That is a bit of a silly comparison. Even if you let a criminal borrow your car and they do something bad, there is some sort of legal apparatus to get your car back if it's clear that you were not involved in that criminal activity. The impound lot doesn't simply say "sorry, we saw your appeal, but we're gonna go ahead and keep the car forever."

You would think. But civil forfeiture doesn't care who owns what they take, only whether it was used in a crime.

You may be stuck paying court costs to defend your property and get it back. Which is why we have tons of ridiculous court cases like: "Bag full of hundred dollar bills V. US Government."

There's a lot of people that think civil forfeiture is also fundamentally wrong.

Not just keep the car, but "you can never drive in country again."

There is no such apparatus. Any property used in comission of a crime is forfit, no matter of original owner. Stolen guns, cars and cert are all treated the same under the law.

On the other hand, I get great deals at police auctions and never lend out my keys.

Yes, there is, it's called the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. It's called the US legal system. That is the apparatus.

You have no constitutional right to have a Google account. And you probably agreed to forced arbitration in the Google TOS and likely even agreed that Google can terminate your account for any reason, at any time, without cause.

Good example: https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-poli...

Son commits crime using father's car and car is seized using civil forfeiture. The car has already been returned and the ACLU is fighting the police department in federal court:

https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/cain.complaint.pdf

Not saying civil forfeiture doesn't need to be reigned in, it does, but there is a legal apparatus for getting your stuff back. I admit it gets trickier on things that cannot be traced easily, like cash, but I'm mostly responding to the OPs example of an innocent persons car being used in a crime by someone else.

Another good example below where the owner of the vehicle committed a crime in the car they owned and the state tried to seize the vehicle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbs_v._Indiana

So, I admit the legal system moves slow, but there is clearly a strong legal case for fighting these unlawful seizures.

A better analogy is you unknowingly hire someone who was once convicted, in a secret trial, of a 'crime'.

You are then jailed, without being informed who the incriminating hire was.

No, you let them use your name and sign the papers for them while they are committing the crime. You are now an accomplice.

I think ban from an app store for a platform is something more like “if someone commits a crime using your vehicle, you might lose your driving permit”.

It’s more like you lend your truck to someone who committed a crime sometime in the past and now you’re banned from ever driving again.

This, also Mark accessed his account for the first time after this issue ?

It sounds a lot like he gave his credentials to his dev team which is a major violation of the ToS of the play store.

But hey, looks like reading these is too hard, better to just whine afterwards.

No he probably added team members to the playstore account. So people can login with their own Google accounts. That's a feature inside their product and accepted .

What makes it a "major" violation? It sounds quite minor to me.