bernie Madoff's stolen $billions.

Re: TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

#150

Post by lupire »

q1w2 wrote: post #137
8note wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uncontested can mean two different things, either the action was right, or even if it's wrong, you won't get your stuff back. Also, you can't skip work to go contest it because you won't be able to pay your bills. I'd guess that one covers most cases and that police target people who can't afford to take time off to go to court

You have to show up to court to defend yourself. This is an unfortunate reality of the world. ...but poor folks working hourly jobs that cannot schedule a day off - are not usually the people having tens of thousands of dollars in cash seized.

Poor people can save up to buy an inexpensive car.
Post reply on HN