Hacker News Reader

Comment by kodah | Hacker News Reader

The government just passed a computer fraud act where they differentiate between good faith use of the term "security researcher" and bad faith. I think we can do the same with civil asset forfeiture, making the penalties immense.

There's always the route of undoing civil asset forfeiture entirely, because it makes zero sense to anyone that encounters it or to our justice system.

This is also a good time to point out: when states and the federal government disagree, without mandate for state agencies to follow state law (weed is legal in Michigan) this is the result. The citizens are who pay the price for disagreement, and that mechanic especially needs to change.

Edit:

Fair, they passed "guidance". I'd encourage anything at this point. Doing nothing is for the birds.

View on HN

No they didn't. The justice department announced their interpretation of that policy and how they'd use discretion.

You want meaningful reform on anything within 500 miles of this topic from the legislature? Good luck.

They can use discretion on civil asset forfeiture too, if they want. Something would be better than the current approach, which is feeling more cartel-esque by the year.

Nihilist and fatalist approaches like yours make the outcome certain. If I show up, speak like a big boy, and provide evidence someone might listen. This is the difference.

It's not quite as simple as "they can use discretion", because there is no single "they". There's a boatload of states and the federal government, and states have sovereign power on these topics, and states that have outlawed the practice have collaborated with the federal government through "equitable sharing" practices.

Something at the top could help.

> They can use discretion on civil asset forfeiture too, if they want.

That's how it works already. That's also why they can do it to whoever they like.

Right, leaving discretion without oversight is a massive gap. I am advocating that something be done. What are you advocating?

But this is literally the first time in this thread that you've mentioned "oversight." Perhaps you're advocating that something be done, but I cannot tell what it is.

It seems like you've been suggesting just that "the relevant authorities should use their discretion." That doesn't strike me (or, apparently, others) as much of a reform, since that exactly describes the status quo, which does not seem to be working.

What is the role for oversight that you're suggesting? Who does the overseeing? How?

kodah was saying we should try something

>I'd encourage anything at this point.

fennecfoxen was advocating that it isnt worth trying something

>You want meaningful reform on anything within 500 miles of this topic from the legislature? Good luck.

The goalposts were clearly moved from if even attempting reform is a waste of time, to having a workable solution

excuse me; i commented on the legislature's allergic reaction to actually making changes to the law in this area, noting the difficulty of the task which you have chosen.

I certainly read that as defeatism. Is there an alternative avenue for reform outside the legislature, independent of how difficult it is?

Legislatures don't want to make any change unless the people want it. People have to demand it.

> This is also a good time to point out: when states and the federal government disagree, without mandate for state agencies to follow state law (weed is legal in Michigan) this is the result.

Marijuana had nothing to do with this. The police needed a pretense for the civil asset forfeiture, but nothing under the law even requires that the pretense be true, there are no consequences for just lying about it, etc.

People really need to get familiar with civil asset forfeiture. It's done to all sorts of people for all sorts of make-believe reasons by police.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com