Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

> I do not understand the sledgehammer approach the FBI 'cybercrimes' division deals with things with. ... I'm sorry but covert monitoring of a server is going to be vastly more beneficial for an operation than taking the server and is going to net more targets and more evidence.

I wonder if they'll auction off the server?

Fun fact. The federal government makes ~$3 billion a year off asset seizures. They don't have to charge people with a crime to seize property - the trial is actually conducted against the property itself.) The law enforcement agencies responsible get to keep 50-80% of the proceeds.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket/... (disclaimer - source does not pretend to be unbiased ;)

Yeah, but they have to hold on to that stuff for a while. a 5 year old cash is still cash. a 5 year old computer is a doorstop.

I would point out the fallacy in your statement - but I will let you figure it out in the next 5-10 years.

I believe he is hinting at inflation damaging the value of cash in the next 5 to 10.

I would be very interested in the fallacy you see, yet I see none.

Servers lose 90% of their value in 5 years. Cash will not.

Readers from Argentina and Zimbabwe might disagree.

2 things.

1. Police are taking at least 20% hit right off the top. so, sure $1000 turns into $750 at 5%, the police are going to be looking at $600 profit, at the very best. a $1000 computer would be more like $100 dollars after five years, in which the police keep $80 bucks.

2. You can pirate all the copyrighted material you want in Argentina and Zimbabwe. Furthermore, neither of those countries really care about property rights. if the government wants your stuff, they just take it anyway.

Yes, but the data on the server may still be valuable (e.g. to an identity thief).

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact