Slashdot Mirror


Oklahoma State Troopers Use New Device To Seize Bank Accounts During Traffic Stops (news9.com)

mi writes from a report via news9.com KWTV: KWTV writes, "You may have heard of civil asset forfeiture. That's where police can seize your property and cash without first proving you committed a crime; without a warrant and without arresting you, as long as they suspect that your property is somehow tied to a crime. Now, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money in your bank account or on prepaid cards. If a trooper suspects you may have money tied to some type of crime, the highway patrol can scan any cards you have and seize the money." But do not worry: "If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," said Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent.

621 comments

  1. HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this real?

    1. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is this real?

      No.

      The source article says specifically it lets them take the funds off of a pre-paid card. It says nothing about bank accounts, credit cards, etc.

    2. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US is a fucking nightmare man.
      As a kid I used to think that Knightrider (and K.I.T) were a joke. Why would you need single knight fighting for your rights ? In the fucking US of A of all places. A third world shithole I could understand, but the US ?

      A revolution won't fix the US anymore. What you need is complete and utter eradication of the whole system.
      Nuke it all just to be safe. And even then cockroaches will survive.

    3. Re: HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like that's much better?

    4. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, no. Remember your right-wing ideology. You have to socially elevate yourself until you're the one taking the money from the plebs. That comes from hard work and grit, son.

    5. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no. Remember your right-wing ideology. You have to socially elevate yourself until you're the one taking the money from the plebs. That comes from hard work and grit, son.

      No no no, if you're not born with a silver spoon up your _ss (think President Shrub,) you're already f_cked for life.

    6. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is this real?

      For some time police have had the power to steal cash from people if they 'suspect' that it might derive from some criminal activity, even if the suspect is not charged. If you are charged you are actually better off, because although the cash and other assets you have on you can be frozen as evidence, they can't be forfeited unless you are found guilty at trial.

      What this article references is Oklahoma testing a new electronic device, called ERAD, which can detect money hidden on prepaid cash cards in your possession. Any such funds detected can be stolen on the same pretext as your cash.

    7. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Informative

      "The source article says specifically it lets them take the funds off of a pre-paid card. It says nothing about bank accounts, credit cards, etc."

      ERAD does not transfer money from banks, but the cops can use it to scan your ATM card referncing a bank account. That means that if you get caught by Oklahoma cops in a civil forfeiture stop, immediately close any bank accounts represented by cards in your wallet and transfer them somewhere else before the cops get a signoff from some compliant local court on tapping the bank accounts they found.

    8. Re: HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And ERAD gets 7.7% of all seizures.
      Where's Timothy McVeigh when you need him?

    9. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      state abuse of private funds is typically done by left leaning governments.

    10. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The ERAD system in question here was developed for the Dept. of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate and rolled out to state and local law enforcement just last year. Obviously this was done during the Obama administration.

    11. Re: HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep telling yourself that nice comforting story while your very much right-leaning government steals your stuff arbitrarily and without oversight.

    12. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The modern system of civil forfeiture took off during the Reagan administration as part of the war on drugs. It had been used in the past, such as during prohibition, but was rarely unsed until the war on drugs started.

    13. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, no. Remember your right-wing ideology. You have to socially elevate yourself until you're the one taking the money from the plebs. That comes from hard work and grit, son.

      And I suppose you too are one who believes that Fascists were right wing too? You do realize that in 'Murica the non-left isn't necessarily "right" (because the -wing theory of politics is a French myth concocted centuries ago for propaganda of that time) and that "right" in America (as used by the left) tends to refer to those damn "you've got to be kidding me" Constitutionalists who suppose legitimacy is vested in government if, and only if, it respects the natural rights of people as, idk, the document which "Constitutes" any authority for the government at all very strongly protects by restricting the government to powers you can count on three hands? (One of which is to "ensure a Republican form of government" in every State, meaning rights-respecting and universal application of rational laws, according to the authors themselves to whom "Republican" was not some mysterious undefined quantity the Supreme Court must muse upon now and then.)

      But I know, I know, I fail: I'm trying to reason with one of your true believers.

    14. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, my primary bank account is located outside of the USA. They would have no hope of touching any of it.

    15. Re: HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Right wingers are for PRIVATE theft of private funds.

    16. Re: HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riiiiight, that notoriously bleeding heart liberal state of OKLAHOMA.

    17. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Then what's the point of having the device? If they're prepaid cards, they can be seized (though it shouldn't be allowed) the same way cash is. By hand.

    18. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Don't you idiots ever get it? It's not really a two party system. Every time it comes to something truly fucked like this it gets bi-partisan support. Abortion and gun control are the smoke and mirrors that confuse you peasants and keeps you focused on fighting each other while the elite motherfuckers that pull the strings behind the scenes laugh at your stupidity and fuck you over.

    19. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      No, no. Remember your right-wing ideology. You have to socially elevate yourself until you're the one taking the money from the plebs. That comes from hard work and grit, son.

      No no no, if you're not born with a silver spoon up your _ss (think President Shrub,) you're already f_cked for life.

      It's okay, this is Slashdot. You can say things like "ass" and "fucked". It's one of the things I like about this site.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    20. Re: HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup.

    21. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by srmalloy · · Score: 1

      For some time police have had the power to steal cash from people if they 'suspect' that it might derive from some criminal activity, even if the suspect is not charged.

      The suspect does get charged; unfortunately, the case is something like State of Washington vs. Prepaid Account Card 1227496584367954, not against the person whose assets have been seized.

    22. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought. But it is a prepaid "line of credit" and so is, essentially, a secured credit card. Because the officer need not even charge you with anything much less arrest you the "perpetrator" could obtain a replacement card and drain it themselves. In the event of an arrest they could use an accomplice to do the same thing.

      In the interest of protecting the government's right to seize property without a conviction the only solution is to drain the cards. Naturally, the company is paid 7.7% of the seizure in the best spirit of profit sharing anywhere.

      My favorite quote from the article: "If I had to err on the side of one side versus the other, I would err on the side of the Constitution,” Loveless said.

    23. Re: HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey look, I found the feminist sock puppet MikeUSA!

      He says the things that the SJWs claim we all must think, so they can all be right!

      Keep taking it up the ass MikeUSA, and maybe your masters will pat u on the head.

    24. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      No, the legal hack police are using is in the very name of your example: the cops file a civil action against the cash or property itself, which does not have Constitutional rights. People have rights, so if you ever want to see your money again, try to get arrested at the scene.

    25. Re: HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TRIGGERED!

    26. Re: HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I'm pretty sure that you just broke the law. We're in the process of confiscating any assets you have. Please sit tight, this is in your best interest.

    27. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > immediately close any bank accounts represented by cards in your wallet and transfer them somewhere else

      LOL. Yeah, that's not suspicious at all. Any idiot taking your advice deserves to have their funds frozen.

    28. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have the account information from an open loop prepaid card, you could call and transfer the funds to somewhere else before the cops had a chance to call the issuer to freeze the account. The ERAD card scanner allows the cops to freeze the funds immediately.

    29. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >is Oklahoma testing a new electronic device, called ERAD,

      No, ERAD was tested last year and is already in use in New Mexico and Arizona and probably a few other states. It's kinda weird why a local news story in Oklahoma has suddenly exploded nationally.

    30. Re: HO.LY.FUCK by skids · · Score: 1

      Right. Right wingers are for PRIVATE theft of private funds.

      Heheh. Also private theft of public funds, it appears. Though really they are probably OK with anything just as long as whatever is stolen won't find its way into the mouths of the poors.

    31. Re: HO.LY.FUCK by tacarat · · Score: 1

      Mod up please

      --
      "Common sense will be the death of us all"
    32. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      What happened to innocent until proven guilty? And suppose there was no fraud, but you were carrying a deposit on a house or a car, and because of their seizure, you have losses? What then? And how do you get your assets back?

      What has happened to justice in the USA, Are you safer in Russia? I think so...

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    33. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      It has been held that "innocent until proven guilty" applies to people, and when charges are filed against them. Since property is not a person, it has no rights.

      And to get your property back you have to sue the city/county/state which took the action. Sometimes that works and sometimes it does not.

    34. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      LOL. Yeah, that's not suspicious at all. Any idiot taking your advice deserves to have their funds frozen.

      Because civil forfeiture takes place only when you are not arrested, taking actin against you after the fact would require an indictment. When this happens, you gain rights.

    35. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the cops can get the account information from the cards (including debit and cc). They can then call up your financial institutions and find out that you've closed your accounts and transferred your funds to others institutions. However, bank laws will require reporting to FinCEN and can even prevent immediate transfers until cleared by Feds if the amount of the funds exceeds $10000 (though I think it might be $5000 now). What you're suggesting is exactly what money launderers and drug dealers used to do before the bank secrecys law were enacted. That's why it would be very suspicious to the police if someone did what you advised.

    36. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The federal law against cash transfers of $10,000 or more applies to cash deposits and withdrawals, not to account-to-account transfers or SWIFT (bank wire) transfers.

    37. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the BSA manual
      BANK SECRECY ACT, ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING,
      AND OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL

      Currency Transaction Reports and Exemptions

      U.S. financial institutions must file a CTR, Financial
      Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Form 104
      (formerly known as Internal Revenue Service [IRS] Form
      4789), for each currency transaction over $10,000. A
      currency transaction is any transaction involving the
      physical transfer of currency from one person to another
      and covers deposits, withdrawals, exchanges, or transfers
      of currency or other payments.

      But that's all beside the point, which is if the police are investigating you and they find out that your suddenly closed your accounts at one financial institution and transferred your funds to another, or another account within the same institution, that is going to draw their attention because its suspicious. Why? Because it looks like your trying to evade an investigation into your finances.

    38. Re: HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It says from bank account (or on) prepaid debit cards, so any bank card they have a special reader for them

    39. Re: HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fourth Amendment says you're wrong.

    40. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's suspicious enough right there. I hope you like walking because I can guarantee they'll seize your car on the spot.

    41. Re:HO.LY.FUCK by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Points for an informative reply! Thank you.

  2. What? by sims+2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    1. Re:What? by reanjr · · Score: 5, Informative

      We abandoned that shit here in the U.S. decades ago. We setup black sites to hold innocent people so they fall between the cracks of the constitutional system We even had to set up special courts specifically designed to circumvent constitutional rights and push victims through the system more rapidly and cheaply.

      And the Republicans and Democrats just cry "terrorism" and "gun violence" and think that solves the nation's problems.

    2. Re:What? by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In a police-state, that does only apply to the police. A citizen is guilty if the police says so.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:What? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I were Clinton, I would pick this up, and start talking about how bad it is (because obviously, it's bad). Then I would start tying it to eminent domain, confusing the terms in people's minds, so they start to seem the same. Then I would start hitting Trump hard for supporting eminent domain, because he does.

      That's my unprofessional political strategy. Bonus: once you get elected, you can fix the problem, and people think you are great.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they should be banned from entering the country or atleast we should build a wall and put them all on the other side. trump 2016

    5. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Not an argument. If you can't refute him without resorting to insults and buzzwords, I guess he's right about something.

    6. Re:What? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget the NDAA.

      This doesn't feel like the country I grew up in anymore.

    7. Re:What? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why the fuck would Clinton want to do that? She's as much an enthusiastic supporter of this totalitarian shitshow as any other establishment politician!

      Actually, even that's an understatement: A CLINTON HELPED CREATE THIS PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:What? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is one of those "lets punish the evil people" memes run amok. This was originally created to deprive mobsters of the ability to defend themselves in court. As bad as enough as that is on principle, the underlying law has been expanded and abused over the decades so that it's applied to pretty much anything but organized crime.

      Clinton was probably just a small part of the mob (the rampaging sort) when this stuff was first enacted.

      This is why you have to be careful about you get manipulated into supporting.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your innocent - the money isn't - chances are they could always drug test it and it would fail due to the presence of cocaine,

    10. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not an argument. If you can't refute him without resorting to insults and buzzwords, I guess he's right about something.

      No, that doesn't follow. He wasn't even trying to refute, so you can't infer anything here.

    11. Re:What? by vivaoporto · · Score: 4, Informative
      That would not only be underhanded (as it amounts to lying to the electorate conflating two issues that are not related) giving more credence to the accusations of "crooked" and "liar" that Trump tries to pin on her but also it could potentially backfire big given the history of the Clintons with eminent domain:

      LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the city's method of seizing land for the Clinton Presidential Library on Thursday, eliminating the last legal roadblock in the way of construction.

      The court, in a 6-0 decision with one abstention, said a Little Rock landowner failed to prove that the $200-million library and archive complex wouldn't be a park as the state defines it.

      The head of the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation said the dispute over Eugene Pfeifer III's land had been the only thing delaying construction of the 28-acre site on the south bank of the Arkansas River.

      "I'm shocked," Pfeifer said. "This is truly disappointing news."

      A decision against the city could have forced the foundation to find another site for his planned academic center and museum.

      The library ended up being built on land expropriated based on eminent domain so the tactic you proposed is, like I said, underhanded, detrimental to Clinton campaign (as it opens a can of worms that would be better sealed shut) and, in general, undemocratic.

    12. Re:What? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why would she fix it? She can then say that she'll fix it next time she runs.

    13. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's more to it than just "thug life". That _is_ a big part of it but one should also consider the criminal's background. I wonder, what's the poverty rate in the black population compared to the white?

    14. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

      It died decades ago but nobody noticed 'cause only black people were concerned.

    15. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that they DON'T "circumvent" the Constitution- they're being used, quite simply criminally (as in acting without authority) in violation of the Constitution. The rub's in getting people to step up and assert their rights and incarcerate these people and start over with what was put in place over 200 years ago.

      Before you remark...I'm biding my time. You simply die when you don't have numbers...kind of like Finicum did.

    16. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sold that for feeling safe at airports. Happened a few years back.

      Did it work?

    17. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It sure isn't even the country I grew up in any more.

      And BTW, fuck anyone who invents something like this. It has absolutely no purpose other than to rob innocent people. Why? Because actual criminals will be arrested, not robbed by thugs with badges and sent on their way.

      Tech people have got to take responsibility for what we invent. Sure tools have no morals, but a tool that can only be used to do wrong should not exist.

    18. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death metal isn't turning droves of people, young and old, into murderous rapists...

    19. Re:What? by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      What happened to property rights? What happened to the most fundamental right of the individual to not be attacked by the government and have property stolen without any trial or judgement, nothing at all?

    20. Re:What? by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just remember, the same Constitution-ignoring logic WILL be used when it's time to take the guns away.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    21. Re:What? by bobbied · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

      I can tell you've never dealt with the IRS (other than to file your return). This has been the general practice of a number of agencies, seize first and ask questions later. Much later, you give the "owner" of said asset a chance to ask for it back, but asking takes time and resources, and the agency who took your stuff is in charge of the process, hires the people who review your claim and makes the rules you have to follow..

      The IRS can pretty much take everything you own without you having much to say about it if they think you owe them something. They can garnish your wages, seize assets and bank accounts in their efforts to collect what THEY say you owe. Other government agencies have similar abilities...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    22. Re:What? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      You sold that for feeling safe at airports. Happened a few years back.

      Did it work?

      It's been going on LONG before the TSA got their start... Perhaps to a lesser degree, but government seizure of assets w/o prior legal review has been going on for decades.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    23. Re:What? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Government constraints on spending as social programs inhale ever-larger chunks, many politicians are fine with police departments supplementing their income via this (and multiplying tiny reasons for tickets.)

      It is sad that this is mathematically equivalent to corrupt governments where police stop you and "collect your fine" then let you go. We can expect a corresponding decrease in productive output accordingly.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    24. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hmmm....

      I don't know what the current number is, but there is an income level below which most convicted criminals live. Below that level, lots of crime; above it, relatively little.

      Now, below that income level, see what the proportions of the population are racially; what percentage of people living below that level are black, hispanic, white, etc.

      Now, look at the numbers of those groups which are in jail/prison. You'll find that it almost exactly mirrors the general proportions of the population below that income level.

      TL;DR—Crime is caused by poverty, not race. I know, it doesn't fit the narrative of the pampered children who frequent this site these days, but it is, nonetheless, true.

    25. Re:What? by jmcvetta · · Score: 2

      In Soviet America, innocence proves your guilt!

    26. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      REMEMBER THE MURDER OF IAN MURDOCH, creator of Debian Linux and leading member of the Free Software community, killed Christmas 2015 by the notoriously corrupt San Francisco Police Department.

    27. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Posting anon for reasons. I'm friends with a young black guy around 25 yrs old that sells crack. He recently got busted and has to have a job as part of pre sentencing conditions, hoping to get probation. He got a job washing dishes at a nursing home, pretty easy compared to washing dishes at some place like Chili's. 40 hrs week, $8/hr. He quit, because he said he was losing money from people calling wanting crack while he was at work, and because "he ain't no $8/hr nigga", his words. This isn't even just a job, it's not even enough that his freedom is on the line. Some people just want that life, and aren't going to try to keep a legit job because culture has trained them to think it's beneath them.

    28. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually just a bit of reading proves you wrong...CRIMINAL forfeiture is used against a mob boss etc. to make it harder for them to defend themselves in court. Whether that is 'consitutional/right' etc. at least they are charging someone & if proven not guilty the assets must be returned.

      Civil forfeiture requires no crime, no one to be charged, no defence on your part at all. They just take it & its gone with no 'due process' at all. Precedent is supposedly 'hundreds of years old'...fine, except that precedent doesn't trump a constitution with an amendment that clearly says the government can't take/seize property without a warrant.

      This is utter madness at all levels including the Judiciary.

    29. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will you torture your enemies?

    30. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you can shoot to kill.

      You have nothing to lose: having female children as brides is illegal in virtually every cuntry now.

    31. Re:What? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Then I would start hitting Trump hard for supporting eminent domain, because he does."

      I've checked, but Trump has not given a position on civil forfeiture. He has supported use of eminent domain for private purposes, and this does not sit well with conservatives.

    32. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't turn them into predators, it just attracts them as predators.

      Death metal music attracts sharks, documentary crew finds out

    33. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all definitions of "murder" which include the dead person committing suicide after being released on bail after being arrested for trying to break into a house while drunk.

      For all real definitions of "murder", NO - he committed suicide.

    34. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding me? Haven't you ever heard of Marc Rich?

      .. and some people still consider voting for her.

    35. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Property does not have due process and that is how they are able to get away with this crap.

      The courts have upheld this reasoning for many years and this is just another way that allows for "legal" highwaymen in the guise of public law enforcement.

    36. Re:What? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Why anonymous? You make a very salient point and you should take credit for it. It's not like someone's gonna stand up and call you out for not being racist.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    37. Re:What? by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If found to be driving with any amount of cash a person is "structuring" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... to avoid the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and Internal Revenue Code by using the banking system with much smaller amounts of cash over time.
      If no cash is found after a search, the deposit was just made or the vehicle has been altered with cash hiding compartments.
      To be found with any digital banking details while driving is now fair game in that state.
      Even with local plates, facial recognition of the driver and passenger can induce a "random" pull over and chat down with the "discovery" of cash or banking details.
      The ability to track a face, cell phone powered on, licence plate is now so cheap any county, city, state can afford to stop anyone. If a state/federal database sees any pattern of movement or a degree separation or three of 'hops' from any suspect.
      Every federal digital tracking system is now cheap enough for local law enforcement. Add in civil asset forfeiture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... in many US states and just driving gets to be very interesting.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    38. Re:What? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if he supports it or not, as political strategy, it only matters if you can make people believe that he does.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    39. Re:What? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck would Clinton want to do that?

      To help win the election, mainly.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    40. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For an example of this behavior, check out this story about the family bakery that the IRS seems to want to destroy.

      I hear this doesn't happen in a free country. Are there any left?

    41. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would not only be underhanded (as it amounts to lying to the electorate conflating two issues that are not related) giving more credence to the accusations of "crooked" and "liar"...

      Umm... politician, see definition of.

    42. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahaha unlike pre-paid cards, guns level the playing field as long as you have no intentions of playing by their rules.

    43. Re:What? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The legal principle is that money has no rights, so assumption of innocence doesn't apply. They don't charge you with a crime, they charge your money with a crime. If you are attempting to undermine public support of the police department, this is an excellent path to follow. The most important difference between an occupying military and a police department is public support. Once you lose that there is no difference between the US police and the Israeli defense force in the Palestinian occupied territories.

    44. Re:What? by lgw · · Score: 1

      ere's more to it than just "thug life". That _is_ a big part of it but one should also consider the criminal's background. I wonder, what's the poverty rate in the black population compared to the white?

      A lot of this has been studied, rather than BSed about by racists. The strong correlation is between "absentee father" and becoming a criminal. If you adjust for that, the correlation between poverty and crime (in the US) is fairly weak.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    45. Re:What? by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Informative

      Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

      Except niggers. When black males - a 7% minority - are convicted for just over 50% of all murders, well, they earned any prejudice they get.

      You are assuming the convictions are legitimate. If you think the US justice system has any justice in it you are terribly naive.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    46. Re:What? by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      In a police-state, that does only apply to the police. A citizen is guilty if the police says so.

      Yeah but in the case of civil forfeiture its not a citizen who is being presumed guilty until innocent, its the money (or other object).

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    47. Re:What? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Take your racist lies and shove 'em.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    48. Re:What? by zugmeister · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

      As I understand it, when they seize the money / valuables (yeah, they're not constrained to just cash) they then charge they money / stuff that was seized. While this leads to amusing case names (US vs. diamond ring and $35) it seems the items being sued generally have no rights at all and are terrible at representing themselves. If you can't prove you deserve to have them, they become no longer yours.

    49. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... just like the Republican party and abortions...

    50. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
      Easy
      If you believe that you are an innocent, hence fair game
      If not, you are guilty you will be hit with full mighty blow because the fist thing that must be impressed in other people brains is
      competitors are not allowed

    51. Re:What? by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Civil forfeiture was instigated as a step up against the war on drugs during the early Reagan administration. After being litigated through much of the early 80's the supreme court gave it constitutional blessing. Many of the rights we've lost over the last 20 years are the direct result of prosecuting a war on drugs against our own citizens.

      If we want to end these abominations of law we MUST end the war on drugs. End prohibition 2.0.

    52. Re:What? by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You are dumber then a box of rocks. Wake up, it's not the 18th century any more. You and your musket are powerless against what this represents. When the government can electronically seize you assets, track you real time, listen in on your conversations, read your email, and knows everyone that you know, having a gun is about as important as having a pile of stones to throw. Your stash of guns is about as useful in this context as stones are against a remote drone strike.

      Prepper ideology and gun ownership just make it easier for the government to go about it's business of trashing the constitution. First, you have already identified who you are, and they can generate a list with you name on it in milliseconds. They know because of metadata: where and when you use your credit card, your phone records, license plate scanners, etc. Second, thinking that your gun will save you means that you are wasting time solving the wrong problem. It's a legal, law enforcement, information, and telecommunications threat, so sitting around counting your bullets and cleaning you gun means that you are a non-combatant.

      You want to do something? Don't use software that requires signing a EULA. Tell your congress critter not to support the TPP. Join the EFF and the ACLU, use encryption and run Linux. That's where the conflict is occurring. Although it's a big stroke for your ego to assume that Manly Men with Guns Will Save the Day, that's just the fantasy of a little boy thinking he is Iron Man. The end of constitutional government is a bureaucratic conflict involving business and government, not a reenactment of the Revolutionary War.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    53. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are assuming all black men are innocent?

    54. Re:What? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Why would they take the guns away? Letting you have some means that the people keep quiet about this type of shit because you believe that you're free and can overthrow the government if needed while they know that if the shit hits the fan, it'll be American killing American and they continue to make sure that Americans are split into camps that hate each other more then the government.
      It's as likely that Americans will get together and vote third party as getting together, pulling out their guns and overthrowing the government.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    55. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get back to your home state, sue your bank for not rejecting the attempted seizure as "obviously invalid" and demand trial by jury. Gather the evidence that this state has engaged in a practice of seizures of out-of-state drivers (news articles will show the pattern and the bank won't be disputing the events themselves and won't be able to get the seizure details any more than you can; subpoena the records on all the cases you show just in case). You win before you step into the courtroom.

      The bank may try to get this moved to Oklahoma; block this by claiming corrupt law enforcement in the initial filing.

      A handful of cross-judgements against the banks and they'll shut this charade down.

    56. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, this inane post got modded +5, Insightful? The Clinton drones are hard at propaganda I see.

    57. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >this does not sit well with conservatives.

      Well, it just depends on who is benefiting from the land grab. If its oil and gas companies using it in order to build pipelines, then conservatives are all for it.

    58. Re:What? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      And the Republicans and Democrats just cry "terrorism" and "gun violence" and think that solves the nation's problems.

      For them it does. All the complaints are just noise. They will do what they want because, in reality, resistance is nil.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    59. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the bat shit crazy guy?

    60. Re:What? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Prepper ideology and gun ownership just make it easier for the government to go about it's business of trashing the constitution. First, you have already identified who you are, and they can generate a list with you name on it in milliseconds. They know because of metadata: where and when you use your credit card, your phone records, license plate scanners, etc. Second, thinking that your gun will save you means that you are wasting time solving the wrong problem. It's a legal, law enforcement, information, and telecommunications threat, so sitting around counting your bullets and cleaning you gun means that you are a non-combatant.

      What's up with all the idiotic bashing of these groups? Just because you might be slightly smarter than a prepper doesn't mean that it's going to take a lot of computer time to identify you.

      You want to do something? Don't use software that requires signing a EULA. Tell your congress critter not to support the TPP. Join the EFF and the ACLU, use encryption and run Linux. That's where the conflict is occurring. Although it's a big stroke for your ego to assume that Manly Men with Guns Will Save the Day, that's just the fantasy of a little boy thinking he is Iron Man. The end of constitutional government is a bureaucratic conflict involving business and government, not a reenactment of the Revolutionary War.

      Unless, it's not, of course. That's always the problem with assertions. They can be wrong.

    61. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'd have been aware of issues that affect things *other* than guns, maybe you could have acted politically sooner so you would be less likely to find yourself in need of one.

      If the ACLU got half the attention and support the NRA did, maybe civil forfeiture wouldn't be as big a problem as it is.

    62. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the opposite for your things and money, which is what they charge before taking it home with them.

    63. Re:What? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If you're poor and were caught with some crack, it's jail time. If you were caught with more expensive cocaine they will be a lot more lenient, maybe only a probation sentence, even though cocaine and crack are the same thing. So ya, maybe not "innocent" but you're more likely to harsher sentence than someone rich for the same crime. (it also helps to be the star athlete and have the judge be from the same school as you)

    64. Re:What? by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The supreme court of the US has upheld the general principle of civil forfeiture, sadly. So we need congressional reform. And there are people for reforming it. While some Republicans are for it (as reintroduced by the Reagan administration) there is still opposition to it from the more libertarian wing of the Republican party, there's support against it from Democrats too. Currently though the "tough on crime" sorts are winning, so even a congress member worried about civil rights can be timid about seeming to be soft on crime during election years.

    65. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big fuck you right back at ya.

    66. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why is a black father more likely to be absent than a white one?

    67. Re:What? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Reagan helped create this civil forfeiture problem. And of course lots of congress members. It's a problem across the board, you can't lay the blame on any one party, as both parties are seeking to reform it and both parties are seeking to enhance it because both parties are a mix of conflicting viewpoints. It's easy to get elected by being tough on crime, and this crosses political parties. But there are some who may have a civil liberty pang of conscience (a vestigial organ in politicians).

    68. Re:What? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The money has no rights.

    69. Re:What? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's a legal fiction that is generally supported by the supreme court. It's a civil action taken against the property, not a criminal action against the owner of the property. You can recover the property through a suit and be partially reimbursed by the government if you win, but not a lot of people know this or think it will be too expensive to get ahold of a lawyer (most of this civil forfeiture is against poorer people like suspected-but-not-proven drug dealers). Because the property isn't being taken as evidence then the restrictions for warrants are less stringent.

      Since the seized assets are shared with law enforcement this means there is a lot of motivation to do a lot of civil forfeitures and less motivation to make sure the letter of the law is absolutely followed precisely.

    70. Re:What? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Precedent is supposedly 'hundreds of years old'.

      Precedent goes back to before the American Revolutionary War so the law is on their side.

    71. Re:What? by melting_clock · · Score: 1

      This the new and improved version; "Guilty until proven innocent.". Maybe they learned something from the media companies claiming that everyone is stealing their stuff through downloads and sending out invoices to those evil people. Or, the police and security agencies that are above any constitutional protections and assume that everyone is a terrorist.

      Rights, freedoms and privacy are being eroded rapidly in the name of hunting terrorists and paedophiles. By the time the people wake up to what is happening they will find themselves in an inescapable police state, where the presumption of guilt has become the new standard.

    72. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so sure of that.
      72% of serial killers are white.

    73. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is your innocent until proven guilty:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSEoVkl0W30

      Obama trying to defend using the TSA no-fly list to prevent people from buying guns. And his argument is the FBI caught someone visiting an ISIL website and he's upset he can't use that to prevent them from buying guns. I'm not making this up. Watch the video, it's only 4 minutes.

    74. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't have a lot of bribery in America. We've got something better.

    75. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Civil forfeiture dates back to England, before the U.S. was a nation. The concept is part of common law and it has been ruled constitutional in the U.S. over the last 200 years.

    76. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but serial killers are usually methodical, organized and smarter than street thugs. It's only normal that they're mostly white.

    77. Re:What? by mestar · · Score: 2

      So not only they take your money, they logic rape you as well.

    78. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHAT HAPPENED....

      Is that you lazy fucks let your GOVERNment become Self-Aware like Skynet in the Terminator, whereupon it learned to be Self-Preserving, whereafter it will FOREVER seek and continue to... etc, including ENSLAVE, RAPE, TAX, EXTORT, FORCE, IGNORE, TAKE POWER FROM, MURDER, TORTURE, THIEVE, CONSORT WITH CORPORATE PEERS AGAINST YOU, RULE OVER, and generally FUCK YOU.

      Your only real job now is to destroy it.

      The future of all governments that have ever existed to date, by vast numerical majority, is one of two things... implosion and subsequent invasion, or revolt.
      And since NO past government in the entire history of mankind, whether instilled by the people or not, has ever remained subject to the people, except for revolt (at which point it is no longer the same government)...
      Do NOT assemble any government to replace it.

      The word is ***GOVERN*** which means rule over as your lord... you don't want that, thus you dont want government.
      You want roads, etc... dont pay taxes under threat of force and a lifetime in jail complete with forfeiture... write a check to whoever offers to build the road you want to the place you want.
      Trust me, this works.

      Start today.

    79. Re:What? by rastos1 · · Score: 2

      "In the United States, you're innocent until proven broke."

      I don't know where I stole that. Possibly here on slashdot.

    80. Re:What? by axewolf · · Score: 1

      You are more retarded than a sack of monkey balls.
      I'm not just saying that.

      All of those things you mention are directly supported by police and military violence. The world has not changed fundamentally. You are delusional. You are finding excuses for your utter cowardice and inexcusably trying to force them on others.

      How does anything you suggest contribute toward taking power away from the government? At best it seems that these things would only slow the growth of power. At best.
      Obviously one man with a gun can't do anything.
      But people organizing together to show they mean business is another thing. Mass armed protest would put extreme pressure on the system. They could not risk using force against these people for fear of triggering a civil war (see: Boston Massacre) Then the truth would have to be heard by those who don't want to hear it. And no law would have to be broken.
      The key is to have mass armed protest. The chances of something going wrong would be too great to stop the protest.

      The only out would be for the government to somehow call every participant a terrorist, and that would not fly today. But tomorrow it might. Something has to be done immediately.

      You are a damned fool.

    81. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain to me where your well regulated militia is and how they are the ones with the guns.

    82. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem I see here is the fact that the Clinton Library used eminent domain, but all Hillary needs to do is claim she tried to tell Bill he shouldn't do that but he didn't listen. She can even make it a tongue in cheek joke, implying that women are so much smarter than men but never get listened to. All the other complaints are par for the course in our current political landscape.

    83. Re:What? by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

      You, as an individual, are still considered innocent. Your assets, well, that's another story,

    84. Re:What? by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Yeah... white criminals never get a free pass. Just ask Brock Turner.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    85. Re:What? by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > Below that level, lots of crime; above it, relatively little.

      The line of conviction is not a line of criminality, just a line of "can afford good lawyers". The vast majority of black prisoners are convicted of non-violent offenses, mostly marijuana posession. White people are arrested for the same crime just as often, but convicted far less frequently.
      And that's without considering the fact that EVERY wall street banker belongs in jail for life and not one of them actually went.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    86. Re:What? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Government constraints on spending as social programs inhale ever-larger chunks

      Bullshit. The thing that sucks the government's budgets dry is the military. The COMBINED cost of ALL American social programs is less than 5% of the entire budget. It's a convenient republican lie that this tiny expense is the reason for budget problems - because those are the only programs they will ever consider cutting.

      If anything - law enforcement is OVERFUNDED to begin with (massively so - they should not be able to afford, let alone allowed to have, military equipment). They don't need to supplement their budgets, they need their budgets massively reduced.

      We can use the savings to fund increased social programs.

      Sorry, but I would much rather have my taxes feed a hungry child than putting him in jail for smoking a joint.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    87. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck would Clinton want to do that? She's as much an enthusiastic supporter of this totalitarian shitshow as any other establishment politician!

      Actually, even that's an understatement: A CLINTON HELPED CREATE THIS PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!

      Clinton can't take all the credit - it was actually a joint-venture between the Clintons and the Bushes.

      I give credit where credit is due - BOTH parties contributed to this mess!

      Hey Clintons! Hey Bushes! We as citizens normally get kissed before we get FUCKED!

    88. Re:What? by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Funny

      >You are more retarded than a sack of monkey balls.

      Wait... I need to know, who measured the IQ of a sack of monkey balls ? Is this an objective measurement ? Like, is "Sacks of Monkey Balls" the official unit of measurement for retardation ? Is that SI or Imperial units ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    89. Re:What? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > They could not risk using force against these people for fear of triggering a civil war

      So your entire plan is based on assuming the US would not risk what every other government in history has done when faced with that? In recent times see Syria, Libia, Egypt, Tunisia and more.

      Every single government responded to mass armed protest with effectively declaring war on the citizens. Some lost, some won and and some are still fighting. Not ONE of those governments ceded power or surrendered without a bloodbath.

      What bizarre idiocy makes you think that if the US government became so far disconnected from their founding principles as to actually inspire a mass armed revolt (which would imply it has reached a level of power-madness akin to those governments) that it would respond any differently to a popular uprising against this which threatened their power ?
      If anything their vastly superior military might and tools would make the odds of the population actually winning much smaller.

      If there is a war between the citizens and the government in the USA, the government WILL fight and they will probably win.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    90. Re:What? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Oh and in case you were wondering, the US government would be well aware of what happens if you try to appease the mass uprising, promise to submit yourself to their new constitution, and surrender power to a new parliament they elect. History has a few examples of that... it never ended well for the former power-holders. They had a tendency to get their heads chopped off. The last king of France for example, when the revolution began decided that fighting the revolutionaries was futile and instantly surrendered power to them, subjected himself to their new constitution and declared their newly elected parliament the new official government of the land.
      It only bought him a few years, it wasn't long before the bloodlust that centuries of abuse had unleashed came calling for his neck on the guilotine. He went even before the revolutionary leaders started decapitating each other.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    91. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try reading a history book.

    92. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key is to have mass armed protest. The chances of something going wrong would be too great to stop the protest.

      Please explain how a mass armed protest would accomplish anything at all. To most of the country - who I assure you would not be in attendance - it would just look like a bunch of nutjobs waving guns around. I mean, you've stated that no law would have to be broken, so you've clearly got no intention of using the guns - therefore, how is this different from carrying placards or balloons or sandwiches?

      Oh wait, it's because of the implied threat of violence, right? Hence your reference to "something going wrong". You're just waiting for someone - anyone - to start shooting because then everything is justifiable.

      So, I beg you, just go and do it already. Just head out with all your like-minded compatriots and wave your rifles and make a fuss so you can finally have the glorious, symbolic and utterly futile death-by-cop that you've always dreamed of and the rest of us will have one fewer moron to deal with.

    93. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Untrue. Medicare and Medicaid cost a lot more than 5%

    94. Re:What? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The thing that sucks the government's budgets dry is the military. The COMBINED cost of ALL American social programs is less than 5% of the entire budget.

      Interesting theory. Military Budget 2015 was $598B, out of a total Federal budget of $3688B.

      Note that social programs can be defined a lot of different ways (people who carp about the military budget tend to exclude SSA and Medicare, for instance, even though both are paid out of the general fund just like any other program), but if we just count "mandatory spending" (which tends to be all social programs), we get a number that looks like $2500B.

      Note, if you're unaware, that 2500 >> 600.

      Note further that I'm not arguiing that the military budget isn't too large. Though other than the continuing outlays for foreign wars, I'm not sure one way or another.

      Note also that I'm not arguing that social programs should be smaller. I rather expect that they're either too small or too large, but no real opinions.

      However, there is no doubt that we spend far more on social programs than we do on the military. Note finally that the military is one of those Constitutionally mandated things that the Feds are expected to do. Unlike social programs, which are Constitutionally optional....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    95. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The is to busy pushing for gay rights to care about this issue.

    96. Re:What? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Another deeply Conservative Red State, putting the Constitution first.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    97. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'll put aside your use of the phrase "congress critter" and whatever it's supposed to signify for the moment. As a veteran of the last two nonsense wars, I always take a bit of offense to people claiming that a few million well armed citizens have no hope of mounting a successful insurrection against the big, scary federal government. I don't know if it smacks more of defeatist appeasement or raw cowardice, but the premise that dedicated men with rifles bear no threat to a first world army is a grave insult to my comrades who were handily dispatched by 1940s Mosin Nagants and kalashnikovs that were older than they were.

      Iraqis and afghans who legitimately couldn't multiply (mathematically anyway) successfully held us off with far less basic education, resources, and manpower than the American public can bring to bear if the motivation ever existed. All of the star wars bullshit in the world could not make up for the fact that you still need tens of thousands of men more than we had to secure just one city the size of Baghdad. Give me a big bore, bolt action "hunting rifle" which is still totally out of scope for any gun control legislation that will pass in the next 20 years, and I will cheerfully hike from FOB to FOB putting incindiary rounds into fuel bladders and sensor pods from 2 miles away. A few hundred of me running around with good field craft and we will go from star wars to man to man, shot for shot in a matter of weeks.

      All of this magical technology that provides such and illusion of force multiplication was barely effective enough to stave off haji, let alone if the diesel teat was ever cut off.

      Please, find your gumption somewhere and don't speak for all of us who actually know what combat effectiveness means. Now if you'll excuse me, I think I see a black helicopter over my shoulder!
      Ciao!

    98. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry I meant to say the ACLU is too busy pushing for gay rights to care about this issue.

    99. Re:What? by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Umm [Citation Needed]

      SS, Labor, and Unemployment is a whopping 1/3 alone. Military is only 16%.
      https://media.nationalprioriti...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    100. Re:What? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That is something bureaucrats do routinely. They define how the world works, after all, not you or any pesky "facts". It is no surprise that if these people get enough power, a society invariably collapses.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    101. Re:What? by will_die · · Score: 1

      For another example on hillary is with TPP. She supported it until modification were made, then she dropped her support. We later found out that those modifications made it harder for governments to invade personal privacy.

    102. Re:What? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Are we talking discretionary, nondiscretionary, or total budget?

      In discretionary spending (the part they argue over every year) military is ~57%, and yes social stuff is ~5%.

      But then most social program spending isn't discretionary, its non-discretionary, ie, already mandated by law.

      The total federal spending is thus:
      Military (discretionary): 20%
      Non military (discretionary): 20%
      Social Security: 20%
      Medicare/Medicaid: 20%
      Net Interest: 7%
      Other mandatory spending: 13%

      Now I agree, military spending could be reduced. But we do gotta make it clear which spending we're talking about, or else people just talk past enough with their talking points and everyone is correct, cause no one is talking about the same thing. Case in point: 20% of total federal spending is military (which is considered discretionary), and 40% of total federal spending is Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid.

      But then for added fun, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are funded through their own mechanisms and never comes out of the general budget, and so are never part of the yearly budget arguments. Those arguments strictly cover the spending of the revenue raised from the "regular taxes" as opposed to the FICA lines of our paychecks.

      More fun: Veterans benefits likewise are not considered discretionary spending, but fall under that "other mandatory" spending category, being entitlements earned. So does actual welfare spending (TANF, the replacement Clinton replaced actual welfare with), being mandated by law at 16.5billion per year (unchanged since 1996) and distributed among the states. Food stamps are discretionary, being appropriated every year.

      Like said, I agree with reducing military spending, and upping social spending.
      But the whole thing is convoluted, and its important to talk using clear reference points.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    103. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahahaha... Obama did away with that as inconvenient...

    104. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the non-white ones just never get caught

    105. Re:What? by sabbede · · Score: 1
      Civil forfeiture has been around since before the US was the US. It was established in British common law, and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1827 in a case where a pirate ship was seized.

      The reasoning is absurd - the object seized is charged with a crime. Despite the fact that an object cannot possibly commit an act, let alone a criminal one.

    106. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Hillary is a whore-child of Big Money and very much the enemy.

    107. Re:What? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      The constitution does, in fact, mandate that the federal government be responsible for the welfare of the citizens.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    108. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've only made the case that it is correlated with poverty, not caused by it. Crime is caused by lack of character.

    109. Re:What? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      High levels of black crime started with and were caused by Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society". Democrats encouraged black women with children to go on welfare programs, programs which required that there be no husband at home. Fatherless families strongly tend to produce criminal children.

      Typical liberal program produces tragic results. It seems intentional.

      And still, people bristle at the idea that perception is reality.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    110. Re:What? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Thanks for this, it actually explains why the figures I knew are so different from those other commenters here have cited. Clearly the refer to two different budgets.

      That said, I still think I would rather see the military budget cut to about 1/10th of it's size (which would still be twice as big as the next biggest military in the world) and the entire difference devoted to establishing things like free college, UBI and other social-upliftment programs that pay for themselves in savings eventually but need a big cash-dump to get off the ground.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    111. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're all anonymous, BronCon...

    112. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's great... Fine the mean income level of convicted criminals (pre-conviction) and stop anyone that has a reported income in that range. Confiscate their cash and bank account because you how have reasonable suspicion that they may be involved in crime currently or in the near future. Pre-crime is awesome!

    113. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's great... Find the mean income level of convicted criminals (pre-conviction) and stop anyone that has a reported income in that range. Confiscate their cash and bank account because you now have reasonable suspicion they may be involved in crime previously, currently, or in the near future. Pre-crime is awesome!

    114. Re:What? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If you are concerned about your prepaid card testing positive for cocaine, you shouldn't be cutting your cocaine with the card...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    115. Re:What? by me3head · · Score: 1

      Sure - poverty causes crime - but what causes poverty? The connections between racial discrimination and systemic poverty in the US are pretty clear... In other words, the direct relationship between poverty and criminality is mediated by race.

    116. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We voted for a police state dumbass. For decades we have nurtured the right of Americans to be as dumb fucked as they choose to be and then gave them voting rights.

      Amazing this shit needs to be pointed out.

      If you raise dumb fucks you get a country full of dumb fucks.

    117. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is also an income level above which most unconvicted criminals live.

    118. Re:What? by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      " Second, thinking that your gun will save you means that you are wasting time solving the wrong problem. It's a legal, law enforcement, information, and telecommunications threat, so sitting around counting your bullets and cleaning you gun means that you are a non-combatant. " Thank you for this.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    119. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was side stepping what was said, and suggested suicide by fire because he has no argument to refute him with.

      I wish all people I don't agree with would all kill themselves, how stupid does that sound to you?

    120. Re:What? by thoromyr · · Score: 0

      Responding to the gp about ignoring the constitution? So what if they brought up "de gunz"? If you haven't noticed the repeated and escalating trampling on the constitution for the last >100 years then you haven't paid attention to either history or current events. Forget about the thinly veiled second amendment reference.

      Your rant makes you look like an idiot whose bought into the false narrative encouraged by the totalitarian state that "resistance is futile". By all means, use encryption and do whatever else takes your fancy to "fight the power". But, at the end of the day, rebellions involve real people and occur in "meat space". They are bloody and violent. That means people get killed. In a full scale rebellion that means people you know and love. Fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters. So I can understand the appeal of wanting it to be somehow theoretical, for it to somehow take place somewhere removed -- like "cyber space". You can appeal to "but technology" but that doesn't change the reality of people being physical, "meat space", entities.

      [For the totalitarian state that is sweeping this up into their Data Heaven, please note that I am in no way encouraging rebellions, whether physical or cyber, and certainly not against a lawful, elected government. Please construe my points about the death and violence inherent in the system as being to dissuade any poor, lost souls who might be determined to fight against the machine from doing so. Thank you.]

    121. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many serial killer victims are there compared to being murdered by a black man?

    122. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What can be purchased with this 'credit'? There are plenty of reasons to stick with anonymous, and very few reasons to create a login. For example: there are a number of logged in users that I routinely skip over because they have demonstrated with their posting history to be fools, unworthy of attention. With ACs, I have no such luxury and must assess the merit of their posts on an individual basis.

    123. Re:What? by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful. Too bad I already posted...

    124. Re:What? by phorm · · Score: 1

      And this is why we still need to defend against bad laws used/created with flowery language targeting terrorists, pedos, drug dealers, rapists, trolls, etc.

      Even if the initial stated target of the law is a bad person, the consequences of bad laws are much worse.

    125. Re:What? by phorm · · Score: 1

      And sadly, the same shit (or maybe worse) happened to the owner of an RV park in Canada. In this case, a crooked tax collector supposedly offered to make the case "go away" (for a kickback), and when they didn't play ball the agency "lost" his receipts and thus declared all his deductions invalid before destroying his business and livelyhood.

    126. Re:What? by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

      They've already tried to take your guns away by twisting the Constitution. IIRC, the judges on the Supreme Court who tried to uphold gun restrictions wrote in their dissenting opinion something along the lines of "The writers of the Constitution never intended to deprive the government of the tools they need to do their job". In other words, it was like they wanted to declare the Constitution unconstitutional.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    127. Re:What? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The sharing aspect should be removed. All seized items have to go to a pool of charities with requirements set by the feds, thus reducing the incentives significantly.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    128. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

      "Innocent until proven guilty" is NOT in the constitution... this just re-emphasizes this notion.

    129. Re:What? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "Tough on crime" being hugely lobbied by the for-profit prison industry, which desperately needs to be abolished.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    130. Re:What? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      With ACs, I have no such luxury and must assess the merit of their posts on an individual basis.

      Or, create an account and browse above 0. ACs tend to be unseen when you do that.

      While I prefer to see all comments (mostly, I'm just too lazy to adjust that setting when I have mod points), many here (likely most) browse at 1 and only see the rare AC someone decides to mod up for something. Whipslash might be able to chime in on that, since he can see that setting on everyone's accounts.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    131. Re:What? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      She says whatever is politically expedient, just like she always has.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    132. Re: What? by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      First, I'm anonymous to you because you can't spell my username correctly. Second, my email address is right there in the post header and my last name is in the domain.

      If someone really wanted to find out who I am for some reason, it would take them all of 30 seconds. That's not very anonymous, coward.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    133. Re:What? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      There are very poor areas with low crime rates.

      There are also a lot of poor people with unreported income.

      What crime reflects rather more accurately are fatherless boys.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    134. Re:What? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Funny that the Bill of Rights, which explicitly forbids this, was written after the American Revolutionary War.

      I am pretty damn certain that the founding document of our nations laws takes precedence over English common law.

    135. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will post the company's presentation to the OKC troopers to 4chan shortly.

    136. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      innocent until proven guilty ended with the department of homeland securities mandate , An officer stoppe4d a vehicle at night , the vehicle had extremely tinted windows where he had no visibility of how many were in the car , he approached , the window opened , he was shot 3 times at point lank range ,

      Homeland security put out a directive stating , EVERY SUSPECT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS ARMED AND DANGEROUS WITH INTENT TO DO YOU BODILOY HARM , " THIS IS WHERE THE NEW COP THAT SAYS I WAS AFRAID FOR MY LIFE " NTHE OFFICER ALREADY HAS HIS WEAPON DRAWN , IF THE PERSON 3 FEET AWAY HAS A PENCIL , PEN KNIFE OR ANYTHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED AS A WEAPON THE OFFICER CAN AND WILL OPEN FIRE. THIS MNIND YOU IF THE OFFICER SCREAMNS YELLS DROP THE KNIFE AND YOU DO NOT EVEN BEFORE HE FINISHES THE INSTRUCTIONS , THE OFFICER CAN AND WILL EMPTY A 16 ROUND MAGAZINE INTO YOU. THIS WAS SHOWN ON A NUMBER OF VIDEOS A MAN OBVIOUSLY DISORIENTED AND STAGGERING HAD A SMALL PEN KNIFE IN HIS HAND , HE WAS NO MORE THAN 2 TO 3 FEET AWAY FROM 2 OFFICERS WITH WEAPONS DRAWN , THE OFFICER TO THE RIGHT OPENED FIRE , AS THE MAN FELL TO THEE GROUND THE OFFICER FOLLOWED STILL JERKNG THE TRIGGER , AS THE MAN IS ON HIS FACE ON THE FLOOR THE OFFICER FIRED THE LAST 4 ROUNDS IN THE MAGAZINE INTO THE MANS BACK THAT IS 16 ROUNDS POINT BLANK RANGE , THE MAN WAS NOT UNDER ARREST 2 OFFICERS WOULD HAVE EASILY BEEN ABLE TO TAKE THE SMALL POCKET KNIFE AWAY FROM HIM , INSTEAD THE COP WAS SO AFRAID FOR HIS LIFE HE "EXECUTED" THE MAN, THIS HAS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN AS LONG AS HOMELAND GESTAPO EXISTS , THE NEW GRAND JURY CLOSED SESSIONS DO NOT (I BELIEVE) ARE USING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW , THEY ARE USING THE PATRIOT ACT AND JOHN McCAINS LEVIN NDAA , THESE EXECUTIONS HAVE BEEN COMMONPLACE FOR SOME TIME , MULTIPLE OFFICERS EMPTYING THEIR WEAPONS INTO A MAN STANDING AGAINST A BUILDING WALL ON THE SIDEWALK , 5 OFFICERS EXECUTED HIM , ALL SHOTS FROM ALL MAGAZINES WERE FIRED FROM NO MORE THAN 5 FEET AWAY IN CASE YOU MISSED IT THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF COPS WHO SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE APPROACHING , WALKING BY , STANDING IN FRONT OF MAKE THEM SO AFRAID FOR THEIR LIVES THEY CAN AND WILL EXECUTE THEM,

    137. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're reading it wrong... it doesn't say unless.

      innocent UNTIL proven guilty.
      ie... you're guilty but we just haven't proved it. yet.

    138. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What an extraordinarily ignorant, shameful, and cowardly screed. Did you cut off your ball sack and give them to some feminist cunt?

      Revolution is easier today than ever before. The entire economy and power structure is highly centralized. Targeted assassination, if coordinated by a dedicated, ruthless, and disciplined force of 1,000 men, could bring this country to its knees in a day.

      Do you really think it is that hard to assassinate Zuckerberg, any propaganda outlet CEO, or any executive leader of a bank?

      You simply don't understand 4th generation warfare. But regardless, war is coming to your life sooner rather than later. Take your balls back, you fucking pussy.

    139. Re:What? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Funny that the Bill of Rights, which explicitly forbids this, was written after the American Revolutionary War.

      It is not doing a very good job and ultimately that is our fault. We get the government we deserve.

      I am pretty damn certain that the founding document of our nations laws takes precedence over English common law.

      The rule of men is now more important than the rule of law.

    140. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'd add that poverty often parallels race, or better yet, its culture. Purporting strong ethics about hard work, education and decency to offspring often seems to discourage poverty.

    141. Re:What? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      I agree, we are at least a century or two behind on overthrowing the corrupt government. Unfortunately they have gotten very good at manipulating people.

    142. Re:What? by axewolf · · Score: 1

      whoa whoa whoa

      You really are lacking an understanding of what I said. And apparently have some kind of subconscious terror or armed people or people who go outside in general.

      Armed does not mean violent.

    143. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry for ruining your Republican, blame Clinton meme but the eminent domain case that allowed this was from Connecticut and decided in 2005. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

    144. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me then fucktard, how useful is your AR-15 against a Tomahawk cruise missile? Against a Raptor military drone? Against a missile destroyer 300 miles out from shore?

    145. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make some excellent points, however, those are overshadowed by your ad hominem, caustic, and just plain ignorant attacks against the poster. Do yourself a favor and get some historical perspective and understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then you might be enlightened to the underlying message that the poster is trying to convey.

      Two can play this game:
      "Although it's a big stroke for your ego to assume that Nerdy Men With Ponytails and ACLU and EFF Membership Cards Running Linux Will Save the Day, that's just the fantasy of a little boy thinking he can script his way out of a good beating with a schoolyard bully."

    146. Re:What? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I purposefully read at -1, even when I don't have mod points. I like to see what the moderators dislike. They're usually good at their job, but sometimes they just mod down what they dislike, possibly thinking that they're dealing with a troll instead of someone who has a markedly different viewpoint.

    147. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you are wrong. It dates back to 17th century England and the U.S. inherited the English common and case law. This method of seizing assets has been used in America long before the late 20th century. In the early days of the nation, it was used to finance the federal government when people failed to pay taxes and duties. Civil forfeiture was used extensively during the Civil War. Also, it was the primary method used by federal and state police agencies to shut down operations in the production or distribution of alcohol during Prohibition. We have court rulings (including SCOTUS) going back 200 years declaring this method of asset seizure constitutional.

    148. Re:What? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      But then for added fun, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are funded through their own mechanisms and never comes out of the general budget

      Umm, no. SSA and Medicare taxes just get tossed into the General Fund like all other taxes. And spent like other taxes. No, there is not a "Social Security Trust Fund", nor is there a means of dealing with the next couple decades as the boomers retire and the outgo from SSA exceeds the income to SSA for the first time.

      Same with Medicare. It's spent as fast as it comes in, with outlays mandated by Congress, and income likewise mandated, but no real effort to keep outgo and income matching....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    149. Re:What? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

      This is Oklahoma. And today's Oklahoma is a Right wing Christian state, run by socil conservatives. And they are in a metric fuckton of financial trouble. Seems that the modern day pseudo conservative one side only stuff isn't working out that well:

      http://www.stwnewspress.com/ne...

      http://oklahomawatch.org/2013/...

      http://newsok.com/article/5456...

      And the juicy fun awesome part is there are hardly any liberals to blame everthing on. House, senate, Governor all in lockstep and idealogically pure. Must be one Liberal with awesome powers that can make all those problems..

      THe point? I suspect the two situations are related. Since you can't tax people, you have to outright steal it from them in Oklahoma.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    150. Re:What? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      That is something bureaucrats do routinely. They define how the world works, after all, not you or any pesky "facts". It is no surprise that if these people get enough power, a society invariably collapses.

      I take it you're happy about this development, then? After all, it means the Highwayman - excuse me, Highway Patrol Officer - is free to exercise his judgement without any of that pesky oversight. Imagine if he had to clear his decision with some faceless bureaucrat who applied the formally defined rules mechanically as written without paying any attention to the "fact" that Officer Capone's gut is telling him you must be guilty. Why, under bureaucracy we'd have rule of law rather than whatever the good Officer happens to be in the mood for!

      You do know what bureaucrats are and do, right?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    151. Re:What? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Bingo.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    152. Re:What? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      That said, I still think I would rather see the military budget cut to about 1/10th of it's size (which would still be twice as big as the next biggest military in the world) and the entire difference devoted to establishing things like free college, UBI and other social-upliftment programs that pay for themselves in savings eventually but need a big cash-dump to get off the ground.

      $600B military budget. 90% of that is $540B. 330M citizens. Which works out to ~$1600 per person per year. So, no, you're not going to pay for free college, UBI and other social uplift programs by reducing military expenditures.

      Assuming a UBI of $7.5K per person (man, woman, child), and that the system wasn't gamed, you'd need about $2.5T to cover the costs. Which COULD be paid for by replacing ALL of our existing social programs with a UBI. Or by replacing everything but Medicare plus adjusting tax rates, then using Medicare PLUS all moneys currently spent on health insurance (by employer and employee alike) to cover Universal Healthcare.

      Note that the above assumes noone will game the system. Which isn't going to happen. The system will be gamed.

      As to the military budget, the last time we had a military as small as the one you're suggesting, we got WW2 for our troubles. When you consider our Treaty obligations all over the world, the military we have now is too small, rather than too large. Yes, we could start withdrawing from treaties. Trump even suggested doing some of that with NATO. Did you notice the howls from Europe and the American Left? Yes, pulling out of treaties is not trivially done.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    153. Re:What? by 31415926535897 · · Score: 1

      So you bash gun owners saying, "You are dumber then a box of rocks. Wake up, it's not the 18th century any more.....they can generate a list with you name on it in milliseconds."

      But then you amusingly go on to say, "You want to do something? Don't use software that requires signing a EULA. Tell your congress critter not to support the TPP. Join the EFF and the ACLU, use encryption and run Linux."

      Pretty sure the gov't can generate a list of enemy non-combatants who use encryption about as quickly as they generate the gun owner list. But you go on feeling smug and superior about your method of protecting liberty and tell me how that goes when they bring their $5 wrench. I'm not saying that guns [or encryption] are the answer against a nuclear power, but your argument wasn't a whole lot smarter than the box of rocks you denigrate.

    154. Re:What? by 31415926535897 · · Score: 1

      I agree with the proposition that we need to end the war on drugs (and I'm a conservative). At the very least, we need to stop locking up users--that's so counterproductive.

      However, the real problem is that ending prohibition 2.0 (nice phrase, btw) is that it won't undo all of constitutional abuse that's come with it. Do you think legalizing drugs in our country will suddenly end civil asset forfeiture? That's basically what's going on in terms of this article. We're screwed either way and drugs have nothing to do with it.

      The point is that we could enforce drug laws without trampling on constitutional rights. We can also legalize drugs and still live in a police state. We're far enough away from the 80s that they're basically orthogonal issues. And the bureaucrats will use any excuse (drugs, terrorism, kids) to support a totalitarian agenda with bipartisan support. Don't get too hung up on the drug thing--we need to fight the fire at the source.

    155. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

      Democrats never liked that "due process of law" thing. This was started by the RICO Act.

    156. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No it does not. It dates back to to Exodus and was codified in Rome:
      http://ag.hawaii.gov/cjd/asset-forfeiture-unit/history-of-asset-forfeiture/

      Exodus 21:28: “If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall surely be stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.”

      The idea at the start was that if a ANIMAL gets lose and hurts/kills someone then it can be disposed of for the safety of the community, even though the animal was someones 'property'. There is no need to bring the owner into a court because the animal itself committed a crime.

      In the US the first statute authorizing it was in regards to Pirates and customs violations. The actual taking by the government was of CONTRABAND that may for instance, be in the cargo hold of a unaware cargo transporter. Thus the ability to confiscate the contraband without charging a actual person with a crime.

      Remember for 2,000 + years the idea of it was that the property itself actually committed a crime (animal hurting/killing someone) or was in the last 200 years itself illegal under the law (drugs, untaxed alcohol, etc)

      But now, something unprecedented in the US until just 30 or so years ago is happening.
      In the 80's with 'get tough on crime' the cops/FBI got LAZY and found it HARD WORK to actually do their jobs with surveillance and investigatory work.. So they asked for and were granted the ability to simply size funds in and effort to disrupt the criminals. They started taking property that was legal. Money, cars, boats and homes are not contraband. If they were purchased with ill-gotten gains make a case, arrest and prosecute, then get the property legally with CRIMINAL FORFEITURE.

      It gets worse.
      The thing is, since they were taking money and cars, but not even bothering to charge the gang bosses guess what? The bosses realized they were untouchable and the cost of the seizures became a defacto tax, thus encouraging them to commit EVEN MORE CRIME to keep their earnings up.

      And now? Now since this has gone unchecked for a couple of decades there is case after case of innocent people having legal money and cars and houses STOLEN by 'police' for their own personal benefit.
      It is highway robbery and it needs to stop.

    157. Re:What? by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      I kindof doubt that the cops actually believe the cash they are seizing is being used in any crimes. They are more likely just literally stealing. Reading the article they used this law to take a cancer patient's drugs. How f***ing evil can you be?

    158. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain how a mass armed protest would accomplish anything at all.

      It already has in modern times, and did historically too (although they sometimes end poorly for all involved). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      It helped Bundy at first, but the Feds arrested him for the 2014 standoff when his sons did the 2016 standoff in Oregon. And if you think taking money from a pre-paid card is bad, these ranchers claim the federal government is stealing billions of dollars in land and cattle.

    159. Re:What? by catprog · · Score: 1

      If the military is spending so much that good equipment is sold cheaply then the police can easily afford it.

      I am not saying it is right. I am just saying that their is a possibility that the only reason police can afford military is the excess military spending.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    160. Re:What? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      That's actually a perfectly viable theory, it doesn't change much regarding practical outcomes though.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    161. Re:What? by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty

      Drug prohibition.

      High marginal tax rates.

      Complex tax laws.

      Executive branch employees with judicial powers.

      And so on.

      In short, post-constitutional America.

      There's an election coming up. Feel like voting for Democrats and/or Republicans, to thank them for their joint effort to bring this about? Most people do.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    162. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

      are you out of reality... you know how to found the good fellas now?

    163. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And add unreasonable search and seizure.

    164. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever happened to "due process"?

    165. Re:What? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You are confused. That is not how things work.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    166. Re:What? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      The COMBINED cost of ALL American social programs is less than 5% of the entire budget.

      Only if you don't count Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as social programs. Democrats like to complain about military spending - rightly so, I might add - but then often lie about how much of the budget it is. The military is a huge part of discretionary spending, and other social programs are very little of that, but the entire budget devotes far more than 5% to social programs.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    167. Re:What? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Actually yes, including those programs. As another commenter pointed out - the US apparently has TWO budgets. Republicans always cite the one - because in that one military is small and social is big, while democrats always cite the other one - where military is around 56% and social programs about 5%.

      I admit I don't understand the American system well enough to say which budget is more appropriate to cite for the purposes of this discussion - but the numbers I gave are in fact accurate, it's just that it turns out the numbers given to contradict me are ALSO accurate, it just depends which of the two congressional budgets you look at.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    168. Re:What? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Well, sort of. There's one budget, but it's split into two categories, mandatory spending (which includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) and discretionary spending (military, small social programs, research, NASA, etc.). You said "entire budget", so that would include both categories, in which case military spending is proportionally small (but yes, still too high); you also said "ALL American social programs", but your numbers exclude the largest social programs in America. It's certainly sometimes appropriate to compare the military budget to just the discretionary spending, but I don't think it's ever appropriate to exclude the large social programs from discussions about American spending on social programs.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    169. Re: What? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Personally I would advise you to redirect much of the social spending into smarter programs. The best social spending is the programs that increase the numbsr of taxpayers. Everyone use taxfunded services. From refuge removal to roads. From sewage to law enforcement. I did the math for my country. Somebody who never earns a taxable income but is employed their entire working life - excluding all welfare - and lives to 70 years of age costs 5 million over their lifetime and contributes no part to the budget. Thats without considering inflation which hugely increases the number.

      Give that poor person a degree and a taxable middle class income and they are nett budget contributors rather than a nett cost. The cost right now of a three year degree is about 500-thousand.

      So it actually makes perfect financial sense to give free university to everybody who could succeed at one because it costs only 10% of what it costs me to carry public services for a minimum wage earner. Thats a 900% profit.
      I dont have the numbers to say exactly how the US would compare but there is a study that says (thrpugh similar calculations) that the US congress makes 7 dollars for every 1 dollar spent on the GI-bill. So that suggests that the profit rate in the US would still be between 500 and 700 percent.
      Republicans always balk at the cost of social investments but never consider the ROI. Thats very silly to my mind. Especially since they are happy to lose revenue in taxbreaks for the rich to get the ROI from that despite 200 years of trying that consistently failed to produce the expected returns.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    170. Re: What? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Oh definitely, we need to be smarter about how we spend on our social programs. I will say that free university would require changing our system quite a bit; as it stands, American colleges are so expensive partly because they do a lot more than most European ones for their students - clubs, social things, gyms, dorms, etc. and then of course there's always the question of how do you determine who gets to go, can they major in something that's unlikely to provide them a job, how long do we pay, etc. but we could, in principle, do it well. We are also, unfortunately, discouraging people from going to trade schools, and for a lot of people that's probably a better decision anyways.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    171. Re: What? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Brazil might have the right idea there. Public university is free - but you have to pass a very tough entrance exam to get admission. There are also private universities which will take anybody - but they cost a lot. The public universities are also the highest standard and carry the most prestige, partly because they get the best of the best students.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  3. Land of the fee by Calydor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Innocent until proven guilty, huh?

    Alright, just gotta prove that the money is clean. You need to hire a lawyer to do that.

    What are you gonna pay that lawyer with after all your money just got seized?

    Oh, and better do it fast - rent is due soon.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    1. Re:Land of the fee by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      Well, at least you understand all this.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:Land of the fee by sheetsda · · Score: 1

      It's even deeper than that.

      The excuse for given for this is to guard against identity theft. Crooks stealing identities will max out their stolen credit cards by buying gift cards and then spending those as cash. The individual who owns the card calls the company, tells them of the fraud, and they remove it from the card, send out a new one, etc. But since the switch to the chip based cards, it is my understanding that the business selling the card is liable in the event of fraud.

      So the people getting screwed are individuals carrying prepaid cards. The benefactors are businesses. Funny how often it's been working out that way recently, eh?

    3. Re:Land of the fee by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Innocent until proven guilty, huh?

      Alright, just gotta prove that the money is clean. You need to hire a lawyer to do that.

      What are you gonna pay that lawyer with after all your money just got seized?

      Oh, and better do it fast - rent is due soon.

      FTFS: "If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past"

      I'm guessing roughly half the voters are going to vote for "More of the Same!"; at this point even a bunch syphillitic monkeys will be an improvement over the current ruling class.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  4. Store your money off the grid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps in an easily exchanged commodity like ammunition and firearms.

    1. Re:Store your money off the grid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That will be 1 rifle, 14 pistols and 72 bullets.

      Do you have change for a machine gun?

      I'll have to go to the depot, let me take care of these other customers...

      Wait, I think I have it...  Here, two rifles.

      OK, Here you go, 85 pistols, and 28 bullets.  Hope you get to shoot something cool!

    2. Re:Store your money off the grid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      two rifle bullets would get you a full meal on the McDonalds value menu.

  5. 4th Amendment? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 4, Informative

    Have these civil forfeiture laws been challenged on 4th amendment grounds? Isn't this the textbook definition of unreasonable seizure?

    1. Re:4th Amendment? by Dorianny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have these civil forfeiture laws been challenged on 4th amendment grounds? Isn't this the textbook definition of unreasonable seizure?

      Civil forfeitures have been upheld in Court however, recently the Justice Department has moved to limit the use after the problem of Counties seeking to balance their budges using this tactic against out-of-townees passing thru, became alarmingly common

    2. Re: 4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Trouble is, you have to have standing to sue. Unbelievable as it is, you can be robbed like this and still not have standing because you'requested not being charged with a crime, the property is.

    3. Re:4th Amendment? by gweihir · · Score: 2

      I am sure the, ahem, "people", that do this think this is perfectly reasonable.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:4th Amendment? by RonVNX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The neat trick they use to pull this off is they're not charging -you-, a constitutionally protected person with a crime.

      They're charging your property with a crime. Your property has no constitutional rights.

    5. Re:4th Amendment? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not that I am aware. This might be one where it crosses a line. It's one thing to seize someone's prepaid cards (along with items in their physical possession) at the time of an arrest. It's another to remove the money from an account without being arrested.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:4th Amendment? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've never understood the reasoning behind this. How can in inanimate object commit a crime?

      IT WASN'T ME OFFICER! MY COMPUTER DID THE HACKING WHILE I WATCHED IN HORROR!

    7. Re:4th Amendment? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They were rolled in as part of The War On Drugs; so they've been afforded a very generous hearing.

      It didn't help that, after Reagan signed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act in 1984, the police departments doing the seizing got to keep a substantial cut of the take. The legal theories involved go back considerably further; but the change in incentive structure was what created a...downright gleeful...enthusiasm for the practice among LEOs.

      Some of the most visible characters involved either run or work with the "Desert Snow" outfit which does training on how to identifiy the juicy targets; and the associated "Black Asphalt Electronic Networking System", which is essentially a cop social network for trading tips and tales of highway robbery.

      It's classy stuff.

    8. Re:4th Amendment? by RonVNX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know, right? It's absolutely ridiculous, but that's the "innovation" that somehow makes it work.

    9. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The neat trick they use to pull this off is they're not charging -you-, a constitutionally protected person with a crime.

      They're charging your property with a crime. Your property has no constitutional rights.

      No, the neat trick they use to pull this off, is power.

    10. Re:4th Amendment? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Read the article. Only the first of those things - seizing from prepaid cards - is even mentioned. There's nothing about bank accounts in there.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    11. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, they've NOT been upheld in at least some Courts. They're violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in almost all cases.

      http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2014/a13-445.html

      There's at least a few more outstanding in recent times in the varying states. But...the Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled on the subject- and this is a swift path for Oklahoma to be facing Civil Rights suits and the State Troopers to find themselves facing the possibility of a Felony violation of 18 USC 242 (not that this DoJ would ever enforce it...) because they're an explicit deprivation of rights under law in a manner that uses threat of lethal force to enforce the same (YOU try telling them that they can't do that- they'll claim "resisting arrest" and put you in jail with the implied that they WILL shoot your ass if you resist at that point- which is kidnapping and assault...).

      http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2014/a13-445.html

      This authoritative statement and the holding by the Court in Boyd that the Government could not seize evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment for use in a forfeiture proceeding would seem to be dispositive of this case. The Commonwealth, however, argues that Boyd is factually distinguishable, as it involved a subpoena sought by the Government for the production of evidence, whereas the issue here is the admissibility of illegally seized evidence already in the Government's possession. Although there is this factual difference between Boyd and the case at bar, nevertheless the basic holding of Boyd applies with equal, if not greater, force to the case before us. In both the Boyd situation and here, the essential question is whether evidence -- in Boyd, the books and records, here, the results of the search of the car -- the obtaining of which violates the Fourth Amendment may be relied upon to sustain a forfeiture. Boyd holds that it may not.

      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/116/616/case.html

      We think that the notice to produce the invoice in this case, the order by virtue of which it was issued, and the law which authorized the order were unconstitutional and void, and that the inspection by the district attorney of said invoice, when produced in obedience to said notice, and its admission in evidence by the court, were erroneous and unconstitutional proceedings. We are of opinion, therefore, that

      The judgment of the Circuit Court should be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to award a new trial.

      Simply put, the only reason they're doing this is that some States are getting ballsy because people (yourself included) haven't a fucking clue what their rights are, what the Law, including the bedrock one of the Constitution actually IS and they're doing things illegally because of stupid pricks like yourself.

    12. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but that's not a legal trick.

      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/693/case.html - it's still very much a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth.

      Your property and possessions are protected against search and seizure, period. They're YOURS to begin with and the Fourth doesn't say just on your person.

    13. Re:4th Amendment? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes. No. The brief answer, due to piracy the US decided the owner of the ship didn't have to be convicted. As long as the ship was used in a crime, it could be seized and sold to recoup damages. Up until prohibition, this was an obscure niche. Then they started to hit hard on cars transporting booze, buildings and land containing stills producing booze, basically if you've rent or lent your property to a third party that used it for something illegal you were fucked. In the drug war, they stretched it further seizing motels where renters sold drugs and even family houses where their kid sold drugs or seizing a rented sail boat because they smuggled one joint. Really, one joint.

      Today, they've stretched it even further, they just allege that it's probably some kind of illegal money and you have to prove it's not even when you're right there and claim ownership of it as your own property. As in, your fourth amendment rights don't apply until you prove it's your property so the fourth amendment applies. Honestly, I don't know why they even give a fuck about warrants anymore. Just break down the door and later in court argue that they were charging the door, not your property. It wasn't protected until you claimed they were illegally entering, of course by then you're already tazered as a potential threat. You lose, bro.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    14. Re: 4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that is a lie, the 4th amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," not just people.

    15. Re:4th Amendment? by Calydor · · Score: 2

      People don't kill people, guns kill people.

      It could be entertaining to see a murder defense referencing civil forfeiture to prove that an object can commit a crime without the wielder of the object committing the same crime.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    16. Re: 4th Amendment? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't the owner of the property have standing under the Fifth Amendment's limit on takings?

    17. Re:4th Amendment? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      People don't kill people, guns kill people. It could be entertaining to see a murder defense referencing civil forfeiture to prove that an object can commit a crime without the wielder of the object committing the same crime.

      First of all, if you use a gun in a crime and get caught, your gun will absolutely be confiscated, even if it is held for nothing more than evidence.

      Second, the claim that the property committed the crime is not a claim that the person who owned the property did not also commit a crime.

      So, in your "guns kill people" analogy, the gun will be subject to civil forfeiture AND you will be subject to criminal charges, too.

    18. Re: 4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because inanimate objects are always committing crimes.

      Doesn't that kill the whole "guns don't kill people" argument?

    19. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IT WASN'T ME OFFICER! MY COMPUTER DID THE HACKING WHILE I WATCHED IN HORROR!

      Don't be silly. If you tell them that they'll steal^Wconfiscate^Warrest your computer and then where will you be? Identify the real culprit and leave the innocent computer alone: it was the mouse that did it. It may have colluded with the keyboard, but the mouse was definitely the instigator. The computer was just an innocent patsy.

    20. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, the civil forfeiture was invalid because the search of the vehicle was in violation of the 4th amendment. So if a search of your vehicle is constitutionally sound, the civil asset forfeiture will be valid. Your cited case doesn't state that all c.a.f's to be unconstitutional.

    21. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In the drug war, they stretched it further seizing motels where renters sold drugs and even family houses where their kid sold drugs or seizing a rented sail boat because they smuggled one joint. Really, one joint.

      Why didn't the occupants and owners of the house kill, capture, and torture those depriving them of their homestead?

      I do not understand.

      Life is not forever, and for many it isn't even good.

      Why not torture your enemies?

    22. Re:4th Amendment? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Your property and possessions are protected against search and seizure, period. They're YOURS to begin with and the Fourth doesn't say just on your person."

      The case you cite dates all the way back to 1965, when the Constitution still limited governmental powers. The reason that we cling to what remains of the Second Amendment is that it may represent our last line of defense against power.

    23. Re: 4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because twisted, self-serving interpretation. That's why.

      The government is doing this to any constitutional law they don't like. It's too hard to get it overturned, but they want to change it anyway, so it's time to "reinterpret" the wording. Just look at how they've trying to bypass the 2nd amendment by trying to link the arms to modern day's interpretation of militia only.

    24. Re:4th Amendment? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Eh his argument was way off base in the first place, since the whole point of civil asset forfeiture is that the people having their things taken are innocent.

      Your guns will be forfeit, even if the government does not attempt to prove you committed a crime.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    25. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is all part of the agenda to dupe a naive populace into thinking "cash is for criminals" and moving to an all-digital economy. At that point, complete financial tracking, negative interest rate policy, and cutting you off by disabling your account becomes possible for them.

    26. Re: 4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is how Skynet will beat us.

    27. Re:4th Amendment? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Self driving cars make that a very real possibility. If your car hits a pedestrian then erases its memory/log files, there would be no way to prove who was driving.

    28. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if I offer to turn against my gun for some sort of plea bargain? I will sign a statement that it did the shooting.

    29. Re:4th Amendment? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Civil forfeiture has been upheld by the supreme court. Civil forfeiture under federal law is perfectly legal and will remain so until this early 80's decision is either reversed by the supreme court or congress acts to remove the power from law enforcement.

      Justice allows local law enforcement to proceed in civil forfeiture even when their own state law doesn't by allowing them to claim the seized assets are proceeds of drug crime illegal under federal law which makes the forfeiture an action taken under federal authority.

    30. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really, really wanted to up-mod your post, if not for the last 6 words :(

    31. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC's post has links. I see no links in your post.

    32. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solution: incorporate your property into a LLC.

    33. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did Khal Drogo get a Slashdot account? When did he even learn to use a computer? Shit, we thought you were dead, dude!

    34. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because feminist 'scholars' infected the courts in order to eliminate mens rea (at all costs) so someone who "felt" like they were "harrassed" sexually, even if objectively it was impossible, could and would prevail in court.

    35. Re:4th Amendment? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      But the court has been wrong before.
      And i believe its wrong this time.
      They key is in how they frame their decision, and in turn how you frame the question before the court.

      Hopefully next time (and hopefully its soon) its framed properly so that the court has no choice but to kill civil forfeiture.
      Oftentimes we lay people can easily see the right and wrong of a thing.
      But because the court couches (or pretends to) everything in legal concepts, it doesn't always present the "common sense" viewpoint.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    36. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The brief answer, due to piracy the US decided the owner of the ship didn't have to be convicted. As long as the ship was used in a crime, it could be seized and sold to recoup damages.

      Minor detail but: even though no conviction was required here there is one key difference - the proceedings from selling property would go into compensation of damages caused by mentioned vessel. Ie the incentives here are for the victim, not for police department to fund their activities. This really is perverted incentive [wikipedia].

    37. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have these civil forfeiture laws been challenged on 4th amendment grounds? Isn't this the textbook definition of unreasonable seizure?

      Yes and they were upheld (sigh). At least a few states like New Mexico has banned civil forfeiture by state and local police.

    38. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless your property is a corporation - than it's a person.

    39. Re:4th Amendment? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I have often wondered why one couldn't file a criminal complaint of theft, or grant theft if the amount is high enough. Granted you would likely be fining the criminal complaint with the entity that employs the person who committed the theft, so maybe one needs to also file a complaint with the state's Attorney General not that have any reason to listen. Finally there is the final option of suing under deprivation of rights under the color of law if all else fails. Too bad so much of this is being done to prevent someone from being able to exercise their rights and is shutdown by the use of extraordinary mental gymnastics by judges to justify this continued behavior.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    40. Re:4th Amendment? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      It's not an innovation. The concept goes back at least to the Middle Ages.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    41. Re:4th Amendment? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, when I had property stolen and even located some of it at the thief's former residence, the sheriff told me that since there was no way to prove that generic-looking-but-expensive item was mine (not even with receipts for the custom work that it actually was) it was just too bad for me and they wouldn't even take a report. However, if I wanted to steal it back -- feel free!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    42. Re:4th Amendment? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      True, but how long before feature creep makes it to your bank account?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    43. Re:4th Amendment? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      since the whole point of civil asset forfeiture is that the people having their things taken are innocent.

      No, the point of civil forfeiture is to be a punishment without having to go through a trial for someone who is probably guilty of something. While the precept that the person is "innocent until proven guilty" is commonly quoted, it's not a statement about their actual innocence but about how the system is supposed to treat them.

      Your guns will be forfeit, even if the government does not attempt to prove you committed a crime.

      I believe that's what I said.

    44. Re:4th Amendment? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      probably guilty of something

      Five servings of vegetables and three servings of felonies a day. I try hard to keep up with that stuff, but I end up sitting on my fat ass on slashdot all day stuffing my face with delivery fast food.

      but about how the system is supposed to treat them.

      Yes, it's how the system is supposed to treat them, but then they came up with the idea of using civil forfeiture to be a punishment without having to go through a trial.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    45. Re:4th Amendment? by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      Actually this is targeting digital currency that exists on cards... so I don't see how this is encouraging a move in that direction unless you're thinking the future push is for all purchases to be made on credit and you never actually have $ wealth?

    46. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They pulled something similar in the Supreme Court to uphold the blatantly unconstitutional sex offender registries in the United States, particularly "altering the deal" well after sentencing was over and adding people back who were removed for many years. See if you can wrap your head around this one: the SCOTUS ruled that they can change anything they want about sex offender registries after the fact because "they are REGULATORY, NOT PUNITIVE." Apparently if the government arbitrarily decides that something is "regulatory" in nature rather than "a punishment" then they can do anything they want. Never mind that registration is a matter of criminal law and is in the criminal law statutes of any given place; never mind that anything stemming from a conviction is automatically a punishment. No no no, that's irrelevant because "it's regulatory." They act like it's the same thing as a fucking driver's license renewal or getting a building permit.

    47. Re:4th Amendment? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Prepaid cards are tied to accounts. Nothing was said about bank accounts in my post.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    48. Re:4th Amendment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like a gun shooting someone while you watched in horror!

  6. All hail the police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is US not a police state ?

    1. Re:All hail the police by Stormwatch · · Score: 2

      >implying it isn't

  7. If you can prove you're innocent... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    ...no problem, Citizen. You may go. If you can't, you're probably guilty and all your shit are belong to us. Oh, and if you look Mexican, or Muslim, you probably shouldn't be here in the first place, terrorist, so your proof is probably not going to count for much.

    1. Re:If you can prove you're innocent... by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Are you from the U.S.? If not then I'll give you a pass on the 'proving you're innocent' thing. Otherwise: If we actually reach the point where 'innocent until proven guilty' isn't the Law of the Land anymore? Then it's time to straight to the Ammo Box.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    2. Re:If you can prove you're innocent... by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's time. If they take your stuff, they don't even have to charge you with a crime. Further, you don't get it back unless you can prove it wasn't involved in a crime. The police get most of it with a percentage to the courts to make sure they keep looking the other way.

    3. Re:If you can prove you're innocent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking your stuff cost money, if you don't pay the cost of taking you stuff, you are committing a crime, if you don't have money to pay for your crime you go to prison

    4. Re:If you can prove you're innocent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Otherwise: If we actually reach the point where 'innocent until proven guilty' isn't the Law of the Land anymore?

      We crossed that line in the 80s with the war on drugs.

      In the 90s and perhaps still ongoing, some places like Chicago would lock you up and throw away the key with no trial at all, even your lawyer couldn't find you, and the police would deny you were in their custody. They'd even deny any affiliation to the warehouse full of un-charged, un-tried suspects wasting away in cages. See: Homan Square.

      In the 2000s we built Guantanamo Bay. At least 99 American citizens have been held there. Again, no charges, no trial. Constitutional rights or civil liberties. "What are thoooooose?"

      More recently, social media has made it so that any accusation is automatic guilt in the minds of the masses. Heaven help you if you're falsely accused of a sex related crime; the prosecutor could dismiss all charges and shout about it from the rooftops, but good luck ever finding a job again because the first 10,000 search results for your name are permanently tainted.

      It's a strange world we live in, now. But it isn't the America I grew up in. We have become the police state we used to warn ourselves about.

    5. Re:If you can prove you're innocent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good idea, that pass.

      I fully understand how an American couldn't comprehend the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing........ can't expect much from a nation of slaves.

  8. "I think that {x} is connected to a crime.." by kheldan · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think that nice iPad you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
    I think that smartphone you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
    I think that laptop computer you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
    I think that Rolex watch you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
    I think that diamond ring you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
    I think that expensive jewelry you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
    I think that pizza you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
    I think that car you have is connected to a crime, therefore I'm confiscating it.
    ..yeah, no potential for abuse of police powers here, no sireee.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:"I think that {x} is connected to a crime.." by LazyBoot · · Score: 1

      You missed "house".

    2. Re:"I think that {x} is connected to a crime.." by StillAnonymous · · Score: 2

      No joke. That actually happens.

    3. Re:"I think that {x} is connected to a crime.." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "First they came for Pizza and I said nothing... "

  9. Reminds me of "cops" in Mexico by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NT

  10. Highway robbery... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has now officially been updated to 21st century standards.

  11. Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by FireballX301 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And the police unions wring their hands talking about how nobody trusts police anymore

    1. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by mi · · Score: 1

      What they are doing is completely legal. Your anger should be aimed at the enabling law-makers, not the police using the tools given to them.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the police don't have to this at all; they are choosing to do this. But one thing that needs to be addressed is that previously the police seized the card (which they kept in their possession). Now they are seizing the money in the account. Don't you think that crosses an important line?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit. It takes two to tango... The police departments have used this system to purchase a tank for a small midwest town. Just because they are enabled doesn't make it right, just right-wing. Police are held to a higher standard of judgement in relation to citizens and this should be no exception, excepting Oklahoma.

    4. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by taustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If police departments didn't get to keep a substantial portion of the seized goods and money, you might have a point. But since they do, and many smaller departments essentially fund themselves with this and bogus traffic tickets, they should be criminally prosecuted.

    5. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by mi · · Score: 0, Troll

      The most you could say against it is that the system creates a conflict of interest. It still is not created by the police — but by the lawmakers.

      This is nothing new, unfortunately, and people — myself included — have been complaining about it for years and decades. Unfortunately, ACLU et al. prefer to concentrate on the bogus "racism" claims — and otherwise address social justice — instead of the real problems and the actual justice...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Being legal doesn't matter! I don't do lots of things that are legal. Police are allowed to do any number of things that, for procedural or political reasons, they don't. Hell, some police forces in my country have stopped enforcing some laws (marijuana possession most notably) because the chief has decided it's a waste of resources when there are so many more crimes that actually harm other people. It's still technically illegal but if the police catch you the worst you will face is having your baggy confiscated.

      You may rail against lawmakers for writing these craps laws and rightly so! However, it's still the police that invent reasons to pull people over, imagine reasons to confiscate their property, and make it as difficult as possible for you to reclaim it, all without any protest. After all, why would they protest? No-one wants to shit where they eat and it doesn't take a genius to realise who actually profits from all this legalised theft.

    7. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      Don't know what the lineage of this particular law is, but police unions and administrators certainly lobby for laws to be created, and it's very hard to say no to guys with guns.

    8. Re: Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sure would cross a line. But if you read TFA, you wouldn't be asking stupid questions like that.

    9. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they are doing is completely legal

      You consider seizing property without due process to not violate the supreme law of the land, as amended by the 4th and 5th amendments?

    10. Re: Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Some people can't make legal distinctions should not answer.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by mi · · Score: 1

      it's very hard to say no to guys with guns.

      Who is a "gun nut" now?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    12. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      And it's legal for the FBI to write some nonsense down on an application, take it to a judge who rubber-stamps a warrant, and then grab all of the information they can about you. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. There has to be checks and balances on the system. I would say that even seizure should automatically go before a judge within 48 hours to allow the person to get their items back but I'm afraid the judges would probably just give a default ruling to the police.

    13. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I was just following orders." Remember back when we didn't allow that excuse for others to use?

      Land of the Free. Home of the brave. LOL.

    14. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by phizi0n · · Score: 2

      Both are at fault. The laws are there for the federal government to be able to seize assets from major criminal organizations without needing to prove a real crime but they've been extended too far. The main problem is equitable sharing which means that the federal government shares a % of the seized assets with the local/state police that seized the assets. In 2015 some equitable sharing was suspended after John Oliver shined a light on it but there are still loopholes that allow it to be done. Equitable sharing incentivizes local cops to rob people blind and they are fully aware that they are stealing $10, $20, $100 from totally innocent people in order to fund their department.

      "We've seen single mom's stuff be taken, a cancer survivor his drugs taken, we saw a Christian band being taken. We've seen innocent people's stuff being taken. We've seen where the money goes and how it's been misspent," Loveless said.

    15. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legal as in 'there is a law that exists' but how is this CONSTITUTIONAL. I mean seriously, there's a freakin' amendment in the US constitution that speaks to this VERY thing (seizing of property, effects etc. can only be done upon 'issuing of a warrant'...how is some police officer's belief anyway equivalent to a 'warrant'.

    16. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by taustin · · Score: 2

      The most you could say against it is that the system creates a conflict of interest.

      No, the most you can say is it's blatantly unconstitutional, and the police should recognize that and refuse to have anything to do with it.

    17. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Repeat after me: just because you can, it doesn't mean you should.

      The police may be acting in a legal manner, but they also have a great deal of discretion to NOT enforce laws. That's why people get warnings instead of tickets. That's why kids that did something stupid get driven home instead of driven to juvie. That's why stuff in your possession is assumed to be yours until proven otherwise.

      Wait, scratch that last one.

    18. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by taustin · · Score: 1

      It's very easy for the guys with the checkbook to say no to the guys with the guns.

    19. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Now they are seizing the money in the account.

      No, they're not. The summary is wrong.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    20. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the same logic people use to attack gun manufacturers, not the people using the tools provided to them.

      No.

      If someone does a bad thing, we blame that someone. The thing maker can try to help limit bad uses of their thing, but ultimate responsibility falls on the person(s) doing the deed.

    21. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by sjames · · Score: 1

      A moral or ethical person refrains from thievery even in a state of anarchy. The cops doing this are not good people and deserve nothing but contempt. Quite honestly, they deserve to get shot like any other armed robber.

    22. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Know what else is legal, in most places? Being arrested for vagrancy. So if you're not carrying any cash, credit cards, or debit cards with you, you can be arrested, and if you are carrying cash, debit cards, or credit cards, they can be 'seized' without charges against you, or a warrant, and the burden of proof is on you to prove you're not a criminal? According to the WIkipedia reference, theoretically they can come to your house, that you legally own, and seize it, everything in it, and everything you own, in addition to all your assets, just by asserting that they suspect you might be involved in something criminal. It's clearly an abuse of police powers, it's clearly an abuse of the justice system, and it's clearly an abuse of our legislative system that such a 'law' could be allowed on the books in the first place.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    23. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by sexconker · · Score: 1

      No it isn't you fucking shitclown. Read the Bill of Rights. (HINT: #4)

    24. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It still is not created by the police

      The police officers who choose to seize property without warrant or due process are responsible for the outcome of their own choices. Those officers who wish to complain that their choices have led to loss of respect and cooperation from the public should first look in the mirror, instead of looking to the legislative branch to regulate their behavior.

    25. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution is to kill them.

      There needs to be a mass blood letting in this __CUNT__try..

      This nation need to be dissolved.

      It is a feminist(anti-marry-young-girls) police state.

      There is nothing in it for "males"

    26. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Copid · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure the ACLU is not ignoring civil asset forfeiture.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    27. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very easy for the guys with the checkbook to say no to the guys with the guns.

      The guys with the guns also have checkbooks, and endorsements, and losing those guys with the guns can cost them the checkbooks.

      So naturally...it's the voters fault. We should just hang all of them.

       

    28. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nice bullshit slam on the ACLU. The ACLU is one of the few groups that's been fighting civil forfeiture since Reagan signed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act in 1984 making it legal and the supreme court approved it's constitutionality.

      Don't be a fucking liar.

    29. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you ever though yourself a socio path?
      Did you bully other children at school?
      are you a big guy with an attitude?
      Did you ever considered joining the organize crime?
      Don't
      Joint the good guys instead, people like you, your new family be our hero, we take care of our own
      Join the Police
      We offer training, Holidays, bonuses excellent legal coverage and the best retirement package there is

    30. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Wow, being legal is not the same as being good, or being moral, or being the right thing to do. Police can still be scumbags, even if they are following the law.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    31. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A minute or two of googly and you'd know that c.a.f has roots in British maritime law going back to the 1600s. In the US they were was popular during Prohibition and fell mostly out use when the 18th amendment was repealed. But c.a.f. came back in style when RICO laws were passed, and the drug war was shifting into high gear. Police depts since then have been addicted to c.a.f's as they're very lucrative and serve to feed their increasing budgets.

    32. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >are you a big guy...

      For you, AC. For you.

      captcha:pearly

    33. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      What they are doing is completely legal. Your anger should be aimed at the enabling law-makers, not the police using the tools given to them.

      How does it compare to the soviet state, in your experiences, mi?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    34. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cops. Ya know, the people that they were referring to in the sentence you quoted. Evidently you're an idiot who is holding a grudge over a name you got called by that poster in another thread, or you're just an idiot. Idiot is definitely in there though because I've been reading your posts for a good 2 years on here.

    35. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because they are enabled doesn't make it right, just right-wing.

      I suppose you're one who believes that Fascists were right wing too?

    36. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

      Now they are seizing the money in the account.

      No, they're not. The summary is wrong.

      The fine article also says the police are seizing money from accounts.

      If a trooper suspects a person may have money tied to some type of crime, the highway patrol can scan and seize money from prepaid cards.
      ...
      Troopers insist this isn't just about seizing cash.

      Saying that the police are using this to seize money accurately reflects what is said in the fine article. If you think the summary and the article are both wrong on this point then please provide a link to evidence that refutes it.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    37. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      They're not seizing money from bank accounts. The summary says "bank account or on prepaid cards," only the latter of which is true.

      Calling a prepaid card an "account" is a bit of a stretch if you ask me.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    38. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously do not understand the concept of justice. Thank you very much for enabling legal system to not operate according to justice.

    39. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

      Okay. Fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up. I agree with you that the summary is wrong to lump bank accounts in with prepaid cards. On the other hand it was clear to me that UnknowingFool was talking about an account associated with a prepaid card. If UF had used "prepaid card" instead of just "card" then they would have been even more clear. Your post was misleading because it makes it seem like nothing has changed regarding seizing money.

      I think we all agree that they can now seize money from prepaid cards and they weren't able to do this before. I thought that was the point UnknowingFool was making and you seemed to be refuting it.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    40. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having lived poor for awhile I can tell you that prepaid cards are de facto bank accounts for a lot of the working lower class. Many employers like Walmart and McDonald's will direct deposit your wages onto these cards if you ask them to. When you work 2 jobs and have 6 nonworking hours a day to fit in eating and sleeping and trying to raise a kid, something simple like going to the bank can be well out of reach. Especially if you aren't able to save up any money anyway, there's an overwhelming feeling of "why bother" - a bank account is for people who actually have money to keep somewhere. Getting your pay put on a card usually has no fee, unlike a check cashing service (don't get me started about cashing your Walmart paycheck at Walmart and watching them take a cut right back out for the "service" of giving you your money).

    41. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by kheldan · · Score: 1

      ..yeah, how about NO? Please, go to your desert island in the middle of the ocean to play Anarchist, okay? Things are bad enough as it is without people like you playing out your Lord of the Flies fantasies in real life.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    42. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trust and anger are not related. i can be completely peaceful and not in the slightest bit angry with the police while at the same time not trust a single one of them.

      the difference is that i understand that not all police will misuse these circumstances and as such i cannot be angry with any police officer, but for the few bad apples that do take advantage of this, they will destroy any trust that i have in every police officer.

      Anger and a lack of trust are two completely separate things and in no way correlated. I can be angry at someone while trusting them to the end of the world just as i can be peaceful to someone while not trusting them a single inch.

      maybe you should just stop being a police shill, it is the CHOICE of the police to use this tool as no one is holding a gun to their heads to use it..

    43. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by phorm · · Score: 1

      Indeed, if they were only concerned with access to something to commit an illegal act, then depriving the supposed "criminal" of the card should be enough (though still bad as it's assuming guilt). Draining the associated pre-paid account goes beyond that though. It really is theft by the authorities.

    44. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The laws are there for the federal government to be able to seize assets from major criminal organizations without needing to prove a real crime but they've been extended too far.

      These laws were "too far" (blatantly unconstitutional) from the start. How does the fed determine which organizations are "criminal" without first proving some crime was committed by said organization.

      US police and politicians: "Wah! Gathering evidence and prosecuting criminals is too hard! The bill of rights is too constricting on our arbitrary application of power! Wah!"

      Non-idiot US citizen: "Good. Everything is working as intended."

    45. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >supreme court approved it's constitutionality

      They kinda suck at their mission, don't they?

    46. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely! The card belongs to the bank, the money ostensibly belongs to you (check the cardholder agreement).

    47. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      It was a serious question, sorry if it came across as a troll, however I really was interested in your experiences.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    48. Re:Gee, I wonder why anti police sentiment exists by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      A prepaid card is tied to an account. Not a bank account but an account. Again my point is that there is line crossed when the police can seize your physical possession and them accessing an account and withdrawing the funds from that account. I'm sure there are some banking and credit violations for them to do that.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  12. Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I see no reference to the bank accounts, only the prepaid credit cards. Can anyone site something that actually talks about the attacks on bank accounts?

    1. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I don't see bank accounts either unless they mean that prepaid cards that are tied to bank accounts. Some cards have a max spending limit and you have to recharge them. It works with teenagers for example.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "unbanked" use prepaid cards as their savings accounts.

    3. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant. I'm asking about banks, specifically, because I use a fucking bank.

    4. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by Quantus347 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The device specifically does not work if the card is directly tied to a bank account, it only works on prepaid debit cards, gift cards. From the the FAQ on the device from the manufacturer's website (https://www.erad-group.com/faqs):

      Forbes has a slightly more informative write-up: http://www.forbes.com/sites/in...

      --
      Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
    5. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by Quantus347 · · Score: 1
      Nope, the device specifically does not work if the card is tied to a bank account, it only works on prepaid debit cards. From the the FAQ on the device from the manufacturer's website (https://www.erad-group.com/faqs):

      I'm trying to determine the balance on a prepaid debit card but the response I receive from the ERAD-Prepaid Terminal says "Invalid Amount" or "Declined". ERAD-Intel and ERAD-Recovery will only retrieve balances from open loop prepaid debit cards. Debit cards attached to a valid checking account or valid credit cards cannot be processed using the ERAD-Intel or ERAD-Recovery system.

      Forbes has a slightly more informative write-up: http://www.forbes.com/sites/in...

      --
      Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
    6. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      No, however most states seize assets but only after your proven guilty so I'm imagining some good samaritan traveling from another state standing on the side of the highway with trooper that's been knee capped waiting for cop to show up because he thought they were impersonating an officer and trying to rob them.

    7. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno. That what the FAQ says, but this example pic from their site seems to suggest otherwise.

      https://www.erad-group.com/Content/images/intel/image003.png

    8. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by PPH · · Score: 1

      The "unbanked"

      IOW, the poor. Who are not likely going to fight this in court.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a distinction without a difference for many. A lot of people use their paycheck to recharge a prepaid card. Effectively it is their bank account even if not in name.

      The fact remains, you had money before and now you don't.

    10. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > It's a distinction without a difference for many.

      It's a distinction WITH a difference for the majority. More specifically, it is a large difference for ME, which is why I asked the fucking question. The article thoroughly answers any questions that someone using a prepaid card might have: it does not, however, comment on the bank thing that the headline alleges. It appears that your bank account is safe from this attack, based on the other comments. For now.

    11. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by pavon · · Score: 1

      Does anyone know whether payroll debit cards being used for many low income jobs fall into the open-loop or closed-loop category? The people that are being paid with those are doing so because they don't have a bank account (and often can't get one) so those cards for all practical purposes are their bank account.

    12. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the card can be used anywhere to withdraw funds, its an open loop card.

    13. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah seems strange to us.

      But we're not poor and black.

      Funny how this tactic targets the poor and black.

    14. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The device specifically does not work if the card is directly tied to a bank account, it only works on prepaid debit cards, gift cards. From the the FAQ on the device from the manufacturer's website

      And if you ask Tazer, the use of their electroshock weapons has never killed anyone.

    15. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well when you ask like that, you don't fucking get a fucking goddamned fucking answer you fat fucking fuck!

    16. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Huffington Post post describes it this:

      The device tells officers the balance of prepaid debit cards and gift cards, and allows them to seize the money if they determine it's suspicious. ERAD readers also can provide limited information about pretty much any card with a magnetic strip, including bank debit cards and credit cards.

    17. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks AC!

    18. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by phorm · · Score: 1

      Especially if you've got bad credit etc where a financial institution won't let you open an account, a pre-paid Visa or debit-style card is pretty much the only option for some people (unless you'd like to carry a ton of cash and risk mugging, but hey that still doesn't protect you from the police).

      Gotta love how banks like to charge people who have less money extra fees for not having the "minimum balance", or hold their deposits for an extra week and thus not allow them to withdraw their own money to pay bills.

    19. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The credit union industry refers to them as the underbanked. Haven't heard the unbanked term.

    20. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how expensive it is to be poor.

    21. Re:Bank Accounts not mentioned in TFA by phorm · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. Around here it would cost a lot more to rent my house than the mortgage does (although I would have to worry less about repairs and property tax etc). It's pretty sad, really.

  13. How is this technically possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't live in the US, so perhaps it's different across the pond, but where I live cards have withdrawal limits. Circumventing them shouldn't even be technically possible. How do they do it?

    1. Re: How is this technically possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't withdraw the money, they put a hold on it until the investigation is over. It's like freezing the account. Either way, you can't access the funds, so you've effectively been deprived of your property without a trial or even an arrest necessarily.

  14. Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not my iTunes gift card!

    Nooooooooooooooo!!

  15. So what are they gonna do if they goof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what are they gonna do if they goof?
    well... I suspect a lawyer will have to intervene, and there will be forms, notarized proof needed, as well as the cash never quite all being there...
    And a "Sorry" will not even begin to make up for cost, lost time, or mental stress...
    And the fingerprints will never go away.

    1. Re:So what are they gonna do if they goof? by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > So what are they gonna do if they goof?

      To get back your improperly grabbed civil asset forfeiture, you normally need to sue the USG or state government. You'll see cases with names like "State of Texas vs. One Gold Crucifix" and "United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency". While hilarious, you need to WIN this lawsuit, at whatever cost to yourself, to get your shit back. If you lose the case- totally possible- then you are out your shit, and also the cost of litigation, plus whatever it cost you in YOUR courtroom. Again: this can, and does, happen to entirely innocent people. You can be found innocent of a crime, and not get your shit back, and pay for two trials.

  16. Highway Robbery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I won't qualify that as legal highway robbery, because even if there is a law that says it's legal it's not. It just hasn't been found illegal yet.

  17. Misleading by RonVNX · · Score: 2

    Article says pre-paid cards. Says nothing at all about bank accounts. Which would be a whole new level of thing.

  18. And just how long before they return the money? by Sebby · · Score: 1

    "If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past,"

    Yeah, and just how many decades did it take before they gave it back?

    --

    AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    1. Re:And just how long before they return the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all you have to do is get a second job earn your money back and then get a lawyer pay him that money so he can get your money back.

    2. Re:And just how long before they return the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The police needs some kind of penalty too, like "twice the amount will be given back to you" to demonstrate that they were at least 50% certain that the money was tied to some type of crime. By giving back the exact amount, they have no incentive to be more than 0.001% certain that the money was tied to a crime.

    3. Re:And just how long before they return the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > to demonstrate that they were at least 50% certain that the money was tied to some type of crime

      No, this is money, so treat it like that. To get your property back, you need to win a lawsuit, which you have a nonzero chance of losing, even if you were innocent of the crime.

  19. And this happens in the USA? by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's where police can seize your property and cash without first proving you committed a crime; without a warrant and without arresting you, as long as they suspect that your property is somehow tied to a crime.

    I thought I was reading about some regime in the east! Not this USA. What is the difference? This saddens me.

    1. Re:And this happens in the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeh this looks like the kind of thing you would have expected in old USSR ... > 20 years ago. Maybe in Putin's property (the place some people call Russia), or any of those obtuse states out there. Well, the USA has been slowly converting into their worst fears, making them a reality for them.

      Pretty sad.

    2. Re:And this happens in the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought I was reading about some regime in the east! Not this USA. What is the difference? This saddens me.

      You mean, it saddams you.

    3. Re: And this happens in the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, laws and the practice of their enforcement in the USSR were very reasonable. In particular, your property could only be confiscated if you are convicted and sent to prison on the charges of, say, grand theft, and, in general, only in cases in which the criminal law explicitly stipulated the possibility of doing so.

    4. Re:And this happens in the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women wanted it this way.

      "Tough on those criminal males"

      We've always been hated in anglo cunttures.

    5. Re:And this happens in the USA? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      That's where police can seize your property and cash without first proving you committed a crime; without a warrant and without arresting you, as long as they suspect that your property is somehow tied to a crime.

      I thought I was reading about some regime in the east! Not this USA. What is the difference? This saddens me.

      You are actually living in a Banana Republic.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    6. Re:And this happens in the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We use high tech and the tech companies keep part of the take. They use low tech and keep it all to themselves.

  20. They haven't thought this through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been to Oklahoma and I know that to get out of the state you have to pay a not inconsiderable toll fee. I'm wondering if they have figured out a way to let people leave if they steal all their money. Maybe they will put people to work picking up trash or something.

    1. Re:They haven't thought this through by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I've been to Oklahoma and I know that to get out of the state you have to pay a not inconsiderable toll fee.

      LOL. $4 to from OKC to Tulsa, and $4 from Tulsa to NE corner state line driving a 2-axel vehicle.

  21. What's old is new again by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought that was something that only happened in stories about Ye Olden Days (like Robin Hood) but this is literally highway robbery!

    1. Re:What's old is new again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least Robin Hood did it the right way around. This is all sorts of fucked up.

    2. Re:What's old is new again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's worse. At least when a criminal robs you, they don't pretend to be doing it for your own good.

  22. It's OK to skip visiting OK. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As though I needed another reason to *not* visit Oklahoma. It's now officially the Alabama of the South.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:It's OK to skip visiting OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's that make Alabama? Florida of the Southeast? Ohio of the Midwest? Vermont of the Northeast?

    2. Re:It's OK to skip visiting OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh man, you got +4 insightful sympathy mod for a nonsensical statement about Oklahoma being the new "Alabama of the South" (LOL). I guess your post is what passes for "insightful" on Slashdot now. Sad!

    3. Re:It's OK to skip visiting OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I though Alabama was the Alabama of the south.

    4. Re:It's OK to skip visiting OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      South?

    5. Re:It's OK to skip visiting OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were two technical conferences in Oklahoma I was considering for next year. I am writing the organizers and suggesting they move the conferences out of OK.

      But getting money out of a card that requires a pin is a good trick. Do they have a way or do they just beat the owner till he gives it up?

    6. Re:It's OK to skip visiting OK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better avoid New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and some other states. Oklahoma isn't the only one and there will be more.

      >But getting money out of a card that requires a pin is a good trick.

      No, not really. Ever lose a credit card or debit card? If you have, then you know that when you call your bank to report it lost or stolen, the customer service agent in the Fraud department will immediately freeze your account, open a new one, transfer the funds from the old account into it, and then issue a replacement card to be mailed to you. All done without entering your PIN. Well that's basically what the ERAD is, a portable terminal able to access financial networks through FinCen that gives the cops the same power as any bank employee working in the bank's fraud/anti-money laundering department to access your accounts.The exception here is, though, while the bank employee can access your bank/cc accounts, the cops are limited to being able to work with only pre-paid card accounts. However, they can scan your regular debit or cc with ERAD and get the account information off of it. If that happens you'd be wise to call up your bank to report your debit/cc lost or stolen and get new ones since the cops now have your account info and cvv number from your card.

  23. Legitimate reasons by genessy · · Score: 1

    You can have a portion of the money back as long as your bank account is full due to helping the police with their money laundering.

  24. 7.7 percent of all the cash forfeited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It shows the state is paying ERAD Group Inc., $5,000 for the software and scanners, then 7.7 percent of all the cash forfeited through the courts to the highway patrol.

    No corruption here, move along citizen. As if civil asset forfeiture wasn't being abused enough.

  25. This is common sense... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Spread your money around to different financial institutions. If the police confiscates your money from one financial institution, you still have money elsewhere as long as the debit cards for those other financial institutions aren't on your person.

  26. OOOOOOK-LA-HOMA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there any other state in the running for "Most culturally a$$-backward state?" It makes Mississippi and Alabama look progressive sometimes.

  27. Time for revolution.... by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

    Except how effective is that Glock going to be against the local SWAT team? Or how about that rusting AK-47 buried in your backyard against a military that has a massive arsonal including a nuclear stockpile capable of wiping out all of human civilization several times over? Is it time yet to bend over and spread those buttcheeks or run far away from the US?

    1. Re:Time for revolution.... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Your local sheriff is probably a better shot.

      As fun as the fancy gadgetry is, it's always been kind of limited in terms of holding territory where the people don't want you there. This has been true from Vietnam to Afghanistan and is still true to a certain degree even with Iraq.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Time for revolution.... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Your local sheriff is probably a better shot.

      Seriously, no. The minimum score for department qualification will get a civilian asked to leave the range.

      Our local county range is 'commandeered' by the local cops, sheriff, CBP, etc. occasionally for training. It's funnier than shit to bring up the range web cams and watch these guys try to hit targets. Some of the scruffy looking cops (probably undercover) look like they actually learned to shoot by watching hip-hop movies. Their form is pretty bad.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Time for revolution.... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Except how effective is that Glock going to be against the local SWAT team?

      Revolutions start when ex-military gun nuts with rifles take armories, and some portion of the military decides it's not on the government's side in the first place. In the War of Independence, they had actually smuggled quite a bit of artillery out and hidden it before the shooting started (the shooting war started over troops sent to confiscate guns, humorously enough, both rifles and stolen cannon).

      Much the same happened in the Civil War (which is what you call a failed revolution).

      Of course, it won't be long before the victor is the side who can build more combat robots, and I can't even guess what a revolution would look like.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Time for revolution.... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I can second that, as range officer at park district gun club the police used our range a couple nights a month. They shot at half the fifty foot distance and sprayed half their rounds off the full sized silhouette targets they used. The worst of our club members kept most the rounds on the standard 10.5x12" indoor bulleye paper at fifty feet.....if a cop near you starts shooting, even in opposite direction of you toward someone with no gun, my advice would be to hit the ground.

    5. Re:Time for revolution.... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Sadly I have had a friend of mine who is a cop say much the same. In his city is is their best shot but then he and I like to go waste a lot of ammo at the range and at my property up north. He is better with handguns than I am but better with long guns than he is.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  28. Cross Oklahoma off of my visit list... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Driving cross country this summer to spend tourist dollars.

    Will make sure to completely avoid Oklahoma.

    1. Re:Cross Oklahoma off of my visit list... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably want to avoid New Mexico and a few other states where this system has been in use since last year.

  29. Catching the bad guys. by monkeyman.kix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This just proves how far law enforcement thinks that can go to tread over the rights and civil liberties of citizens in their pursuit of 'catching the bad guys'. This will not end but it has to. If a patrol officer has the authority to seize your bank accounts based on suspicion, whats to say they can't seize any and all assets based on nothing more than a "gut feeling". There is no requirement of proof on the officers part. Justice has deteriorated in the US. Crime has dropped to all-time lows, yet the headlines scream that there are rampant criminals stealing and profiting from drugs, terrorism, arms, whatever fits the headline of fear mongering. It is not right.

    When will the citizenry of the US wake up and take back the power that has been slowly bled away form them over the last 50 years?

    Don't get me wrong, I want the cops to get the bad guys. But do it right, not slimy, not by taking away the rights of free people.

    1. Re:Catching the bad guys. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      If a patrol officer has the authority to seize your bank accounts...

      Don't believe everything you read in Slashdot summaries. The article says nothing about bank accounts.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Catching the bad guys. by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...yet the headlines scream that there are rampant criminals stealing and profiting from drugs, terrorism, arms...

      There are. We call them "cops".

    3. Re:Catching the bad guys. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      doesn't matter, it does talk about seizing property without due process. completely unconstitutional and our founding fathers went to war over less than that

    4. Re:Catching the bad guys. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      It does matter. It diminishes the valid argument against this kind of thing if it looks like you're stirring up trouble with exaggerations.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:Catching the bad guys. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      nothing exaggerated, between your ears you have opposite problem

  30. Why Not Just Just Take the Cards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article only mentions pre-paid cards, not debit cards.

    If they just confiscated the cards, they wouldn't have to give ERAD their cut. Is there some advantage to leaving the worthless piece of plastic with the suspect?

    1. Re:Why Not Just Just Take the Cards? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And if that card is already tied to Paypal or Android Pay or Apple Pay? Or a monthly auto-debit?

  31. Obligatory John Oliver by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

    John Oliver addressed civil forfeiture a few years ago.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  32. No worries by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I'm sure they can tell the difference between the 'wrong' sort to apply this too and the ' right' sort. I'll leave figuring the rest out as an exercise to the reader.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  33. How will this work by TykeClone · · Score: 1

    If the owner of the prepaid card files a claim that says that the withdrawal was unauthorized?

    --
    A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    1. Re:How will this work by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Prepaid cards (and other debit cards) generally don't have the same protections that a credit card has. They'll probably be told the money's gone.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:How will this work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the owner of the prepaid card files a claim that says that the withdrawal was unauthorized?

      Won't matter. Technically, the funds aren't withdrawn or transferred - they're frozen by the issuer of the prepaid at the behest of the police. This is kinda like when the police calls the bank to freeze the account of a suspect wanted for questioning. Supposedly when the suspect is cleared from suspicion of committing a crime, they get their account unfrozen and are able to access their funds. Problem is, crooked police departments make you fill out forms to get your funds back and tell you that it will take several weeks or months before your funds get unfrozen. But often that doesn't mean anything because the police can also say that while they don't have enough evidence to charge you with a crime, they can keep the funds because they still believe that they are the proceeds from an illegal action.

  34. I think my neighbor's 79 inch smart TV was involve by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

    I think I might go over and "citizen's arrest it" and hold it over at my house, then call the police........Someday

  35. D-LINC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was expecting this in a few years, not so soon. The systems of control are really tightening the screws!

  36. No by Chas · · Score: 1

    If you can prove, you get the opportunity of fighting the police AGAIN in court. Amd hoping you eventually recover SOME of it.

    This shit is little more than thievery.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:No by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is exactly armed robbery.

    2. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, when you try to take the police to court, you usually end up with a few warrants against you.
      I myself was wanted for a hit&run a few years back.
      I can't even drive due to terrible eyesight, nor did I own a car, but I *did* have a pending lawsuit...

  37. You must prove you own your own possesions by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," said Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent.

    Besides the absurdity of having to prove that you own your own possessions, there is the problem that many police forces simply declare it as "part of drug proceeds" and it is nearly impossible to get back.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:You must prove you own your own possesions by phrackthat · · Score: 1

      They require you prove a negative.

    2. Re:You must prove you own your own possesions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past. Once. We kneecapped the son-of-a-bitch to show our appreciation."

      FTFY.

  38. United SNAKES of Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Land of the weak, home of the crazed.

  39. Not bank accounts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can get some limited information but they cannot remove any funds from bank accounts only from prepaid cards. It's bad enough but lets not add misinformation.

  40. No freezing anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely the police should send a freeze request to the bank, not actually take any money from an account. Where does the interest go? Pension funds perhaps, or just to renew that busted light from the patrol car A275 which was a result of the last assent forfeiture operation?

  41. Constitution = Toilet Paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to greatly admire the US Constitution, even while being Canadian, clearly it is worth no more than the paper it was written on & even that may be overvaluing it...clearly the US government law enforcement agencies have decided it is no more than toilet paper.

    O well. Guess I'm never going to Oklahoma.

  42. 90% of the USA is NOT under law of the land by elcor · · Score: 0

    But under law of the sea, Admiralty law, which means military law. This explains why so much abuse of the constitution is legal. Very technical explanation here: http://www.annavonreitz.com/

    1. Re:90% of the USA is NOT under law of the land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay conspiracy theory bullshit! Do go on about being a sovereign citizen and how the gold fringe on a flag makes it a military flag!

    2. Re:90% of the USA is NOT under law of the land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another one of those batshit crazy "freemen of the land"... Or maybe it is "sovereign citizen"...

    3. Re:90% of the USA is NOT under law of the land by tepples · · Score: 2
    4. Re:90% of the USA is NOT under law of the land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not the above poster. While these types are wasting their time making legalistic arguments, from a philosophical standpoint, their outlooks is far more compelling than being a willing pet of the aristocracy.

  43. War on drugs by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    It was thrown out with the bathwater for the war on drugs.

    The perception was that drug dealers were living high off of their ill-gotten gains: owning houses, boats, off-road trucks... and flaunting their wealth in the community.

    We didn't have enough evidence to charge them with drug-related crimes, so we invented civil asset forfeiture to compensate: if you even *looked* like you could be a drug dealer, you could have your assets confiscated and sold.

    And the proceeds can go directly to the police department to further their anti-drug campaign. Under this new law, drug crime became a self-correcting problem as the proceeds went to fund ever-more expanded police operations. ...except that it didn't. Drug use is as high as it ever was, police can confiscate anything you own on a whim, and the action is not tied to evidence or charges, and neither the police nor the prosecutors can be held liable for mistakes and errors.

    This was a problem for 20 years, and eventually the US attorney general made a ruling that in general, you can't sieze cash as civil-asset forfeiture.

    (But the OP is apparently about state-sponsored seizure, not federal.)

    This will to go to the supreme court, will cost about $2 million in wasted effort for some poor schmuck, cost about 10 years wasted time for some poor schmuck, and be overturned. In the meantime, OK state cops get a free pass to steal money from anyone.

    And of course, when the government is eventually found doing something illegal, they are told to stop. When a company is found doing something illegal, they pay a small fine and don't admit to any wrongdoing. When a citizen is found doing something illegal, they go to jail.

    And when a citizen is wrongly accused, it costs a lifetime of wages and a year or two of life effort just to escape the state's error.

    What I don't understand is why more police aren't being shot in this nation. The police are trashing lives on a whim, and some of those trashed lives will have nothing to lose. I haven't had a polite interaction with a cop in 20 years, and most people say that the best policy is to avoid them at all costs. Parents are starting to teach their children not to call the police for help.

    The police hurt a lot of people, unnecessarily, and a lot of people are getting desperate.

    It surprises me that we're not in full-out revolt.

    1. Re:War on drugs by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      What surprises me more is that we're not using the legitimate peaceful tools we have at hand to make our government respond and stop doing this shit - i.e., vote enough of the politicians out of office, and they become surprisingly responsive to your concerns. If we can't even be arsed to do that, what makes you think anyone is going to turn to more violent means?

    2. Re:War on drugs by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If both the R and the D support this policy, for whom is there to vote?

    3. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was thrown out with the bathwater for the war on drugs.

      You misspelled blacks and hippies there.

    4. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because america is a woman's country.

    5. Re:War on drugs by jmcvetta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's see, in the upcoming presidential election we can choose from:

      A totalitarian legalist running dog lackey of financial capital

      or

      A jingoistic egomaniac authoritarian capitalist with amusing hair

      Does anyone really wonder why more people don't vote? The better question is why, with so much evidence to the contrary, some many people still believe they have a voice in government.

    6. Re:War on drugs by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why more police aren't being shot in this nation. The police are trashing lives on a whim, and some of those trashed lives will have nothing to lose. I haven't had a polite interaction with a cop in 20 years, and most people say that the best policy is to avoid them at all costs. Parents are starting to teach their children not to call the police for help.

      The militarization of the Police is a fascinating phenomenon. The Police are the "enforcement" conversely the politicians are the "management". Something which doesn't get nearly as much attention in these matters are the politicians who enact these policies. I'm not affiliated with this work, just something relevant to the topic, you may find it insightful: Rise of the Warrior Cop. It covers the origin of policing from the Roman praetorian guard to the present incarnation.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    7. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when a citizen is wrongly accused, it costs a lifetime of wages and a year or two of life effort just to escape the state's terror.

      fixed that for you

    8. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the reason you can't get laid. You're not being victimized by anyone but your own worthless self.

    9. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other choices, which conveniently exist.

    10. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My daughter was recently abducted by a taxi driver. It was a tense situation for her in the back seat of the cab.

      Fortunately, the crime was more one of opportunity without any real forethought. After not too long, the driver was persuaded to release his captives. I think the farther he drove, the more he realized it was a bad idea.

      Having escaped the taxi, my daughter was standing on a curb trying to call somebody for help. An unwitting policeman happened by out of coincidence.

      My daughter says the moment they saw the policeman approaching was when they got really scared. Policemen are more scary than kidnappers.

      This all happened recently in a country that is not the United States. But you didn't suspect it was not the U.S. until I told you.

      There has been a deep fear of the police in some segment or other of the U.S. population for a long time. But I am a middle-aged, reasonably affluent white guy. Only recently have I understood that feeling. I am ashamed for taking so lightly the complaints and bell-ringing of people who have experienced this their whole lives.

    11. Re:War on drugs by tepples · · Score: 1

      Despite their convenient existence, the other choices consistently fail to be elected.

    12. Re:War on drugs by reboot246 · · Score: 3

      "Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
      Going to the candidates' debate
      Laugh about it, shout about it when you've got to choose
      Every way you look at it you lose"

      ~Simon and Garfunkel

    13. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I dreamed I was flying, and high up above my eyes could clearly see
      The statue of liberty, sailing away to sea, and I dreamed I was flying.

      Paul Simon, American Tune, circa 1975

    14. Re:War on drugs by currently_awake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The biggest lie in American politics: Voting third party is throwing away your vote. In reality when the major 2 parties see votes going third party they adopt policies from those parties to try and get those votes. Voting third party actually gives you more influence in federal politics than voting R or D.

    15. Re:War on drugs by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      The militarization of the Police is a fascinating phenomenon.

      Indeed. Who knew Andy Summers was such a dead shot with an AR-15?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    16. Re:War on drugs by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      People do have a voice. The problem is that the people with the time and desire to influence the system are all bat-shit crazy. We could do much to fix this country with just a few minor changes.

      The first would be to move election day to a Saturday and make it a national holiday which would allow much more of the working poor to vote. You'd also have to make universal early by mail voting standard across the nation to make sure you get the infirm and disabled a voice.

      The second would be to alter the electoral system to be a ranking based vote. This, like the European system would allow for more parties and more selection.

      The third would be to return the house precincts to the original constitutions 30,000 people and move the house out of DC and make it an online session with the members video/audio conferencing in from their home district. With 3000 house members and such small precincts big money would have little to no influence. In fact there would be very good odds the much of the house would be populated by people without party affiliation.

    17. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I anything, this year primaries had been the most amusing and entertaining joke I've seen in a long time
      Great television...I did follow it very closely and I am not even American.....and this only got started, cant hardly wait for part two
      I shall enjoy while it last because I know, no matter what happens it will end in tears

    18. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voting doesn't work. When will you "don't waste your vote, PARTICIPATE AS IT IS YOUR CIVIC DUTY DERP DERP" idiots realize this? You're only supporting a broken ass system that is designed to screw you and give you the illusion of choice.

      If I knew the solution, I would be out there implementing it. However, I'm doing well now, so fuck you, I got mine.

    19. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The perception was that drug dealers were living high off of their ill-gotten gains...

      Back in the 1980's, big-time drug _traffickers_ _were_ absurdly and _obviously_ wealthy from their drug money. They were also -just like Al Capone & friends- smart enough to keep the source of that wealth so well hidden as to be nigh impossible to prove. So, asset forfeiture was invented to remove their ill-gotten gains and reduce their power.

      We went wrong by not making the practice illegal in the mid-1990s-to-early-2000s when the traffickers had been cut down to size.

    20. Re:War on drugs by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This story is about Oklahoma. You can't get elected there without promising to do everything you can to get rid of crime. Any politician there who gave a hint that suspected criminals would be allowed to keep their money would find it an extremely difficult election to win. Voters only care if an innocent person is caught up in this; which means a person who *looks* innocent and is photogenic enough to get in the news (which discounts most minorities and poor whites).

    21. Re:War on drugs by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Both parties are against it also because neither party has all members in lockstep. Civil libertarians on both sides of the aisle are against this. Quite a lot of politicians are against this, at least those who don't go around spouting about how we need to get tougher on crime. However because law enforcement gets a share of proceeds from civil forfeitures there is a lot of pressure and lobbying from law enforcement agencies to keep civil forfeiture.

      On the federal side, I think it's no longer allowed to take cash in civil forfeitures. However this has no affect on the individual states.

    22. Re:War on drugs by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Funny

      Personally I don't find Hillary's hair that amusing.

    23. Re:War on drugs by Agripa · · Score: 1

      This was a problem for 20 years, and eventually the US attorney general made a ruling that in general, you can't sieze cash [justice.gov] as civil-asset forfeiture.

      The Department of Jerks reversed this ruling 2.5 months later:

      https://www.justice.gov/crimin...

    24. Re:War on drugs by Falconhell · · Score: 2

      Why do you think they call him Sting? :)

    25. Re:War on drugs by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Voting third party actually gives you more influence in federal politics than voting R or D.

      Or, voting for the other side to turn you electorate into a swing seat has a similar effect.
      Too many people treat politics like team sport, blindly voting for their team. If you want real change, you need to create a close contest, ie voting to get the less popular party/candidate up to level pegging, or for the third party to gain a sufficient influence on the other two.
      Never ever vote for a party/candidate with strong majority regardless of your political beliefs.

    26. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly I'm glad Trump got the nomination. I'm hoping it forces the Republican party to re-think themselves and wonder where they went wrong. I just wish it hadn't happened at a time when the other option is Hillary.

    27. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Does anyone really wonder why more people don't vote?"

      And the REAL funny thing is that if even half of the people that don't vote went and voted for an independant 3rd party (you know, the people that americans claim to be "throwing away their vote"), they'd win a majority by a LANDSLIDE.

    28. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite their convenient existence, the other choices consistently fail to be elected.

      Because too many people do what you seem to do:

      Not vote for what they actually believe in, due to fear that someone else (the slightly worse of two horrible alternatives) might get voted in.

      And thus the status quo perpetuates itself due to people being spineless cowards.

      As long as you keep acting as you do know, the situation will never change.

      Good job.

      When you wake up, please do this instead: Find a candidate you really believe in, whose policies you agree with and who seems to be a decent human. Vote for that candidate, regardless of chances to win or not. That way, you can at least have a clear personal conscience and be proud that you followed your principles. And who knows, if enough people wake up and start doing that, actual improvements might eventually result from it.

    29. Re:War on drugs by axewolf · · Score: 1

      No what you say is the biggest lie.

      Voting for any party is throwing away your free will.

    30. Re:War on drugs by bluegutang · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party. Currently polling around 10%.

    31. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but could you explain which is which? I'm afraid I can't figure it out.

    32. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod points! My kingdom for some mod points! Posted anon cwrd obvs. Tinfoil hats for everyone.

    33. Re:War on drugs by houghi · · Score: 1

      The thing with the two parties is that one is a party where the people who have a voice shouldn't and the other is where the people should have a voice but don't.

      It would be funny if it would not fuck up the rest of the world as well. When Rome fell, it was not just Rome that was hurt.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    34. Re:War on drugs by danbert8 · · Score: 2

      For some reason people vote based on wanting to win even if what they are winning is a free punch in the nuts.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    35. Re:War on drugs by dywolf · · Score: 1

      its because the ones always threatening revolt and succession, are the same ones who worship at the altar of the police and are convinced they can do no wrong.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    36. Re:War on drugs by dywolf · · Score: 2

      As long as we use a FPTP voting system, hold closed primaries, and have dozens of other factors that all cause a natural digression into what we call the two party system: thirty votes will be a wasted vote.

      the only way 3rd parties ever have a shot in this system is when the main two are so disliked (legitimately or not) that everyone floods to the 3rd party. this year may be the closest third parties ever get to having a real shot, but the simple truth is we don't actually have a viable 3rd party. Greens are just more liberal democrats, and only ever attract liberal votes who were going to vote democrat anyway. Libertarians are just conservatives with another name, who happen to like pot and (mostly) not care about gay people. The only vote they ever attract are republicans.

      there is no true viable 3rd party with a clear centrist platform, because the main parties are both "big tents" who are built upon appealing both to the middle and their particular sides.

      we don't have a system that really allows multiple parties in the way other nations have multiple parties. over there parties tend to coalesce around a handful of issues. as such parties are much more focused. we don't have that, and as long we have FPTP voting, we wont.

      the closest we have to a centrist party is the democrats (judged by outside looking in), but because internally we are such a conservative nation they aren't seen as centrist, and anyone further left is in a very small minority. this is gradually changing as the GOP becomes ever more extreme. following the eventual marginalization of the GOP, the democratic party will also implode as it will no longer be able to contain all its factions. but at some point it will happen as society lurches back to the left after the rightward tack of the 80s.

      then you might get your viable third parties again as we had for a period in the 1800s. but it will be just as shortlived as those parties were if we still maintain our FPTP voting system. if you want them to survive and thrive, our FPTP voting system is going to need replaced with one more conducive to multiple parties, rather than one that naturally encourages people to form two large parties.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    37. Re:War on drugs by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Fuck libertarian shitheads

    38. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not in one, yet...

    39. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you been paying attention to the most recent elections? Election fraud ring a bell? No? do more research. Now please reanswer the question.

    40. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you been paying attention to the most recent elections? Election fraud ring a bell? No? do more research. Now please reanswer the question.

    41. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The man who wants to remove the US military from Germany and korea is jingoistic?

    42. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. If Gary Johnson can poll at 15% (which is possible, if only they would actually include him in polls), he'll be able to participate in televised debates. I think that in the current political environment, he could make a pretty huge and real impact on folks who dislike both Trump and Hillary.

    43. Re:War on drugs by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but I saw no mention of restoring seizure of cash. Instead, it talks about restoring "equitable sharing payments" which are between agencies/departments or some such and only related to civil asset forfeiture on the back end (distribution) and not the front end (seizure).

      Do you have another link?

    44. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lazy Sunday, wake up in the late afternoon
      Call Parnell just to see how he's doin (Hello?)
      What up, Parns? (Yo Samberg, what's crackin?)
      You thinkin what I'm thinkin? (NARNIA!) Man it's happenin
      (But first my hunger pangs are stickin like duct tape)
      Let's hit up Magnolia and mack on some cupcakes
      (No doubt that bakery's got all the bomb frostings)
      I love those cupcakes like McAdams loves Gossling

    45. Re:War on drugs by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Methinks the next use of sniffer dogs will be to ferret out the bank cards that savvy types have hidden somewhere other than in their wallets.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    46. Re:War on drugs by Reziac · · Score: 1

      That's great if you can win the election with less than a majority of the vote. Not so great when all it really does is split the vote and ensure that your next-best candidate, the one who'd otherwise get your vote, WON'T be elected.

      Want to ensure that your worst nightmare winds up in office? This is how to do it.

      Which is why however much I might like Gary Johnson as a candidate (and in a perfect election, he might have been my first choice), I can't give him my vote come November.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    47. Re:War on drugs by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I went and dug up that link just to have an original source. When the DoJ reversed their earlier decision, it was discussed widely then so there are plenty of discussions about it if you search. I always saw it as public relations and had no expectation that anything has changed which as it happens was correct.

    48. Re: War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libertarian

    49. Re:War on drugs by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      If we grew the house precincts to that size in theory we'd get better representation at the local level. In reality there would probably be so many representatives that nothing would get done and you'd have even less of a clue who you are voting for than you do now. Do you know who is running for your current house seats and what their views are? Imagine you live in a city like New York City which by itself would need to have 280 representatives. How much air time or newspaper space do you think it would take to advertise those candidates? How likely are you to even hear a message from your candidate? There isn't a newspaper I know of that is dedicated to news on just the upper east side or of just meatpacking. And those neighborhoods may even end up with multiple seats.

      I like that you are thinking of ways to try to improve the system, but I think this would be really confusing and hard to manage. I don't think most people can name even the senators that represent them and there's only 2 of those per state.

    50. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the man who wants muzzies banned and mexicans to build a wall to keep themselves out is jingoistic.

    51. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My experience with police officers who pulled me over: 1 gruff (yelled at me and disrespected me), but warmed up; 1 friendly.

      My experience with small court judge/police/staff: 1 decent (atmosphere) and reasonable (judgement), 1 very friendly (atmosphere) and reasonable (judgement)

      Me: friendly and reasonable. Regardless of the fact that I didn't think I deserved the tickets, I chose not to argue with the officers. I presented my case to the judges, we had some dialogue, and their resulting judgments were reasonable. One might argue my time and the courts' was wasted in one respect.

      My faith in the law and judicial system here in the USA isn't gone, but it does pay to be friendly and reasonable. But I had such an attitude instilled in me by parents, family friends, school, etc. and I have some sympathy for those who weren't so fortunate; also, my crimes weren't heinous (traffic violations). While not enjoyable in and of itself, going through the small court process gives you a better perspective on the system that otherwise I usually only see on TV/movies. However, if you're smart and pay attention to the persons who go before you, it gives you a chance to learn a little bit if you're immature in that area.

  44. MAJOR conflict of interest... by Ahlywog · · Score: 1

    "It shows the state is paying ERAD Group Inc., $5,000 for the software and scanners, then 7.7 percent of all the cash forfeited through the courts to the highway patrol. " Total BS.

  45. Dev'd for DHS Science and Technology Directorate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    S&T's Prepaid Card Reader Aids Law Enforcement in Seizing Fraudulent Cards

    During arrests of criminal couriers, law enforcement officers rarely find bundles of cash wrapped in rubber bands anymore. Instead, they find stacks of plastic cards — bank credit and debit cards, retail gift cards, library cards, hotel card keys, even magnetic-striped Metrorail cards — that have been turned into prepaid cards.

    The Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate’s Electronic Recovery and Access to Data (ERAD) Prepaid Card Reader is becoming a vital tool for law enforcement seizing these cards and funds associated with criminal activity.

  46. Defcon 1 Gift Cards (lockout codes) by apenzott · · Score: 1

    From the financial powers that be, perhaps the folks within the Secret Service/Office of the Inspector General should issue some "Defcon 1" gift cards (not to be used except under financial duress) that will immediately lock-out the merchant accounts used in this regard. The merchant accounts would then be impounded by the treasury for further examination into money laundering.

    --
    The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done shall not interrupt the one who is doing it.
  47. The End is Near by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Stop right where you are! You know the score, pal. You're not cop, you're little people!"

    Captain Bryant

  48. Article says NOTHING about bank accounts - fix it by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Oi, Slashdot, the article says NOTHING about seizing money from bank accounts. It ONLY mentions seizing from prepaid cards.

    It may have previously mentioned them, since the top comment refers to them, but this could equally be an error by the commenter.

    Anyway, fix the erroneous and inflammatory summary, there's a good chap.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  49. How exactly does this stop identity theft exactly? by Leslie43 · · Score: 1

    "I know that a lot of people are just going to focus on the seizing money. That's a very small thing that' s happening now. The largest part that we have found ... the biggest benefit has been the identity theft," Vincent said. He's just making things up to justify it and this is very much all about the money.

  50. "Too much" money is evidence of guilt by mi · · Score: 1

    write some nonsense down on an application, take it to a judge who rubber-stamps a warrant, and then grab all of the information they can about you

    Actually, no, it is not. You can challenge evidence obtained with such a warrant and avoid conviction.

    There has to be checks and balances on the system.

    Of course, there should be!

    Once you even consider the idea, that having "too much" money is wrong, you've enabled a civil forfeiture somewhere...

    It is not all lost — Nebraska, for one, has officially abolished civil forfeiture already. But it is certainly disheartening, that such an obvious injustice sprung up and continues to exist in the US, while people get fired up over complete nonsense and outright lies instead.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:"Too much" money is evidence of guilt by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, it is not. You can challenge evidence obtained with such a warrant and avoid conviction.

      And you can challenge asset forfeiture, and (if you don't run out of money for attorneys, which no person has in the first place, and are willing to wait for years) you can get your stolen property back. If you're lucky, all of it.

      So WYFP, fascist?

      The most you could say against it is that the system creates a conflict of interest. It still is not created by the police â" but by the lawmakers.

      Ahhh, sad you weren't born in the right decade to be a member of the secret police, and torture people for Franco or the Shah? You were "just following orders!!!!"

    2. Re:"Too much" money is evidence of guilt by mi · · Score: 1

      And you can challenge asset forfeiture

      No, actually, you can not — the laws allowing the forfeiture do not require police to prove anything. For example:

      Air Force veteran had $63,530 seized after he was pulled over for changing lanes without signaling. After a drug sniffing canine “alerted” to possible narcotics, a sheriff’s deputy conducted a search and found the cash, but no drugs.

      Brewer told the officer he was on his way to Los Angeles where he intended to make a down payment on a house, but the deputy seized the money anyway. Brewer took his fight to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that circumstantial evidence, like the fact the money was being carried in a plastic bag near two magazines with marijuana-themed articles, was sufficient to tie the money to criminal activity. Brewer never saw his $63,530 again.

      See? If the officer's suspicion was reasonable, the forfeiture will stand, even if no actual crime has ever been proven... This is far worse than a bogus warrant, because it allows literal robbery of completely innocent people, whereas with a warrant — justified or not — police still have to find evidence of a crime.

      You were "just following orders!!!!"

      Huh?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:"Too much" money is evidence of guilt by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      No, actually, you can not

      Of course you can.

      You were "just following orders!!!!"

      Huh?

      Duh. You're up and down this thread defending the indefensible, because LEO's are 'just following policy'.

  51. Next invention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A device which will suck all of the cash, in any form digital or otherwise, out of a vehicle.
    Bonus points if it can instantaneously turn the car into a pile of cash.
    Even more bonus points if it can turn the occupants into a pile of cash.

    That way we can fund our police departments AND solve congestion problems AND solve the overpopulation problem.

  52. Pre-paid cards by PPH · · Score: 2

    Is there any way to load a pre-paid card with a huge negative balance? Such that when somebody moves the negative quantity to their account, it actually cleans them out?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Pre-paid cards by apenzott · · Score: 1

      Is there any way to load a pre-paid card with a huge negative balance? Such that when somebody moves the negative quantity to their account, it actually cleans them out?

      I like your thinking. Let the State Troopers go gold digging in a financial minefield.

      --
      The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done shall not interrupt the one who is doing it.
    2. Re:Pre-paid cards by BlueStrat · · Score: 0

      Is there any way to load a pre-paid card with a huge negative balance? Such that when somebody moves the negative quantity to their account, it actually cleans them out?

      No, that's known as "hanging paper" (like writing and passing bad checks...'fraud by conversion' I believe is the term) in criminal parlance, and that will get you more hard time than committing murder in most jurisdictions.

      Kill someone (besides a cop or other member of the privileged/elite/ruling class), and meh. You'd likely receive a few years jail time and some parole, and maybe some victim restitution at the most.

      If your crime costs banks/businesses/other financial institutions money, you get thrown under the prison.

      There seems to be a pattern here...

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    3. Re:Pre-paid cards by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      ....'fraud by conversion' I believe is the term...

      Oops, it may more correctly be 'theft by conversion'.

      Obviously, IANAL YMMV etc etc as well as never having been personally involved with such activities/behaviors.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:Pre-paid cards by PPH · · Score: 1

      But there is no intent to steal/defraud. I was just screwing around with my stored value card to see if it was theoretically possible. Then the cop took it without my permission and stuffed it in the PD bank account.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Pre-paid cards by BlueStrat · · Score: 0

      But there is no intent to steal/defraud.

      "Prove it in court" is the most likely response, with the court date likely many months/years away. Meanwhile, you sit in jail unable to bond out because your cash/assets have been seized, that is if a bond is even allowed/set by a judge, which is unlikely for out-of-State travelers and probably especially not for "a smart guy, eh? roadside lawyer, huh? we'll fix you!" and you wait even longer and likely with 'resisting arrest/obstruction' charges added and serious injuries sustained as a bonus.

      Remember, the people you're dealing with here are the type who have been known to shoot an unarmed subject in the back multiple times and kill him while the subject is running away, forget the xkcd $5 wrench.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:Pre-paid cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTH??

      Why is parent modded "Troll"?

      If anything, parent should get a "+1 Informative".

      As far US criminal sentencing goes, it's pretty fucking accurate. There are a whole slew of crimes regarding bank/financial/CC fraud/theft/etc laws that impose much harsher sentences than many violent crimes, including murder and manslaughter in many cases depending on circumstances.

    7. Re:Pre-paid cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ease up. They have a really hard job! In the scenario you described they only violated the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments to the constitution. That's pretty good! /s

      Seriously, though, when are we going to start stringing these people up at the edge of town? Mob justice isn't really great, but at present it is the best we have. How sad.

    8. Re:Pre-paid cards by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Seriously, though, when are we going to start stringing these people up at the edge of town? Mob justice isn't really great, but at present it is the best we have. How sad.

      Whoa there, let's not jump off the deep end just yet. We're talking about a "yuge" change in the law enforcement/police/court culture that has been allowed through apathy and poor/near-nonexistent oversight, over the course of more than a half-century at least, to fester into its' current poor state.

      That kind of change takes time. It took many decades to fester, so it may take a decade or two to correct. The other way is only a very, VERY last resort, as there will be inconceivable suffering and innocent loss of life and freedom going all "1776" on their asses.

      The relatively new ability for citizens to be able to record and distribute high quality video and audio recordings of misconduct and criminal acts is already making huge advances in accountability. More members of law enforcement who violate their oaths, break the law, abuse/assault/kill people, etc etc both in numbers and by percentile, are being caught, convicted, and serve prison time now than ever before.

      As this trend grows and the reality for police having to factor-in that they are likely being recorded at any time embeds into the psyche of police from Chiefs/Sheriffs to the patrol cop/Deputies and from the courts/judges to the DAs and prosecutors and also to juries, the inertia will slowly reverse and is now, and it will keep doing so at an ever-increasing rate.

      Hey, no bad time to stock some extra ammo and another weapon or three, but don't get salty yet.

      Remember, we're the ones who just want to be left alone to raise families and make a living by working a job or owning a business without undue interference or burden from the people we employ at our pleasure to keep order. If the killing starts, let it be by *their* hands, not ours.

      It's like the Force. Don't let it come from hatred, anger, or the lust for revenge, for that way lays the Dark Side and it only brings suffering and ultimately ruin for all. Let it only come as the last resort in the protection of life and freedom from tyranny, and never abandon the ability and willingness to offer mercy and aid where it is needed and deserved.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  53. Innocent by JBMcB · · Score: 2

    You are totally innocent. Your stuff, however, is totally guilty. Try to prove otherwise!

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  54. Re:War on drugs -AI's will solve it by neoRUR · · Score: 1

    Hopefully we will replace the cops and lawyers by AI systems soon, not under the control of the government, that will perform real justice. I'm more worried about the AI's getting controlled by others then them taking over.

  55. this policy was obviously well thought out - by drew.kroft2490 · · Score: 0

    they'll need to keep it in place to pay for their legal defense fees

  56. Illegal searches? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How will they know if the driver and/or passenger have prepaid cards? If they are searching the wallet without consent, isn't that illegal?

  57. Not that big a deal by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    The police aren't going to be seizing much in the way of assets.

    It's Oklahoma. The only people with money in Oklahoma are half a dozen meth dealers, three elderly oil men and players for the OKC Thunder. And I guarantee that all the Thunder players got the hell out of there the minute the season was over.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  58. the government is the biggest racket in the world by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    the government has a racket that makes even the mafia jealous, they're a bunch of crooks!!!

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  59. They also take your cash. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Cops regularly steal peoples cash. Travelling with $1500 in cash? that's suspicious and they can take it from you.

    Never EVER trust a cop. They are no better than a freaking street gang.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:They also take your cash. by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Sad, but true

  60. Everybody wins! by jtroy92 · · Score: 2

    The best part of TFA is the last sentence:

    "It shows the state is paying ERAD Group Inc., $5,000 for the software and scanners, then 7.7 percent of all the cash forfeited through the courts to the highway patrol"

    The great thing here is that ERAD Group Inc. can then give 7.7 percent of their 7.7 percent to "sympathetic" politicians who won't just keep the ball rolling, but will keep that system expanding. The highway patrol wins, ERAD Group Inc. wins, the politicians win, everybody wins! Great job, Oklahoma...the envy of the Great Plains.

  61. Chip & PIN by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Just throwing it out there that this mechanism would never work in Canada or Europe or most anywhere else in the world as we all use Chip & PIN technology and have for a decade (or more depending on the country). A cop can't "scan my bank card" and take my money. They would need my PIN, which I will not give them, nor can they compel it from me at a traffic stop, or any other time for that matter.

    Even though the US is finally starting to adopt EMV cards, you are doing it using this FOOLISH "chip and signature" method which gives you zero protection against fraud (or foolishness like this) - but apparently the banks think that having to remember a 4 digit number is too big a burden for Americans.

    1. Re:Chip & PIN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't compel you? I wonder how your refusal to compel would stand up against their nightstick, you know, for the violent refusal to cooperate.

      I like how you think that they will stop at "compelling" you for your PIN when they are already stealing from you. So cute.

    2. Re:Chip & PIN by Frederic54 · · Score: 2

      It's not about bank-card, but prepaid card, there is no PIN on these one

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:Chip & PIN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Payroll cards are open looped reloadable prepaid card that have pins.

    4. Re:Chip & PIN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Our masters now rule by the ancient principle of "might makes right". The republic is well and truly dead.

  62. Oh, Oklahoma. by Caerdwyn · · Score: 1

    With a law enforcement mindset like that, I think we understand a little better why Oklahoma generated Timothy McVeigh. While I do not condone what McVeigh did, I understand the path that led him there.

    --
    Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    1. Re:Oh, Oklahoma. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McVeigh didn't live in Oklahoma. He was born and raised in towns of New York state. According to your idiot logic, the OKC bombing was the fault of the people living there and not Oklahoma. Of course, he lived in Georgia for awhile during his Army training and also in Michigan and Arizona. So I guess they're responsible for the bombing as well. Plus he was also in the Gulf War and in Texas around the time of the Waco massacre, so maybe those people in those areas affected his "path". The only reason he was in Oklahoma was because his target was there.

    2. Re:Oh, Oklahoma. by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      The path AmeriKa is on, I wouldn't be surprised to see we have more to fear from True American Patriots "terror attack"-wise than we do from ISIS...

  63. Bold? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is this witchcraft, editors can use bold???

  64. This is wire fraud. by jcr · · Score: 1

    Besides the obvious violations of the fourth and fifth amendments, the pigs who use this are fraudulently charging their victim's account.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  65. One more reason for bitcoin. by jcr · · Score: 1

    A bitcoin wallet is not susceptible to this attack.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:One more reason for bitcoin. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      yes it is; if the state demands you give them for this law you will be jailed for not doing so

  66. A foreboding theme seems to be emerging... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Notice that oddly, every part of the legal system that contains the term "civil" has turned into complete shit?

  67. Protect your money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm curious if I'd be mostly protected from this. I keep all savings in a money market account and charge everything to a credit card. When I need to pay my credit card in full each month, I only move the amount I need over to my checking account. At any given time, there's only a couple hundred dollars buffer in my checking account. So they could seize my checking account and one credit card, and that would be it. I have another checking account I don't use often and don't carry a card for, and other credit cards that I don't carry in my wallet. I know it's not a perfect solution, and not everyone would be able to set something like this up, but seems like it would just be a nuisance, which defeats the whole point of the stupid law.

  68. America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Home of the fee, land of the slave.

  69. T. Jack runs a prepaid company by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    So this device is just a mobile card payment system, just like in a store. If anyone wants to give him a call or Skype him, here's some contact info from https://www.ice.gov/doclib/aml...">2011:

    T. Jack Williams
    Paymentcard Services, Inc.
    Mobile: 502.609.0109 Office: 817.576.3655
    Skype: tjackwilliams
    Email: tjackwilliams@gmail.com

    His twitter account: https://twitter.com/tjackwilli...
    PEARS shows that number is still connected to a Cingular Wireless (AT&T) account, so it's probably still his and working.

  70. The incentive structure that drove the Inquisition by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... the underlying law has been expanded and abused over the decades ...

    Which was predictable - and predicted at the time.

    RICO and other asset forfeiture statutes recreate the incentive structure that drove the Spanish Inquisition:

      - The inquisitors rolled into town.
      - They busted some people for allegedly being a heretic, witch, etc. Typically a relatively well-to-do farmer with lots of assets and some jealous neighbors.
      - They tortured them until they had something to use as "evidence". (If all else failed, "The Needle" would find one of the spots on the skin (where the nerves come up, like the blind spot in the eye) where pain sensitivity is absent and the victim doesn't flinch when pierced.)
      - Then they did them in, seized their assets, and split it between the Inquisitors and the local authorities.

    Needless to say there was a strong financial incentive to find ever more heretics.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  71. No not really by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is no different for a few. About 8% of Americans don't have a bank account. That's not nobody, but it is accurate to say the vast majority of people have a bank account. Thus the distinction matters to most people. If you have a bank account and also use prepaid cards, then this is a distinction that could be very important. Only for the people who do not have bank accounts is there no difference.

    Also it matters in terms of the law and who they are fighting with. Try to take money from a bank account without a warrant and it runs afoul of a number of banking laws, not to mention you are picking a fight with the banks.

    Because of both things, you'd get a TON more pushback since it would affect a lot more people and since there are some heavy hitters (banks) involved. As it stands, it is the sort of thing that only preys on some people who are not as likely to push back, most most it will have little to no effect on.

    There's a reason it is being done as it is, it IS a distinction that matters legally and practically.

  72. Cards to locked glove compartment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to start keeping cards locked out of plain sight so the filth needs a warrant.

  73. Self-defense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article says this only works for prepaid cards.

    So, you can proactively defend yourself by not carrying prepaid cards when you drive around.

    Also, you can go a step further and keep your liquid funds low. If you only have a little money in the bank because most of your money is invested in mutual funds, that puts a tight ceiling on what cops can seize on the spot.

    Of course, these brazenly unjust laws need to be revoked. But in the mean time, you can protect yourself from police-abuse by planning ahead a bit.

    1. Re:Self-defense. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The laws have been around for a very long time. However the modern misuse ratcheted up with a laws that allowed law enforcement agencies to get a share of seized funds. So of course it looks like a good way to balance the budget to a lot of those agencies. There have been reforms off and on, but only when the public seems overly concerned at the moment, but then when the public's not looking the law enforcement agencies are actively lobbying congress to keep relaxing the reforms.

    2. Re:Self-defense. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      A better "proactive defense" would be shooting any Oklahoma Highway Patrol officer you see before he has a chance to ask for your wallet.

  74. Revenge just makes things worse. Every time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is one of those "lets punish the evil people" memes run amok.

    That's the problem, right there. The whole "punish them" approach is defective. It should be "rehabilitate them." then, when it "runs amuck", you simply end up with extra-rehab.

    Americans do cherish their petty revenge. They shoot themselves right in the foot with it. In many ways.

    Oh well. Lucky there's the entire rest of the world out here, some of which isn't quite so venal and nasty. Plus there are even some countries that still work hard to obey their various charters and constitutions, etc. Something the US hasn't been able to truthfully claim for a very long time now.

  75. The police threaten to charge you if you complain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think that is the key thing, as I understand.

    The police kindly offer to drop imaginary charges if you will just sign a consent to the siezure. The charges carry huge potential penalties, and make it clear that they are not above fabricating evidence. Even if you beat them in court it will cost far more money than you have. So you agree to the siezure and move on.

  76. A company gets 7.7% return on people's misfortune? by hwstar · · Score: 1

    Are these the only profitable business models all we have left in this country? It certainly seems so. This is a despicable business. Such businesses should not be allowed to exist.

  77. kill them all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    death to all fascists

  78. Maybe a side topic but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is it that this device has the legal ability to violate interstate banking security and be legal? If it turns out that the bank has to be a willing participant with the company to enable their device and service to work, then simply take your business to a bank that won't participate with this system.

  79. more and more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More and more I think Heisenberg had the safest way to store money (and yes I know how it turned out)....

  80. Boycott the State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People need to keep their money out of OK. People in this state want to elect dumb asses, pass stupid laws, the rest of us should make sure they pay the price. We are already starting to see state boycotts leading to change. In Indiana, conventions threatened boycott. In Georgia, businesses like Disney threatened to stop making movies there. Money talks. Just stay out of and try to keep your money out of Red states, sooner or later they will get the idea.

  81. What can we do about it? by friedmud · · Score: 1

    Every time this comes up we get the same "OMG no!" posts... but no one seems to have any answers for how to fix this.

    How do we get organized and fight something like this?

    As a law-abiding citizen this scares the hell out of me. The thought that the police would scrape my accounts clean on the suspicion of wrongdoing is just completely insane.

    I'm willing to make a sign and stand with other people... but what should the sign say and where should we stand? As far as I know this is a local thing that's backed up by corrupt courts all the way to the top. It's a multiheaded beast and I can't seem to figure out _who_ to even start convincing that this is a bad idea...

    1. Re:What can we do about it? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Signs are meaningless at this point.

      Those nutjobs in the "militias" are starting to sound more reasonable and sane than the government,,,,

    2. Re:What can we do about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time this comes up we get the same "OMG no!" posts... but no one seems to have any answers for how to fix this.

      The best way to deal with an armed robber is to shoot him.

    3. Re:What can we do about it? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Fuck signs unless you are going to stick them up the ass of your elected officials. Sadly the most effective method is to write you state legislators and your elected representatives in the US House and Senate on this issue and instructing them to create legislation that bans civil asset forfeiture unless someone has been found guilty of a crime. Granted if it is like my most recent letter sent to one of my senators (Al Franken) you will be lucky to receive a response and it will thank you for your concern on the issue and for you continued support of the action that you wanted changed.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  82. Holy S*** by davesays · · Score: 1

    I 'bout spit out my drink... I hope this isn't a whoosh, but I think that makes it the Alabama of the Mid-West.

  83. Don't forget to thank low taxes! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Civilization costs money to run. You take away taxes, you either give up that civilization, or your elected officials have to find another source of money.

    Like asset forfeiture.
    Like red light cameras.
    Like policing the poor for profit.

  84. I'm immune to this by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

    All my assets are stored using Bitcoin!

  85. As if I needed a reason by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Thanks....as if I needed another reason NEVER to go to that shit hole of a state named Oklahoma.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  86. U.S. Constituion RTFM by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    We are innocent until proven guilty.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:U.S. Constituion RTFM by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      That sounds like terrorist talk!

      We'll be seizing your home, vehicles, personal property and bank accounts....

  87. Will harm more people! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will only harm people in the end, these forfeitures has cause major corruption, targeting drug users causing over crowding while rapist and murders walk the streets.

  88. Drug dogs by phrackthat · · Score: 1

    So, will the drug dogs now "hit" on the cocaine molecules on the ferromagnetic strip on the card? WTF??? We have Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as the major party candidates, and now this shit?

    Giant Meteor 2016! Just end it already.

    1. Re:Drug dogs by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Sadly yes, this world doesn't deserve to survive anymore...

  89. This is why... by jd · · Score: 1

    ...you want something akin to Mondo cards, only with all the knowledge that has been developed since on contactless payments and strong access security. Once you have cards that require no network, no central bank and no other external dependencies beyond the communications protocol, there is nothing that rogue officials can do to confiscate your money.

    For those not aware of the history of cashless societies, Mondo had tamper-proof strongly encrypted cards that could act like cash. You could transfer money between cards. There was no risk of anyone setting the card to a prior state as any attempt to break into the device destroyed it. This did mean only one vendor made the cards, but we've come a ways since then. The Orange Book and EAL standards cover tamper-proofing and unauthorised writes to memory. Other standards cover application software design and protocol design. All you need is for card vendors to get certified against the general standards, financial transaction standards and the standards specific to some open specification. Vendors can then get encryption keys signed by such a standards verification body. So it would be a procedure similar to the old Level 3 SSL certificates but with all the extra verification layers you'd expect from the FAA or DoD.

    You now have cashless, bankless, networkless anonymous financial activity on par with the Shadowrun fictional series, only a good deal more secure still and without having to physically transfer objects. Contactless transfers using unlicensed spectrum at very low power would require the sender to be in range of the intended receiver and to press some keys. That's it. Same sort of range as a key fob. Communication would be by encrypted link, using an authenticating + validating mode to prevent MitM attacks or other attempts at altering transactions.

    What could the cops do? Well, they could confiscate any device they didn't recognise. That might not go down too well, though. They could confiscate the card, but as you can do wireless card-to-card transfers with this scheme, there's no guarantee they'd have confiscated any actual money by doing so. They can't determine if you did or didn't, except with the access code. It's not a computer, per se, as it doesn't need to be Turing Complete, and it's not an account, so there's no law on the books that requires that access be given.

    Because the device complies with international banking laws and the PCI processing regulations, it would be legal to use such a card. It would be an authorized, licensed financial transaction processor between brick-and-mortar financial institutions, it's merely using the older networking method of store-and-forward with packet fragmentation and fragment reassembly. All perfectly legit operations. Because PCI governs logging, the device is compliant with all tax evasion and money laundering laws. There aren't any laws saying anyone has to actually access that information, the only laws that currently exist merely require that they can if authorized for a lawful need. Let the Feds figure out how to deal with that without making impossible demands of traveller's cheques and cashier's cheques, which can also be used as money equivalents.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  90. This will hurt the poor the most. by phrackthat · · Score: 1

    As always, this crap will hurt those who can least afford it the most. Prepaid cards are often, if not usually used by people who cannot afford to put their money in a bank. Banks charge fees that the poor cannot afford and the poor often have debts and a creditor will seize funds if they're in a bank. I know someone who gets her alimony in the form of prepaid cards because she can't risk putting it in the bank and without her meager alimony she'd be homeless. Where did my country go?

  91. Oklahoma Highwayman Patrol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'nuff said.

  92. Re:The incentive structure that drove the Inquisit by sciengin · · Score: 2

    You seem to have a strange image of the spanish inquisition.
    The spanish Inquisition in fact created many of those assumptions we still have today, chiefly the "innocent until proven guilty".
    Also, safe for a few very unfortunate years, the doctrin was that witchcraft did not exist: The one accusing someone else would be in trouble, not the "witch" herself.
    True, they conducted IIRC 45000 trials, out of whch 35 people were found guilty of witchcraft and killed. Assuming that these were all innocents that would still be a much better false-positive score than today's American justice system which has a suspected false positive score of around 20%.

    In truth the inquisition was mostly looking for heresy and heretics, as long as you went to church every sunday and agreed with the teachings they tended to not care or look at whatever you did at night in the woods.

    What you are thinking of when you mention those kinds of crooked tactics are probably the secular courts of that time. Yes those were bad and rife with corruption.

  93. FIX THE SUMMARY by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Dear Slashdot,

    The article says NOTHING about bank accounts. Your summary is therefore completely misleading. Fix it.

    Yours sincerely,

    Someone who gives a shit

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:FIX THE SUMMARY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's not a bank account where you put your money in the control of a third party financial institution who holds it in escrow to allow transfer without the money being held in actuality, but a charge card where you put your money in, under the control of a third party financial institution who holds it in escrow to allow transfer without the money being held in actuality!

      IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT NAME!!!!

      Captcha: pedagogy

  94. But freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But freedom! Because guns!

  95. We'll fine you pre-emptively by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    and you can get refunded if you can prove you are innocent - without, of course, having any cash to hire a lawyer with.

    Yep, America's justice system takes another dive off the deep-end.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    1. Re:We'll fine you pre-emptively by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      without, of course, having any cash to hire a lawyer with.

      And even if you do have money to hire a lawyer, you still won't get the lawyers fees back.

      (Another reason why I prefer loser pays. Seizing things unlawfully would actually cost the authorities quite a bit of money and end this nonsense really quickly.)

    2. Re:We'll fine you pre-emptively by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Loser pays have serious downsides though - it can readily make it impossible to ever dare sue anybody richer than yourself even if you have a very strong case since they can afford beter lawyers, bury you in paperwork and even if you were genuinely the injured party you could end up just paying a fortune in fees if you fail to convince a jury.

      Right now, even when you have a seriously legitimate case of massive injuries caused by faulty technology which the company KNEW was faulty and ignored (and this is proven) and you ONLY sue for medical expenses and the jury decides to punish the company by giving you millions (which you had not asked for) you can expect their marketing department to smear you so thoroughly that you will forever be known as the idiot who didn't know coffee was hot.

      We really cannot dare to aggravate that.

      Having said that. With some refinement it's a good idea. Like say private citizen versus government - if government loses, government pays. Private citizen versus publicly traded corporation - if the corp loses, they pay. Citizen versus citizen - each pay their own. Corp versus corp - each pay their own. Corp versus government - each pay their own.
      With all clauses having the possibility of being overriden by a judge if this is genuinely justified (for example he could mandate fees without a winner/loser even existing when throwing out a case for being silly and frivolous).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    3. Re:We'll fine you pre-emptively by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Loser pays have serious downsides though

      Not really. That's why most of the world uses it. Because not using it has really serious downsides - you can get bankrupted by lawsuits even if you win every single one of them. Also, you may be deterred from starting a lawsuit you'll clearly win if your lawyer will cost more than the amount of money you're suing for. (Let's say the evil government completely unlawfully seizes your $500 in cash, and you'll be spending $600 on a lawyer and several hours of your time to get it back, would you sue to get your money back?)

      it can readily make it impossible to ever dare sue anybody richer than yourself even if you have a very strong case since they can afford beter lawyers, bury you in paperwork and even if you were genuinely the injured party you could end up just paying a fortune in fees if you fail to convince a jury.

      Well, yeah. It sucks to lose a case. That's why you should make sure your case is strong before you start it.

      Also, you can only go bankrupt. If the other side decides to blow twenty million dollars on their defense, they can try to collect that afterwards, but most likely, they won't. You can't get water from a rock.

      Citizen versus citizen - each pay their own. Corp versus corp - each pay their own.

      Given the huge disparity in wealth between citizens, I'd say no. Bigger corp (or richer citizen) could easily bombard someone they don't like with lawsuits that, while weak, aren't clearly frivolous and hence drain the other partys funds. Just imagine Mr. Trump suing some average Joe and blowing $1M on lawyers, while Joe spends only one tenth of that on his defense, and wins. Mr. Trump loses some pocket change (to him), Joe average is in debt forever. Or Microsoft or Apple suing Joe's one man software corp.

      The legal system is supposed to be a way to get legal rulings, not an economic club against economically weaker parties.

  96. Re:The incentive structure that drove the Inquisit by silentcoder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tell that to the Dutch. The siege of Amsterdam alone killed thousands by starvation over an 80-year period - the Inquisition was at least as much a military power as a policing power and should be equally blames for the crimes of their navy. The very concept of "heresy" being a crime flies in the face of any concept of justice. Now only an idiot would claim the protestants were any BETTER. John Calvin executed his best friend for heresy and protestants in Iceland had habit of invading monasteries and forcing priests and nuns to copulate at gunpoint. Which wouldn't even save their lives, it would just get them a quick death rather than a slow torture death.

    But to suggest that the inquisition was some precursor of modern justice is flagrantly ignorant. There are actual precursors of modern concepts of justice like innocent-until-proven-guilty out there. The Magna Carta for example. But none of them came from a church. They came, mostly, from philosophers - a group of people who have, throughout history, been more likely to be accused of heresy than support the church. Especially that faction known as "natural philosophers" (the precursors of science) - such as Copernicus or Spinoza for example but to no lesser extent the philosophers who thought about politics, statecraft and power - after all, any time they said something sensible it was a threat to the power-relationship (read: circle-jerk) between nobility and religion. Examples here would be philosophers like John Locke.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  97. And that's when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that's when the mafia started stashing their money in easy access savings accounts: no card to hold on to; and cary just credit cards: can't forfeit somebody else's money - if they max out your credit card they basically steal from the credit card company, and those guys have lawyers on the payroll.

  98. Confusing article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article says it's not about the money, it's about identity theft and prepaid debit cards. If that is the case, seize the cards and put them in an evidence bag. Don't take the money. Unless it actually is about the money.

  99. If I were a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I were a criminal, I would not deposit my money into the bank. I would have cold hard cash, gold or bitcoins. This only affects honest people.

    1. Re:If I were a criminal by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Your cash would get seized. That's been going on for ages all over the country.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
  100. The other shoe by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    If there were honest statistics available about this criminal activity being conducted by actual Highway Men, they would no doubt show the vast majority of victims are of course, minorities.

    There are several reasons that the nightmare land now called Oklahoma was one of the last admitted continental states.

  101. Seize this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hard to seize bitcoins with your little card reader.

  102. Oklahoma is a total shit pile of a state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been there. IDIOTS run the place. Why do I say such a negative thing? Experience.

    Imagine you get onto the Oklahoma Turnpike (highway with tolls and 'service plazas') and at 9:30pm you need fuel. I did, and found the service plaza CLOSED. Now, if I had taken any other road in podunk Oklahoma I could have gotten fuel at any number of 24 hour facilities dotting the way, but having chosen the expressway, the turnpike itself, I find that their service plazas close at night. WTF?!??! And the JACKOFF police in that state would not bring me a bit of petrol so I could move along, instead I damn near FROZE waiting in my vehicle for the IDIOT SERVICE PLAZA ATTENDANTS TO ROLL IN THE NEXT MORNING.

    Oklahoma where the idiots run the state.

    Since that ONE experience, I have always driven all the way around Oklahoma rather than set a foot in it. Fuck Oklahoma!

    1. Re:Oklahoma is a total shit pile of a state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me and my buddies were driving from Fairbanks AK to Anchorage AK. About a 400 mile stretch of two lane hwy.

      The gas stations are unattended during the winter, pretty much your only option is pay at the pump. There are a total of maybe 4 gas stations.

      We ran very low on gas and stopped at the gas station, that turns out was out of gas. Called the state troopers, they told us to call back when we actually ran out of gas. We got lucky and found someone who had a few extra gallons in a can for his four wheeler in the back up of his truck. Just enough to get us to the next station.

    2. Re:Oklahoma is a total shit pile of a state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no "Oklahoma Turnpike". There's a number of them, but none are called the "Oklahoma Turnpike" And if you needed gas and the "service plaza" was closed (which I don't believe) then why didn't you exit the turnpike into one of the podunk towns that you claim have 24 hour open convenience stores, fill up, and then get back on it and be on your way instead of sleeping and freezing in your car like a moron?

      > I have always driven all the way around Oklahoma rather than set a foot in it. Fuck Oklahoma

      BUH-BYE!

  103. pots & kettles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the only thing funnier than expecting trump supporters to be swayed by damning evidence of his frauds/abuses/etc is expecting CLINTON supporters to be swayed by damning evidence of hers. remember - it's only bad when the OTHER team (red if you're blue & vice-versa) does it! when YOUR team does it it's either media bias (if you're on team red) or hate speech/vast right-wing conspiracy (if you're on team blue). the sad part is they're pretty much ALL true! trump & clinton are both corrupt, media is ridiculously biased against him & there is a coordinated effort from right to take her down. the later two being true doesn't make them not guilty - like the old oj joke: "lapd is so incompetent they can't frame someone who's actually guilty". that's more a statement about collective cognitive dissonance than police (& for the record I don't think lapd tried to frame him, just making point).

  104. WTF by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST!!!!

    When are the people going to wake up and fight back against this unconstitutional garbage??????

  105. Just another reason by Jack_of_Shadow · · Score: 1

    ... to never move to Oklahoma...

    --
    My not responding to your flame is in no way indicative of my submission to your statement, it just means I don't have t
    1. Re:Just another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Arizona, or New Mexico, or Texas...

      Oklahoma isn't the first to use this technology since it was introduced last year. Any state that has interstate corridors popular with drug runners and other contraband transporters with be getting these scanners. Just a matter of time.

  106. Obvious by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I think this is a rather obvious thing that people seem to have a hard time understanding. Statistically Poverty = Crime. Increase poverty, you are going to see a proportional increase in crime. It is pretty simple. If I don't have any means to support myself, a little means to alter that situation, one of the alternatives left is crime.

    Anyway what might be more interesting, is while generally true, there are plenty of wealthy people that commit crimes as well, but what is the relative impact. Without running any numbers I would guess that the overwhelming portion of crimes committed for which people in poverty are thrown into jail amount to peanuts. While the crimes committed by relatively wealthy persons which largely go without conviction, are of a much greater value and impact.

    Perhaps one explanation is one of perspective. If I break into you house and steal your TV, there is a physical connection to the event and a need for justice, whereas if I embezzle from mutual funds or other financial instruments affecting thousands of people it is more abstract and seemingly less of a priority.

    I've always thought whenever people are talking about "fighting" crime with more police or like measures, that you are just catching more crime, not really reducing it. If you want to reduce crime you need to hit the root cause, poverty, and not the symptom, which is the crime itself.

  107. It's all about money, man... by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

    It's all about money, man.
    You think you're free?
    Try going somewhere without money.

    Bill Hicks

  108. Bank Accounts OFF LIMITS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The card readers are not capable of reading ATM/Debit/Credit cards, only "open loop" cash cards and gift cards.

    Someone needs to fix the summary.

  109. Vote left by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Vote for the most left leaning candidate you can get. Vote Bernie till he drops out, then Hilary after that. It took four decades for our country's right wing to get use to this point. They worked tirelessly and with the backing our nation's wealthiest citizens. It's not something you're gonna fix overnight.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  110. It's a good thing institutionalized discrimination by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Can't be tied to poverty. Otherwise your point would get undermined, wouldn't it?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  111. Dems don't really cry gun violence anymore by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    We dropped that issue when we realized we had lost, completely. Every now and then we treat the waters after a mass shooting to see if the winds have changed, but we drop it as soon as we see they haven't. This crap survives on the whole 'tough on crime' attitude. We can't get away from that because it's still a key issue with moderate voters.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Dems don't really cry gun violence anymore by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      mass shootings kill dozens a year. meanwhile, the inner city thugs that vote for democrats to get handouts kill thousands per year.

    2. Re: Dems don't really cry gun violence anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it's obvious the color of your skin. First off, inner city thugs don't vote, criminals can't vote, and many are criminals. They lost the right after their first offense.

      If you really think inner city thugs are voting, try visiting and talking to some of them for a while, you will quickly realize that they do not give one shit.

    3. Re:Dems don't really cry gun violence anymore by ultranova · · Score: 1

      We dropped that issue when we realized we had lost, completely. Every now and then we treat the waters after a mass shooting to see if the winds have changed, but we drop it as soon as we see they haven't.

      Winds change when they hit a mountain which they can't move, thus forcing them to turn aside. They keep blowing forever if unopposed.

      Nothing is ever going to change for someone who folds at the first sign of conflict.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re: Dems don't really cry gun violence anymore by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you are funny, here in Chicago the world doesn't work the way you think it does

  112. Blue lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... stink like a pig!

  113. My thoughts are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah .. no. FUCK THAT!

  114. DUE PROCESS Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's making it's way through the House and Senate right now. Time to call up your reps to let them know they should support it.

    http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/10/forfeiture-reform-advances-in-the-senate/

  115. New Hampshire by phorm · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it looks like at least some states are working to solve/reduce this problem.

  116. Counter-argument by phorm · · Score: 1

    I'd love to see that argument come back to bite them in court, too.

    "Honestly your honor, I did not hire that prostitute or purchase those drugs, it was that devious 'wad of ten $100 bills' that did it!" Per recent precedent under similar cases, the cash should be charged with the crime, not me!

    1. Re:Counter-argument by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking about that at work today. Sure, it would never work, but it sets a pretty funny precedent.

  117. Viruses etc by phorm · · Score: 1

    Not likely as the financial institutions wouldn't let you do that, but perhaps a card that isn't a real bank-card, but rather something which infects or otherwise screws up the machine used to steal your cash.

  118. Happens everywhere now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have read stories about these civil forfeiture laws. Most stuff I have read, tell of people spending months or years trying to get their money back.

  119. Just another state to avoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just one more for the list of a state to avoid.

  120. Cops stole more than Criminals last year by Banner · · Score: 1

    Last year, the police seized (Stole) more money and property than all criminal acts.
    Our property would actually now be SAFER, if there were no police.

  121. Approval voting anyone? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Is there any constitutional barrier to switching from FPTP to approval voting at a county or state level, as a trial before federal deployment? Technically, it would need no change to voting machines, as they already support "vote for up to n-1 candidates" functionality.

    1. Re:Approval voting anyone? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Not really.

      Some places already use proportional voting.
      I want to say Delware? And I know there is a push in Maine for it.

      IIRC FPTP is used simply because the other concepts hadn't really developed as yet. Voting was a simple concept back then and so no one had really given thought to potential short comings when done on a progressively grander scale, especially as the growth this country has seen wasn't really anticipated. Also, most of the founder's were generally opposed to the idea of political parties, even though they couldn't help themselves from coalescing into them themselves.

      http://www.archives.gov/exhibi...

      The method of Congressional elections is determined by each state for its delegation, though the Constitution does provide for the Congress changing the rules there.

      But the Presidential election is laid out by the constitution as being determined by the result of the elector college, which is clearly laid by the constitution. It then states the electors in the electoral college can be chosen by each state in a method of their choosing. most simply hold an election, which we generally think of as voting for prez, but really we're selecting delegates to the elector college. and most states do require the delegates to the electoral college to vote as directed in the "general" election, though some (Nebraska) split their delegate votes proportionally (still voting as directed, just not "winner take all").

      So for Congress, no constitutional fix needed.
      For President, yes constitutional change would be needed.

      For individual state level and city level elections, it depends on state constitutions and city charters.

      To my mind, the easiest way of course would be a constitutional amendment eliminating FPTP, but I'm not sure extending it beyond the federal level would fly everywhere (I'd support that though).

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  122. The remedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If somebody with a gun tries to rob you, shoot him. A police officer is also somebody...

    I don't want to be an anonymous coward, but I couldn't figure out how to log in. My name is David Kessler and my website is: davidkesslerauthor.com.

  123. restitution.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They ought to be held liable for interest and any financial implications of things such as late payments in the event that your funds were seized and either no crime was committed and/or you are found innocent if charged.

  124. Re:The incentive structure that drove the Inquisit by Reziac · · Score: 1

    To quote Wiki, "The Inquisition was originally intended primarily to ensure the orthodoxy of those who converted from Judaism and Islam." This was a natural side effect of throwing out the Moorish invaders.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  125. Contact info for ERAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jack.williams@erad-group.com
    Desk: 817.576.3655
    Mobile: 502.609.0109
    www.erad-group.com

    Let the President of this fuck wad company know how you feel.

  126. follow the money by drew.kroft2490 · · Score: 0

    News 9 obtained a copy of the contract with the state. It shows the state is paying ERAD Group Inc., $5,000 for the software and scanners, then 7.7 percent of all the cash forfeited through the courts to the highway patrol.

  127. SSHDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same Shit Hole, Different Day. Oklahoma is the sludge at the bottom of the septic tank. Republicans will stop at nothing to steal everything.

  128. As if I needed another reason to avoid Oklahoma! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Good thing I have no reason to be in that backwards, hick-ridden shithole state!

  129. Can't crooks use these devices? by hucker75 · · Score: 1

    Am I missing something? If the police can take your money like that, then surely so can a criminal. The banks must have a security hole.

  130. Burden of recovering the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To recover the stolen assets the victim often has to sue and the process can take up to three years and often costs thousands of dollars.

  131. We're becoming a third world country by billd10 · · Score: 0

    So much for the Constitution. The government is just another mob, except it has legalized all its criminal activity. Suspicion is not a valid reason to do this.

  132. They're pirates by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Stealing money for the state, just like pirates used to do.

    They used to hang pirates. I think we should bring the practice back, for cops that do this. Also, the states attorneys that have them do this.

    In this story - http://www.newschannel5.com/ne... the lady overseeing it all was just full of herself. She didn't give a crap that she was taking college money, other legitimate money at all. She should have been taken right out and hung from the nearest tree along with her merry band of cops she was encouraging to do this.

    She was voted right out in the story I saw. However I feel she should be prosecuted for armed robbery along with the cops. In the above story it's very very clear that's exactly what they were doing. Robbing people at gunpoint. No better than a common jack booted thug.

  133. How are they getting away with this? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    The whole premise with cash is they claim it COULD be ill gotten money, from drugs. Somehow, you're supposed to be able to prove it wasn't drug money. Money in a bank account has always been considered off limits to them because you can almost certainly show how it ended up there. Only with a court order could they get it. I don't understand how this isn't armed robbery. They aught to round them all up and put them in jail, from whoever authorized this down to the cop doing it. Make them prove it wasn't armed robbery. If it was, the citizen gets the money back and damages that extend into their personal property. A cop could lose his house.

    I bet that would stop it cold. No cop would do it.

  134. Whaaat? The Easter Bunny is real?? by doccus · · Score: 1

    And Santa Claus really is a fat guy who gives you stuff? And "If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you" ?
    Frankly, I have an easier time believing in a bunny that lays coloured eggs every year.. than that "we'll give it back to you" line.. Since when have thieves ever said "Oops, sorry, I didn't realize you needed that money so much. Here, have it back"

  135. Meh by taxciter · · Score: 1

    Meh. It ain't me. Every time I've been to Oklahoma the people are smaller than ants and the cop cars could be squished between my fingernails. I and my carry-on full of prepaid cards will be fine up here at 40,000 feet.

  136. The End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the end of freedom - this is NOT how the founding fathering visioned things!