> You should be able to be the worst person in the world and not hung for it.
Do you just believe that someone should be allowed to do anything they want and not face repercussions?
Do you just believe that someone should be allowed to do anything they want and not face repercussions?
The city may be in the wrong for downplaying the severity, but he’s in the wrong for directly handing over the hacked information he has to journalists.
I think they city would need to actually believe witnesses or investigations were actually harmed, and I don't mean picking whatever belief is most convenient for them. Maybe they do believe it. If they can prove it, they should win their suit.
You probably think identity theft is a customer's problem, not the bank too.
Just because the narrative calls it something, doesn't make it right.
It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should never have been considered reasonable.
Huh? I'm relaying what the law considers civil asset forfeiture to be. It's not my opinion and it is not a "narrative". In fact, here's some commentary addressing the issue I raised.
"Technically, civil asset forfeiture involves a government lawsuit against the personal property itself or, in legal terms, `in rem`. As strange as it may seem, the inanimate property, whether a yacht or a bag of cash, is the defendant in such a proceeding." --- (https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-civ...)
If you don't believe that, maybe you'd believe the Justice Department on issue:
"Civil Judicial Forfeiture: In rem (against the property) court proceeding brought against property that was derived from or used to commit an offense, rather than against a person who committed an offense." --- (https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture)
What you ignored is the only opinion I expressed and the context of that expression: "Still, I would argue that the property owner's rights are often violated is such actions." How does this square with anything about identify theft responsibility?
> It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should never have been considered reasonable.
Actually, the historical origin of civil asset forfeiture has some rational basis, though, as with most sensible legal moves, gets corrupted by those willing to exploit the letter of the law in spite of its spirit.
Nonetheless, unless there's something I'm missing I don't find your retort particularly coherent. I urge you to reread the original comment to which I replied and my reply and try again.