These are some truly evil people. Apparently they can only target prepaid cards with this thing, which unsurprisingly will disproportionately affect people with lower incomes (the "unbanked"). According to the manufacturer's FAQ :
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.
Law enforcement already depends heavily upon lower income neighborhoods to justify their existence, and upon criminal convictions of poor people that can't defend themselves to keep up demand for prison and jail guards. Now they want to take the money of those they can't arrest, knowing that their targets cannot afford to hire lawyers to get it back.
"Sheriff's Deputy Ron Hain improperly detained Marsh after issuing him a warning and continued questioning him when he should have been free to leave, Barsanti ruled. The questioning led to Marsh's admission he was carrying a gun, which prompted further searches of his truck, phones, GPS and eventually the storage lockers."
"The discovery was made by exploiting the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights," Barsanti said. "He was illegally detained in a second seizure without cause." 
"Seized over 4,000 lbs of cannabis, over 50 kilograms of cocaine, over 50 kilograms of heroin, and over $1,000,000 of drug-related currency." 
Desert Snow created civil forfeiture training seminars for law enforcement. Black Asphalt is a system "that enabled police nationwide to share detailed reports about American motorists — criminals and the innocent alike — including their Social Security numbers, addresses and identifying tattoos, as well as hunches about which drivers to stop."
Now, he's stealing debit cards. This guy is quite the civil forfeiture innovator.
Prescription Drugs: 2
Two people I know. Their brothers both died from Oxycontin(tm). Specifically pulmonary talcosis. You get pulmonary talcosis from the talc government made the manufacturer add specifically to kill junkies.
They all actually started off by abusing prescription opiates, but moved to heroin after they ran out of money.
However, my area is known for being a heroin hot spot. I live in a decent middle class town about 15 minutes away from Camden, NJ. My high school was known as "heroin high".
The problem with heroin is that there's very poor quality control. Overdoses seem to occur under one of the two following circumstances:
1. The person just gets released from rehab and relapses. Their tolerance isn't what it used to be, so their body gets shocked.
2. There's a sudden spike in the strength of the heroin that is "going around". The person may be used to a certain strength, so the more powerful batch can be enough to send them over the edge.
Just figured I'd add my own personal data points since it seemed like you were trying to deemphasize the danger of heroin by pointing out that you don't know anyone who died from it. Maybe, that wasn't your intention, so forgive me if so.
It was an absolutely astonishing time. Camden literally felt like it had just been through a war: desolate buildings, so many people homeless on the streets, people desperate for food. It's hard to describe just how bad this city was.
I can't diagnose all the root causes behind why Camden is so messed-up, but this pastor pointed to the heroin epidemic primarily.
You know, it always stuck in my craw that so much of the heroin in the new epidemic came/comes from Afghanistan... Shades of Vietnam.
Oxycontin used to contain talc, and this came with prominent health warnings. Shooting up dissolved oxycontin pills containing talc is dangerous. See http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2008/020... ("with parenteral abuse, the [inactive ingredients], especially talc, can be expected to result in [many bad things]").
As of some time in 2014, oxycontin no longer contains talc -- it has been replaced by magnesium stearate. However, that health warning that parenteral abuse causes many bad things has not been altered except to remove the phrase "especially talc". Pulmonary granulomas are still specifically called out as something bad that will happen to you if you inject oxycontin. See the current usage information at http://app.purduepharma.com/xmlpublishing/pi.aspx?id=o .
SPECULATIVELY: this means that while talc is no longer present, oxycontin might still contain legally-mandated adulteration. I found no evidence for a legal mandate, but this was not a comprehensive investigation.
It has long been the explicit policy of the United States that people who abuse otherwise legal chemicals deserve to be poisoned to death, and we have had and do have laws to this effect. See http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa... .
It's that last point that makes me hesitate to slam your parent comment for fearmongering.
The added pain reduction effect of acetaminophen stands in no relation to what the opioid is doing. There's no research anywhere showing that the combined effect is any more than the literal addition of taking both (for which there would be no reason if you could just as easily take a tiny bit more of the opioid that you'd be taking any way).
All it does is take away an addict's choice not to wreck their liver. And the system encourages the availability of this unnecessarily dangerous substance by awarding it a less restrictive drug schedule.
The incentives are rather twisted in this particular case.
> but it certainly has near term implications for severe abuse.
the implications being death and permanent liver damage (it's not actually stopping addicts). but looking only at the numbers, it seems to limit abuse, even in the near term. ugh.
edit 2 seeing some of the other comments, apparently it's not just this particular case. I only knew about this one
Just because you don't know anyone that heroin has killed, doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
That ERAD won't be of any use in Austin or Englewood at 2am...
so the poor get fucked two ways:
1) these prepaid debit cards have a lot of fees and service charges associated with them, they're basically in the same financial category for the "unbanked" as predatory payday loans, check cashing places and other financial services retail operations you see in a ghetto.
2) the people who have these cards with some balance on them risk getting all their money jacked by the local police.
Some states have enacted laws (Illinois is one I believe) that prohibits employers using these cards if the employee does not wish to use one.
Employers use these cards because the debit card providers are willing to take on the cost of payroll for the privilege of gouging the employees in fees.
> Yet these cards are what is being targeted, because only the poor use them.
Same reason as this:
>Employers use these cards because the debit card providers are willing to take on the cost of payroll for the privilege of gouging the employees in fees.
The poor do not have the ability to fight back, and their employers have the resources to make sure the gov't does not shut these things down and require proper paychecks. Never underestimate the rich's ability to exploit the poor.
Most ATMs charge a fee to check balance, and a separate fee to withdraw money as cash. These cards do usually have a free phone number you can call to check balance, but you almost always have to pay a fee for withdrawal. And if you have, say, $19 on the card, it's effectively impossible to get that out as cash, because no ATM lets you withdraw in less than $20 increments.
Also, most blue-collar and minimum wage jobs use prepaid cards. At least companies like McDonald's as well as various factory jobs do. For McDonald's, according to friends at least, there is no option for anything else. Even if you have a bank account, you can't do direct deposit, you still get a prepaid debit card that your paycheck goes to.
State Sen. Kyle Loveless, R-Oklahoma City, said that
removes due process and the belief that a suspect is
presumed innocent until proven guilty. He said we've
already seen cases in Oklahoma where police are abusing
"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.
So what would this device look like? Is it performing ACH or wire transfer transactions? Or is this just sending card information to the company, which then automates the state government's garnishment process?
I'll be interested to get the full story when details are available.
I'm glad there's some pushback from the state legislature!
As someone who is closely following the topic I would say he is pretty accurate.
Most of these laws are passed claiming it is meant to target hardened criminals. Good people like us think it is okay to take away any rights of people who we consider as bad. Given the choice cops will not knock down the door of Drug dealer known to have automatic rifles at his home but some poor old cancer patient who is unlikely to resist or cry.
These problems are not a creation of police. These are created by good people like us who do not empathize with criminals, minorities and other groups which by default consider "less human".
I agree that the problem is considering others as "less human" but I wouldn't exclude the police from that!
Some of us think there are people with power we need to impress and then there are people without power we can take from them whatever we want.
Some of us think we are all human beings and everyone deserves to be a part of society, to be seen as human beings with human wants, needs and human emotions, even when they do things that harm other people. And whether they even do that, is not for us to judge.
The first group needed people who were willing to take things from the bad guys, and picked the second group as police and prosecutors.
That's how we're in this situation today.
Your child ask you if they can go to your donald-trump-loving-women-should-stay-in-kitchen neighbour's house to play with friends. Do you:
1. Change your child's school so they don't mix with the 'wrong sort'. You're afraid what your social circle think if your children mix with children of people like that.
2. Your neighbours are racists and sexists. Petition their kids to be kicked out from your kids' school. They don't deserve an education.
3. Let your child go play with them, then if your child has a positive experience, let him go again next time. If not, protect the child from the consequences of not going next time.
Not from OK, so I get the feeling this affects things, but not sure how.
I am from Denmark and maybe I have a different perspective, even though racism is a problem here as well, but maybe in a different way.
I was having an internal debate with myself about whether to jump in on this conversation just because it is a topic that can cause a lot of controversy. But I decided that self censorship, is a bad thing for society as a whole in the long run.
When you start a comment with "well off white guy", you are indicating the person is a racist since they are ignoring problems of their fellow humans because of the person's race. If you substitute any other race in that statement, people would find it to be an accusation of racism. I suppose there is another interpretation of that line, but I am trying very hard to be charitable to posters (I do fail quite a bit).
pointing out that for some reason long-standing problems suddenly seem to get a lot more attention once they start negatively affecting white people is not promoting hate
from the article: ''It's called an ERAD, or Electronic Recovery and Access to Data machine, and state police began using 16 of them last month.''
I would submit his current problem is not long standing since it started last month. Also, we do not know his history of speaking out about civil forfeiture. Why, the incident with his wife could have been a "shutup" warning from the police. I said I provided a piece of data, and I have not really had time to look at the context.
As to the second half, pointing out some issue is racial and the participant only started noticing because of their race is informing your reader that you believe that person to be racist.
it is calling attention to racism
Which implies that a belief that someone is being racist. Thus calling him a racist as he is the only protagonist mentioned.
You know, I grew up in the grey between two different groups, and I sometime wish I could have been raised in a suburb or had a little more blood to qualify as the other group. Being able to say "I am..." in a clear voice is an amazing powerful thing. I've gotten to see what absolute shits groups going too far can be on each other when one believes they can say and do things with minimum risk. Assumptions about people based on their race are just wrong. Judge a person by their word and deed with a kind eye and hopeful heart. I fail at this quite a lot, but I think I'm ok with what I wrote.
// as a side note, I love hnreplies and if I had cash I would suggest adding a blackout time feature
If someone (not a minority) is ill-informed about an issue that disproportionately affects minorities, to the point that they believe the issue is not so serious, and only when personally confronted with the effects do they take on a more fully-informed opinion and speak out about the injustice of it, I don't think you necessarily have to consider that person a racist, even if you think their behavior is a result of bias. And, while dsfyu404ed certainly expressed frustration with this state of affairs (as I believe anyone should), that still does not rise to the level of actually calling a person a racist. This need not apply only to race - it can also be rich people not caring about poor people problems, or men not caring about womens' issues, and so on.
For another example look at the opioid epidemic in the US now, compared to crack hysteria in the 80s. Suddenly drug addicts are victims of circumstance, unfairly targeted by unjust or antiquated laws, it's the drug companies' fault for pushing these treatments to doctors, etc. etc. Whereas in the 80s crack dealers were going to infiltrate your nice suburban community and turn your daughters into whores and your sons into foot soldiers in their gang wars, or whatever the hell. And it just so happens that the opioid epidemic is particularly bad among white communities now. However, that doesn't mean that everyone who is concerned about the opioid epidemic now, yet took a different view of the crack epidemic back in the day, is necessarily a racist in the usual sense. It could be they are ignorant of their bias, and lack introspection.
This is a pointless charade that fools nobody.
At any rate, he did not call him a racist. That's not really up for discussion since the text is right there.
Isn't the basic problem how much money the US government has spent improving the supply of heroin from Afghanistan after the taliban completely destroyed it during their 2001 rise to power.
If they're so inclined they can take your things by force and you will have no reasonable means of recourse.
It's like being charged solely with resisting arrest.
The truth of the matter is that people are barely evolved ape/chimps and do pretty much whatever suites them as long as they don't get their ass kicked for it.
Asset forfeiture has been controversial since it started being used much more frequently in the 1980s. I really doubt most of the people commenting on it here first heard of it on John Oliver's show.
Not that there is anything wrong with John Oliver hopping on the band wagon, that's good thing.
Furthermore, the use of "plain-old" was a way of indicating that this is a new method but an old process; eg, it's not legally any different from normal asset seizure.
Finally, and most importantly, I don't see any bias or why you even call it that.
(Edited to change "marijuana" to "medical-marijuana".)
That's a ridiculous statement. My church (both as an organization and the people in it) gives tons of money to single moms for everything from subsistence to fully paid Disneyland vacations. We run a volunteer group that does things like yard work, handyman work, and moving for single moms. The most visible charity outside a church in my city is for single moms. There are single moms who work in important positions at my church. The bible specifically points out on many occasions that those who follow Christ should show love and compassion to people such as single moms as Christ would.
Prosecutors are valued by the number of wins, not by how many innocent people are spared the gauntlet of the American justice system.
Prisons (especially private prisons) are rewarded for high recidivism rates, instead of being punished for wasting taxpayer money on an expensive and brutal daycare.
If the state does badly enough it can get sued. So the taxpayers foot the bill while the offenders are free to do as they do.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: prevent this kind of garbage from happing without consequence by mandating docked wages/pension benefits to pay for all or part of lawsuit damages. Change the incentives and people will change themselves.
Over the last few decades the American people have been conned into this idea that government is fundamentally too big and needs to be shrunk because of reasons. People save a few measly percentage points on taxes that help pay for the axle damage on their car after being driven over roads that are no longer repaired.
Municipalities had to find ways to recoup costs from slashed state and federal budgets, which is why there is such a big problem in poor, mostly black American cities, as people are pulled over and fined up the ass for every possible infraction just so the city can afford itself.
This kind of crap has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with fiscal irresponsibility.
When was the last time you saw any gov't budget go down? I'd say never.
The gov't has more than enough money. The problem is where and how they spend it.
So no, not "never."
European countries tend to tax more at a county or even national level, which makes the distribution of resources much, much more reasonable.
It also doesn't help that the public defender system in the States is a fucking joke. So don't do that, either.
I don't actually know any individuals in the US that believe this - the problem is that our government is so far out of our reach these days we can't effect significant change by simply voting for one of the two similar parties.
I'm glad you don't know anyone like this, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Step 1) End all police unions. There desperately needs to be a federal law prohibiting the formation of any police union anywhere in the United States. (we'll add this to the list of things that will never happen)
Not to say there can't be reasonable steps to move the needle toward accountability. Lowering the bar for perjury charges would be a good first step.
It should be no coincidence that literal highway robbery is being sanctioned in a state as allergic to good government and logical tax rates as Oklahoma.
You have a good point about personal liability and quality of service, and that's why any proposal of mine should should have very limited conditions, like unlawful civil asset forfeiture.
I'm less certain. It seems to me that this will only push the incentive further up the chain, such that the system refuses to ever find wrongdoing or even allow lawsuits to go forward.
A simpler and more elegant solution is to simply remove "criminal justice" as being part of the responsibility of the state. In my estimation, this will come at no cost whatsoever to safety, while also increasing quality of life for most people.
Seems like all that would happen is new channels of revenue would be found that didn't have the blowback you're suggesting.
>"If you can prove 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," Vincent said about any money seized.
... Legit reason? How am I supposed to prove where every cent came from? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
Despicable, and akin to highway robbery in my opinion.
I'm not just being pedantic, this is part of why it's so incredibly fucked. They have, no exaggeration, taken a portion of the criminal legal system with all the constraints and due process requirements there, excised it with a legislative scalpel and grafted it back on to the civil system.
I honestly to this day don't understand why government is allowed any access at all to the civil system as a plaintiff, at least not beyond the local level.
Oh wait, yes I do understand: It's specifically to fuck the people over.
Nothing more than: highway robbery, is necessary. You're spot on, that's exactly what it is, and it's nothing more. It's robbery. Using any other names for it, just assists the police in covering up what they're doing through confusion. Everyone should begin calling it robbery by police or the equivalent, and stop referring to it as civil asset forfeiture in public forums (that's only useful in a technical/legal regard).
These are all language tricks used to manipulate the masses. "Double plus good" is not a stretch at this point if we become complacent to this kind of manipulation.
So the law was pushed through. Then some day cops realized they can apply this law for fun and profit. And so they have been.
No one and nothing is charged with a crime in civil asset forfeiture.
The currency is defined as the defendant in the case.
I have come to believe this since I've met some incredibly brilliant PhD's, but I've also met some incredibly dumb PhD's.
I've met some PhDs who would run rings around anyone in their niche, but would be (metaphorically) unable to tie their shoelaces by themselves.
There's no way I'd carry a bank card in OK.
It wouldn't be the first time a news article was wrong, though it'd be nice to know for sure.
The legal theory (which is a total crock and obvious constitutional violation) is that you aren't the real owner, you stole the property so the state can take it away from you. That's what creates the presumption of guilt where you have to prove you're the owner of the property, same as if you dropped it on the street by accident and the cops found it.
Anytime one of these cases gets close enough to SCOTUS for a decision on the overall constitutionality the police/DA drop the case. Most of them seem to know its a scam and don't want to risk an adverse ruling. There have been a few hints that SCOTUS is ready to rule the current scope and scale makes civil forfeiture unconstitutional but who knows.
Exactly, why is it not incumbent upon them to prove that you have gained that money through illegitimate means?
If I open a civil proceeding against you, I can try to prove that you owe me $5k and if I prove that to the appropriate standard you can be compelled to provide me with $5k. I can't hack your bank account, withdraw $5k, and then open a civil proceeding to retroactively legitimize my robbery.
The whole system is a massive violation of due process, no matter what legalese you try to use to justify it. If you're allowed to take people's property and then retroactively sue them if they complain, what is even the point of having the Fifth Amendment?
If there is reason to believe that someone is in possession of property that doesn't belong to them it seems perfectly reasonable for the police to confiscate said property.
That's not what's being described here.
If it turns out the guy running away from the bank just likes jogging with a bag of money the police should return his money and whatever else _immediately_ after the person is released.
How about "police should not take property where no crime is known to have been committed"
Yes. The money may be held in escrow pending the trial, but appropration by police is unjust -- and should be illegal if the person is not charged and arrested.
Edit: all of this is off-topic, as the bank can be proven the owner and the police would not keep the money.
Asset forfeiture is, and always has been, subject to judicial oversight.
There are, in fact, well established and relatively simple procedures for contesting civil forfeiture. There is a fair argument to be made that they sometimes don't work as well as they should but when you say that there is "NO judicial oversight" at all you are just just flat out wrong. You need to update your worldview if you want it to conform to reality.
(Edited to add: I just realized they didn't actually get their money back. They got a check. Yep. You can generally cash those for free if you have a bank account.)
Imagine the situation of someone whose circumstances are less clear, or who can't otherwise afford to stay in one place and fight the seizure for however long it actually takes.
What happens to the person who just had all of their money taken away?
And if the courts decided that the asset forfeiture was incorrect and reimburse the person it was stolen from—does the scanner maker still keep their cut? Or are they still due their cut?
This is probably why it is incredibly difficult to dispute it and the police will put up every roadblock to stop you.
Particularly egregious is Lt. Vincent's take:
>"If you can prove can[sic] prove[sic] 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," Vincent said about any money seized.
"What states does ERAD currently have contracts with? With what states does ERAD anticipate contracts to be signed in the next 180 days, and for all of these states, what percentages will ERAD be earning on funds seized?"
I'm in touch with the news station that has the contract, so I should be able to get it without an additional FOIA request. Once I have that, I'll recurse further if necessary.
1) ERAD training materials disseminated to law enforcement agencies (LEAs).
2) Correspondence between those LEAs and DHS, or occurring in DHS forums, regarding ERAD technology.
3) DHS reports, studies or memoranda mentioning ERAD usage in the field by DHS or any other agency.
I figure DHS Science & Technology Directorate might not be the right target. Should I just aim at DHS directly, or is there a specific group that would handle those connections between DHS and other law enforcement?
Should I structure this as three separate requests?
Also, I noticed that site:www.erad-group.com doesn't return anything on google, but it does on other search engines. Did ERAD request that it be removed from search results? Why would they do that? Why would they also not have a robots.txt if that is the case?
<meta name="robots" content="noindex" />
<meta name="ROBOTS" content="NOINDEX, FOLLOW" />
<meta name="ROBOTS" content="INDEX, NOFOLLOW" />
<meta name="ROBOTS" content="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW" />
[edit: submitted too soon by mistake]
Given the low-threshold for seizure and how we've seen civil-asset forfeiture exercised by law enforcement, that's terrifying.
"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.
It boggles the mind that this doesn't violate due process.
Seriously. If you look at the court cases for asset forfeitures, it is titled "The State of Oklahoma vs $1,534.32 in cash" or "Iowa vs 2014 Mercedes".
But the likes of United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency is obviously more dangerous than either of those:
And the list of cases here is hilarious as well:
like United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat’s Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness, or United States v. One Book Called Ulysses, United States v. One Tyrannosaurus Bataar Skeleton, or Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri, or R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel, R.M.S. Titanic ...
That type of thing is ok in Admiralty Law, but should have no place in criminal law. How we got to a point where things can be taken from someone who is not convicted of a crime is beyond belief.
It doesn't take place within criminal law.
(There is also "criminal asset forfeiture", which is a different beast, and takes place within normal criminal process against a particular criminal defendant: that is a part of criminal law, and its a lot less controversial than civil asset forfeiture.)
Apparently, property doesn't really belong to us.
Corporations are also people, so you can't really have one of those either.
Also, if they're confiscating assets, why not confiscate the car? Why just the cash/cards?
How do we get this absurd law overturned? What's the minimum required? Supreme court decision?
"You have a bunch of money on your ATM card. You can potentially go to an ATM take out cash, then get drugs. Now, I need to seize all your money to ensure you can't buy those illegal drugs that may or may not exist."
Shouldn't this just be "Citizens robbed by police".
In India at least they have the decency to say "Do you have a gift for me?" so you know what's happening.
My dad would pretend to be hard of hearing and deliberately misunderstand ad nauseum until waved on his way, this would happen about once a month while going about his lawful business.
He even gatecrashed a police function and got himself a picture shaking hands with the Chief of Police. He kept the photo in the vehicle so he could produce it and attempt to start up a conversation as though they were great friends.
This is a country where the guards of the police armoury were bribed with $5 to allow weapons to be removed.
Of course all of these forfeitures stink of illegality, regardless of the victim. Forth Amendment? Never heard of it, apparently.
* ERAD is taking 7.7% of all funds seized.
* Anywhere between 9.95 and 14.95 per each virtual terminal used to scan for the funds.
* $1000-ish per physical terminal used.
> In addition to presenting the value associated with a card, the terminal will read other card types such as credit and debit cards. While no value can be provided, the terminal will display a “card not supported” message to alert the trooper that this is not a prepaid card. The trooper can then compare the four digits displayed on the terminal with the last four digits shown on the face of the card to determine if the card has been cloned. If the last four digits on the face of the card do not match the four digits displayed on the terminal, the trooper should note the discrepancy and pursue further action in the investigation.
I'm not really sure why they compare the last 4 digits to detect a clone, that seems wrong to me. But in any case, that strongly implies that they can't seize from debit cards linked to bank accounts. They can only seize from prepaid cards.
It catches lazy counterfeiting. Stamp a whole bunch of cards with the same number and info, while the magstripe is what gets read and is the real account you're stealing from, the theory being that no-one really cares about the number printed on the card.
Some retailers do this too, ask or enter the last four of the card to make sure the imprint matches the magstripe, as if they don't it's most likely a cloned card.
First you have civil-asset forfeiture that let's police seize money from you when you are carrying large amounts of cash (with a generous false positive rate potentially disastrous to victims).
Now to get around that, you could try handling everything by card or bank transaction (unless you're one of the unfortunate few without access to a bank account due to low credit rating or other legitimate reasons). And now they can seize that too?
That's not ripe for abuse, that's designed for abuse.
As a non-American, what's wrong with your country?
I'm profoundly disillusioned, and not sure where to go from here.
Trump is only the natural leader to this army of thugs, exactly like in 1934 in Germany. Let's hope that if your country falls into that trap, there will be an even bigger country to come and save you, like you did for us in 1944.
That would be Russia, China, or Canada.
a pathological liar is one step away from the White House and lending legitimacy to anti-first-amendment ... groups
These complaints actually describe both major-party candidates pretty well.
That depends how you define "revolution" (if you set the right scale cut-off, it was the last armed revolt meeting the cutoff, but not all "revolutions" are "armed revolts" and vice versa; particularly, for the latter, "revolution" often implies success, not merely an attempt, at replacing the aspects of the status quo ante against which the putative revolution is aligned, which those revolting in the Civil War spectacularly failed to do.)
One could argue that some or all of the suffrage movement, temperance movement, and civil rights movement (and maybe others) were "revolutions" that are more recent -- and more successful (if only in the short-term, in the second case) -- than the Civil War, though none of them were primarily armed revolts.
That isn't true now anyway?
I don't advocate for anything, all I know is if the current trend continues, like every other free society that has gone down this same road, It will end very badly and then will improve for a generation or so.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson
That's, of course, humoring the notion that this is in the cards in the developed world. If you step out of the echochambers on the Internet and interact with people in reality, you begin to see that things aren't nearly as bad as the curated outrage porn would lead you to believe.
Oh, so if I have a card in someone else's name, you'll charge it, thus causing someone who doesn't even know about it to lose?
Any lawyers here want to weigh in on whether this would be identity theft/credit card fraud/etc on the part of the police and hence illegal? Isn't scanning/charging a card without authorization illegal?
How can charging a card help either the bank or the account owner in the case of police apprehending a carder?
The only possiblity that comes to mind is that the police empty the cardholder's account and then later return that money minus the device manufacturer's 7.7% cut?!
From what I understand the technology is for seizing money from prepaid cards. For other cards it just looks up information about the account. Thats how it helps with identity theft.
> Now, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money in your bank account or on prepaid cards.
ERAD card scanners were first developed around 2012 for the science and technology arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to combat the use of prepaid debit cards by drug cartels to transport drug money, according to a Homeland Security media release.
Since then, some law enforcement agencies around the country have adopted the technology.
According to ERAD Group’s patent for the device, law enforcement can determine the balance of money in an account associated with a prepaid card that is part of branded “open loop” networks such as Visa or MasterCard or “closed loop” cards that only allow purchases at a single company, such as gift cards.
When the card is scanned by the officer to check the account balance, the system disguises the balance request as a typical vendor request to prevent alerting suspects that law enforcement is checking the card, the patent states.
Once the card’s account balance is determined, the officer can use the device to freeze the funds, preventing withdrawal or use of the money in the account, or seize the funds by having them transferred to a law enforcement financial account, the patent states.
Although the device does not allow funds from non-prepaid cards to be frozen or seized, it can provide the officer information about those cards such as the card number, the name on the card, expiration date and the card issuer.
Wouldn't that go against the credit card (or pre-paid card) merchant agreement? And wouldn't ERAD have to have signed such an agreement in order to access the credit card network?
> One (1) VX680 GPRS Terminal w/battery, thermal printer
The VX680 is a mobile credit card terminal (http://www.verifone.com/media/413350/VX680_2_lg.jpg) made by Verifone, much like the type that restaurants use most places besides the USA. If I had to speculate, maybe they try putting varying charges/holds on the card and see when it gets rejected in order to divine the balance?