News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or ... by incongruity on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @09:33PM (#11867011)
Where else would it go? A disinterested third party - not the police department that had the power to confiscate it. The state or a specific public good - i.e.: housing/food banks etc. could work.
Re:Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or ... by harryh on Thursday June 09, 2016 @07:53AM (#11868759)
I do agree with this actually. Rather that going straight to law enforcement budgets the money should go to the general coffers to be allocated by the legislature.
Re:Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or ... by incongruity on Thursday June 09, 2016 @12:18PM (#11870365)
I'd rather see it directed, specifically, to needed public goods. Otherwise it becomes just another generic revenue source (i.e.: a tax) and, over-time, it becomes all too tempting to still milk it for more money. Red light cameras are a good example of this. Revenues from them (in Chicago, at least) went to the city's general fund. That didn't stop the city from reducing yellow light times to increase revenues.
Re:Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or ... by harryh on Thursday June 09, 2016 @01:23PM (#11870818)
I like that goal too, but I'm not sure how to really do that. A lot of states direct all lottery money to education but that just allows the states to spend less on education out of the general fund. Ultimately money is a fungible thing. No way around that.
Re:Police use new device to seize money in bank accounts or ... by incongruity on Thursday June 09, 2016 @04:23PM (#11872079)
That's certainly fair/true. FWIW, I appreciate the symbolism and/or keeping revenue streams constrained. At least that forces governments to be honest in taxation rather than allowing these back-door taxation strategies.