U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#251

Post by chii » Tue, Jun 26, 2018, 11:45 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #225

0xdxdt wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect application of civil forfeiture laws is one very good reason to have a digital currency. I'm not justifying its use for any illicit purposes but its pretty hard for a cryptocurrency to be seized during a traffic stop.

> its pretty hard for a cryptocurrency to be seized during a traffic stop. If one became popular, what magic would prevent it from being added to the same software they use to extract other information from phones?

The magic of memory. They can't coerce you to divulge your password for your wallet.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#252

Post by asdsa5325 » Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 12:48 AM UTC

cuckcuckspruce wrote: post #248

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The colloquial definition used by most of the US citizenry and on television news programs on both 24-hour cable networks and broadcast television. Could you be more specific?

'Liberal' in the US is associated with the expansion of the welfare state, preferring having government solve all social problems, and abridging individual freedoms if the greater good is served.

And what does that have to do with forfeiture?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#253

Post by topmonk » Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 2:36 AM UTC

beart wrote: post #167

topmonk wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're asking him to prove a negative. The onus should be on you.

Without a conclusive study, the only proven conclusion is that "large amounts of cash are sometimes seized, sometimes not". However, a study could reveal that this happens very typically, or not very typically (for some definition of typical). In either case, that is not proving a negative.

That's exactly my point. Stating that seizure is 'very typical' as fact, and if someone says you have no evidence, the retort shouldn't be "Prove it isn't."

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#254

Post by sbarre » Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 2:15 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #232

sbarre wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, shouldn't gun companies be prosecuted for the crimes committed by the drug cartels who use their weapons? Given the current state of affairs in the US and the publicly available statistics on gun crime, one could argue that continuing to manufacture guns is knowingly supplying criminals, no? It's a slippery slope..

That's absurd. The legal test is whether a reasonable person could have known that they were an accomplice to a crime. The article makes it clear that this man knew he was building these for cartels, and tried to weasel his way out by claiming he'd never seen drugs with his own eyes, but had seen almost a million in cash from some very shady guys. This would be like running a "Taxi service" that catered to Balaclava…

You were downvoted but you make a good point, and I think your example is better than mine.. Point taken.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#255

Post by koboll » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 1:27 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #241

jdpedrie wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The political gerrymandering cases decided thus far this term are a good example. Masterpiece Cake Shop was as well. The court ruled in his favor, but was able to wiggle out of resolving the constitutional questions because of explicit bias on the part of the CO Civil Rights Commission.

This is getting off topic, but: I read Masterpiece as saying that, if you're going to apply the rules against a Christian baker, you have to apply the same rules against a gay baker (CO Civil Rights ignored complaints from Christians against gay bakers who wouldn't put some Christian message on their cake). I think this is the right approach. A Christian could go to a gay baker, asking for a cake that quoted a Bible…

>My preferred answer: Put a gay baker and a Christian baker in a room. Tell them to come up with the rules. The rules will apply to both of them. Give them two hours. You'll get a reasonable proposal.

I disagree. A racist white shopkeeper and a black shopkeeper set to the same task in the 1960s would not come up with the Civil Rights Act; they would come up with something that segregated people further. I think the same would occur here.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#256

Post by lostcolony » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 3:29 PM UTC

topmonk wrote: post #238

mannykannot wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all - one can very reasonably assume that 'very frequently' means after it has been discovered during a traffic stop, in which case it is valid to ask how often djrogers has been in that situation.

His main point was we don't have enough data for the 'very typically' label. To prove this, you need some sort of data. Instead lostcolony was asking for evidence that this is not the case, implying that we should accept 'very typically' with no evidence, and expect proof of absence to change our minds.

Actually, no, I wasn't asking for evidence that this was not the case. I was asking for why we should treat djrogers' personal experience as evidence for why it isn't 'very typical'. Does his personal experience even match the criteria smrtinsert implied? And even if it does, why should we consider it, giving how few data points it is, of such poor sampling quality (given a single subject).

I was asserting nothing about how typical seizure is or isn't, just how poor djrogers' supplied anecdotal data was.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#257

Post by lostcolony » Thu, Jun 28, 2018, 3:31 PM UTC

topmonk wrote: post #253

beart wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without a conclusive study, the only proven conclusion is that "large amounts of cash are sometimes seized, sometimes not". However, a study could reveal that this happens very typically, or not very typically (for some definition of typical). In either case, that is not proving a negative.

That's exactly my point. Stating that seizure is 'very typical' as fact, and if someone says you have no evidence, the retort shouldn't be "Prove it isn't."

No one said I had no evidence (the original statement for this subthread wasn't mine), and my retort wasn't "prove it isn't", but "your supplied anecdotal data is not actually helpful".

I totally agree the original post to this subthread supplied no data. That's obvious. But to counter it with badly qualified anecdotal evidence does nothing to actually counter it.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case

#258

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 30, 2018, 12:23 AM UTC

lostcolony wrote: post #257

topmonk wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly my point. Stating that seizure is 'very typical' as fact, and if someone says you have no evidence, the retort shouldn't be "Prove it isn't."

No one said I had no evidence (the original statement for this subthread wasn't mine), and my retort wasn't "prove it isn't", but "your supplied anecdotal data is not actually helpful". I totally agree the original post to this subthread supplied no data. That's obvious. But to counter it with badly qualified anecdotal evidence does nothing to actually counter it.

[deleted]