That piece on Desert Snow is pretty interesting, just finished reading it... It's odd that a system like Black Asphalt runs freely online.
As for the phone, let's imagine that the phone is seized and you manage to get the funds there moved after the phone being seized, is it valid in the eyes of the law comparing the transaction timestamp on the blockchain to the time when the seize occurred?
As for giving them the password or the moved funds... Shouldn't it be "and" instead of "or"? Because you can give them the password after the funds have already been swept.
The "good" news end up being the fact that you can eventually get out of this (if your money is innocent, of course, and you have funds for an attorney...)
andif found guilty later in court. the police get to keep the other 92.3% unless you can prove the funds not guilty.
I interpret that in a different way: 100% of your funds are swiped/seized, 7,7% goes to the company who made these readers, 92,3% goes to the police, and if eventually you manage to proveyourself your money not guilty you get those 92,3% returned. That's what I understood, at least.
You are both saying basically the same thing. Fixed typos there.
However, I actually believe that if you do manage to prove your funds are innocent you will get them all back and the government would take the 7.7 loss or get it back from the vendor.
Once they do finally decide to give you back what they decide to give you back you do get it back.
The real loss to you would be the $50,000 in attorney's fees it will cost you to get it back.
Well, thanks for fixing the typos, English isn't my native language, so I guess I was a bit "lost in translation" there
I don't see any government taking a loss. They would just take it back from the company, for sure. Those cases are probably contemplated on their contracts. And giving back 100% of funds if they're not guilty is the right thing to do in the middle of this mess.
As for the phone, let's imagine that the phone is seized and you manage to get the funds there moved after the phone being seized, is it valid in the eyes of the law comparing the transaction timestamp on the blockchain to the time when the seize occurred?
As for giving them the password or the moved funds... Shouldn't it be "and" instead of "or"? Because you can give them the password after the funds have already been swept.
The "good" news end up being the fact that you can eventually get out of this (if your money is innocent, of course, and you have funds for an attorney...)
I've also read that the company who makes these things gets a commission from seized funds, which I find rather "odd"...
Quote
http://boingboing.net/2016/06/09/oklahoma-cops-can-use-scanners.html
ERAD Group will receive a 7.7 percent cut of all funds seized via the card readers.
meaning whether innocent or guilty you're 7.7% worse off the moment the card is swipedERAD Group will receive a 7.7 percent cut of all funds seized via the card readers.
and
I interpret that in a different way: 100% of your funds are swiped/seized, 7,7% goes to the company who made these readers, 92,3% goes to the police, and if eventually you manage to prove
However, I actually believe that if you do manage to prove your funds are innocent you will get them all back and the government would take the 7.7 loss or get it back from the vendor.
Once they do finally decide to give you back what they decide to give you back you do get it back.
The real loss to you would be the $50,000 in attorney's fees it will cost you to get it back.
Well, thanks for fixing the typos, English isn't my native language, so I guess I was a bit "lost in translation" there
I don't see any government taking a loss. They would just take it back from the company, for sure. Those cases are probably contemplated on their contracts. And giving back 100% of funds if they're not guilty is the right thing to do in the middle of this mess.