So assisting LE with this tech indirectly helps fund the continued war on drugs.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/09/710456736/defining-whats-exce...
...but 99 times out of 100, the property owner doesn't show up to court.
... and here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/08/t...
> Costello hired a local attorney to get the money back. After making a few calls, the lawyer told him to accept a deal from the government for half of the money. Costello agreed. But his legal fees were $9,000 — leaving him with only about $7,000.
> In one respect, Guerrero was lucky. His construction firm paid a small amount to make his legal struggle possible, and Stone had agreed to do much of the work without pay. Given the time involved, the legal bills would have been $50,000, Stone said. But he agreed not to press for his fee from the government as part of the settlement.
> He wanted to get his money back, but he had no idea how to sort through the intricacies of the federal civil forfeiture system, an arcane corner of the American legal world. Though he was never charged with a crime, he would have to prove, in effect, that he made the money legally.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/08/how-p...
> In New York, the multi-step process required to get the NYPD to release possessions can be opaque and circuitous. When the Bronx Defenders circulated a questionnaire in 2014 among its clients who had possessions taken from them at the time of arrest, nearly half said they were never even given the itemized voucher that Clavasquin received.
> Even with that voucher in hand, petitioning the district attorney’s office for the necessary forms to release items categorized as evidence can be fruitless: More often than not, requests to the district attorney’s office—whether phoned in, written, or emailed—go unanswered, said Adam Shoop, a Bronx Defenders attorney who helped bring the class-action lawsuit against the city. The only reliable way to force a response is to file an administrative appeal, a legal tool that the average non-lawyer almost certainly wouldn’t be able to use on his or her own, Shoop said.
The process for reclaiming seized assets is well documented...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
> Victims often have "long legal struggles to get their money back".
If I go see a lawyer and they tell me "it'll take years, you'll get back only some of the money, and most of it will go to paying me", I'd skip court too.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special...
From the other side of the pond, the US fixation on wars is ... remarkable. Marking these policies as wars wouldn't fly in the EU.
Circling back, the use of 'war' for civil matters normalizes the word, making real war easier to swallow.
There's no need to normalize the word in America. Aside from some short periods, we've been fighting an armed conflict somewhere in the world (except the homeland) since forever. This is important. Because Europeans still have some well deserved collective memories about what war means, considering it happened in their backyard. It's harder to swindle the word 'war' around Europe as people know what it means way better than the American collective mind.
In most languages and societies in Europe and Asia people don't use words like "fight", "war", "kill" so easily or as euphemisms.
Not sure about Asia, but over here in Europe some politicians leaning far right often use the above military words. But that comes to no surprise given the mindset.
EU also has its share of word over utilization
We had an 'intelligent lockdown', but hey, we're Dutch.
But I guess it’s about policy marketing to the audience.
> No, this pandemic is not a war. It does not pit nations against nations, or soldiers against soldiers. Rather, it is a test of our humanity. It brings out the worst and the best in people. Let us show each other our best side!
https://www.bundespraesident.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Rede...
Everyone knows what "war on.." means. "War on poverty", "War on cancer", etc, etc.
People never thought it meant an actual war with countries attacking each other.
'Everyone knows' may apply to how people in your vicinity use that word, but it's not necessarily the case everyone uses, or approves of, this usage.
As others have noted, normalising words with specific and powerful meanings is a way to weaken those words and surreptitiously make the actions they represent more common and palatable.
And we're talking about an American company working with an American gov't agency. Why wouldn't how "war" is used in the US be the only thing that matters?
I guess my point is we are well beyond “normalization”. We’ve been using “war against...” for the past 50 years at least.
« A sustained campaign against something undesirable » is already a commonly accepted definition of the word war. It can grow to mean different things in different contexts just as much as any other word can. I think we need a lot more argument to prove the normalization of the word causes peoples perspective of conflict to change
«War is intense armed conflict between states, governments, societies, or paramilitary groups such as mercenaries, insurgents and militias. It is generally characterized by extreme violence, aggression, destruction, and mortality, using regular or irregular military forces.»
Brainwashing seems to work fine, making a "campaign against something undesirable" out of the most horrible bloodshed.
This has always been the wrong word, yet a favorite going back at least as far as Lyndon Johnson's "War On Poverty". It suggests an "enemy" to be "defeated" -- but the enemy is a monster of our own making.
Reform, Reconstruction, or New Deal are more truthful as descriptions, but tend to sound like hard work rather than the quick fix voters crave.
We always need an "enemy" to motivate us to become "heros".
It is part of the culture. Certainly it is not restricted to government. In American business the "war" themes are extremely popular.
However, this sort of thing is everywhere if you are looking for it, embraced by people of all ages from all walks of life, and certainly in places other than the US. I remember when I first starting reading about cryptography and wondering why they kept using the word "attack". Or even something like software not being released/distributed/installed, but "deployed".
It is interesting how this seems to escape the focus of the political correctness language revisionsists.
When people use certain terminology, it doesn’t mean they “embrace” the cultural phenomena that led to its development. They could use it simply because it’s the conventional terminology.