Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The US government has taken upon itself the power to go thru safety deposit boxes at any time, for any reason, in recent years. They say it's necessary to "fight terrorism" and "money laundering" (which is a "crime" whose definition is so flexible that you can get a conviction of anyone for it.)

Don't confuse what the constitution says with what the current "legal perspective" is. Under the constitution, most of the government is illegal.

Since the US Federal government doesn't follow the law, there's pretty much no limit to what they can do.

Hell, in the megaupload case they violated the laws of New Zealand and the USA, and still are not giving people the illegally seized data back.



They say it's necessary to "fight terrorism" and "money laundering"

I'm not familiar with this. Do you have links to where this is said, or articles about this abuse? I searched a bit and came up with some similar things that were debunked (http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/safedeposit.asp) but nothing about this specifically. Thanks!


>Since the US Federal government doesn't follow the law, there's pretty much no limit to what they can do.

Other than rulings by the judge, of course.


Except judges are so easily swayed by sealed evidence about national security. And national security has been arbitrarily stretched to encompass all manner of things. They'll definitely try and make a case about terrorism and drug cartels affecting national security.


Court rulings can violate the law. Wickard v Filburn is a perfect example. Everyone can read Article 1 Section 8 and know that personal property does not fall under "interstate commerce." That doesn't stop the Supreme Court from ruling that way.

In the same vein, we've now reached a point where the Supreme Court's decisions are increasingly (if not all) unconstitutional.

The problem is that there's no 3rd party to settle a dispute with the government. If you and the government have a disagreement, the government decides who's right.

If the Supreme Court ruled the sky was red, the sky would still be blue.


[citation needed]




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: