13 ms·

TSA’s “See cash, seize cash” policy

307 points by adolph 5y ago

dmitrygr 5y ago
All governments want cashless economies. They make it easier to track money, collect taxes, keep an eyes on the populace, etc. India did it by invalidating all large-denomination bills. China did it by limiting ATM withdrawals. United States is doing it in the most American way possible. Literal highway robbery!
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  People, generally, want to be able to pay electronically too. It is very convenient.
  - saurik 5y ago
    That is an unrelated thought: the world can slowly come to hardly ever use cash--or even achieve universal cashless-ness--without the continued existence of cash being actively discouraged by the government.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      I agree, although I do not think civil asset forfeiture is specifically used to discourage the use of cash and incentivize people to go electronic, or at least it was not designed with that motive. Civil asset forfeiture is a power trip by the government that neither political party wants to touch, and it does a great job at reducing trust in the US's governing bodies. When I was a kid, I thought that kind of low level brazen corruption only happened in poorer or less developed countries. Now I get to see my countrymen doing it and admitting to it on video, year after year.
      - zepto 5y ago
        Why does nobody want to touch it? That is what is a mystery to me.
        mywittyname 5y ago
        The police unions in this country are powerful. A lot of seized cash is treated as tax-free "bonuses" paid out to officers. Either directly, or indirectly by financing "team building exercises" at a Build Your Own AK Ranch or some shit. The prosecutors offices get their cut too, so they have an incentive to keep their mouths shut. Everyone else can be bullied into submission.
        zepto 5y ago
        > A lot of seized cash is treated as tax-free "bonuses" paid out to officers. Either directly… Is this documented somewhere?
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Based on this tweet, no: https://twitter.com/JodyBarr/status/1440856532959170566?s=20 https://twitter.com/JodyBarr/status/1440856532959170566?s=20
        zepto 5y ago
        How is that tweet related to whether the money is paid out to officers?
  - kragen 5y ago
    My experience is the opposite. I can open up my wallet and take out a $1000 bill* in about three seconds; if change is due, that typically takes about another ten seconds. Paying with a credit card takes about a minute, four to ten times less convenient, except a significant percentage of the time the time "no hay sistema" and it just doesn't work, and sooner or later your credit card number gets sold to the Russian Mafia on a carding forum. I guess for super organized people checking your monthly statement to see if you've been signed up for a porn subscription you don't know about is not a big deal, but if you're super organized can't you just organize yourself to have the cash you need when you need it? Also, do I really want Visa International to know what brand of constipation medicine I take and which anarchist magazines I subscribe to? (None, I swear!) Anything I buy on a credit card is something I can expect to have to explain to the police or the immigration authorities sooner or later, possibly after the next military coup, or maybe just because there was a protest nearby that turned violent and they'd like to know why I was in that neighborhood that day. Also, why do I need acetone? I'm not cooking meth, am I? If you think this stuff will never affect you, well, nobody ever thinks it will affect them, until it does. Most people alive have lived through an invasion, a coup, or an episode of extreme governmental repression, and most people who haven't yet will. Bitcoin is a nice alternative when it's applicable, but transaction costs are a bit high for buying a cigarette or a restaurant meal, and it's a headache when the confirmation time is 45 minutes instead of 10 minutes. Hopefully Lightning will fix this. ______ * Inflation is bad here, yo. $1000 is about US$6, but printing $2000 bills hasn't been approved yet.
    - cvak 5y ago
      Why would paying with a credit card take a minute? It's 3s with contactless, and since covid it doesn't require a pin code.
      - kragen 5y ago
        Beats me. When did credit cards ever require a PIN, though?
        hackstack 5y ago
  - anyxdf 5y ago
    I don't think so. Spending control is much easier when you withdraw a fixed amount at the beginning of the month. Checking bank statements is easier (they are very short). You don't have to worry who will abuse your credit card or bank details.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  If the US government actually wanted to (mostly) eliminate cash, they could just stop printing currency, and wait for what's in circulation to wear out. That would take about 23 years [0]. As it is, though, only about 8% of all USD exists in physical form [1], anyway, making the USD largely a digital currency already. --- [0]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/how-long-is-the-life-span-of-us-paper-money.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/how-long-is-the-life-spa... [1]: https://money.howstuffworks.com/currency.htm https://money.howstuffworks.com/currency.htm
  - dmitrygr 5y ago
    That would be reported by the news and people would care. Whereas here we get this reaction: "they seized his money and say he is suspected of being a drug dealer, well then i have nothing to worry about - i am not a drug dealer."
    - bserge 5y ago
      Works even better in the EU. 20K in cash on an economy flight? Criminal! No other way. No way you saved up all of that, you poor pos!
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        It's better to have a clear law, even if it's wrong, so you can carry 19K in peace, then be randomly and unpredictably harrassed by authorities.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      Eh, people would care for about 5 minutes, just like everything else. Remember when basically every American adult with a credit history had their entire credit files stolen? How many people do you hear talking about that now?
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        That is materially different than having your cash stolen from you by a seemingly random person at the airport. One results in a very small probability of it affecting you in any way, the other is someone stealing from you.
bserge 5y ago
Can't get paid more than 1500 in cash in France. 2000 Pounds is "a lot of money" to exchange in the UK. The limits are suspiciously higher if you're well dressed and stepping out of an expensive car or moving millions. Tells you how pathetically poor the poor really are.
- SilasX 5y ago
  "And the brilliant part is, we have inflation as a matter of policy, and never update the threshold, so eventually the limit is meaningless and we can seize all cash!"
- godelski 5y ago
  There's a proposal for a new fed program that will track anything over $600 in the US now[0]. It is pretty much aimed at gig workers. Previously the IRS just didn't care about anyone below the poverty line. I'm not sure I'm even fine with the spirit of what is happening here, since these people would be getting that money back in refunds anyways. Also, I think a problem is that it is placing the burden on people who already don't have money, by complicating their taxes. It's weird to see banks and credit unions sending petitions around[1]. But this is also why I'm nervous about a fed crypto coin. [0] https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/tax/bloombergtaxnews/daily-tax-report/XM2J61K000000 https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/tax/bloombergtaxnews/da... [1] https://www.cuna.org/advocacy/actions/grassroot-action-center.html?vvsrc=%2fCampaigns%2f87852%2fRespond%3fvvsn%3dBAAAAA9bACscVAdVe0Y7FAA https://www.cuna.org/advocacy/actions/grassroot-action-cente...
  - version_five 5y ago
    I think there is a sort of "war on the poor" going on (or escalating really). Not specifically organized, but pushing into areas that have an outsized impact on the poor and finding no resistance because they don't push back. Think of most consumer facing environmental laws (emissions, charge for bags, bike lanes etc), car seat laws, health stuff - like basically any covid rule, it's all super regressive. I think there is positive feedback because it keeps the poor "in their place" while simultaneously signaling how progressive the proponents are. Expect it to get a lot worse.
standardUser 5y ago
It's surreal to me how little political or public support there is for ending these kinds of egregious government overreaches.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Especially when one party seemingly champions “civil rights” or “the little guy”, and the other party champions “small government”. And yet a government employee stealing someone’s cash with no justification does not fall under any of those categories.
  - snicker7 5y ago
    As mentioned in the tweets, the bipartisan FAIR act is supposed to reform civil asset forfeiture.
    - jjoonathan 5y ago
      > @RepWalberg filed legislation in Congress (FAIR Act) that could end these seizures. The bill’s stuck in committee since April.
      - pempem 5y ago
        The broken system doesn't mean we don't have the right representation - we have to figure out how to amplify it and fix the system imho
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Civil asset forfeiture has been a problem for 30+ years and multiple presidential administrations, of both parties.
    - standardUser 5y ago
      There's a bill "in committee" for everything under the sun. It's meaningless.
arwhatever 5y ago
I particularly hate it when the airport officials seize all of my cryptocurrency. :-)
- williamscales 5y ago
  You jest, but wait until they put you in a small room and beat you with a wet noodle until you give up your passphrase.
- cooljacob204 5y ago
  It's not like they seize money out of my bank account..
  - 8note 5y ago
    Nothing is stopping them. Travelling with access to money isn't particularly different from travelling with money
andrewmg 5y ago
Here's more information on the Institute for Justice class action (mentioned in the Twitter thread) that's challenging TSA airport forfeitures: https://ij.org/case/dea-tsa-forfeitures/ https://ij.org/case/dea-tsa-forfeitures/ IJ is the leader on this issue, and if you oppose civil-forfeiture abuse, you might consider supporting IJ's work. (Disclosure: the IJ attorney pictured in the thread is a friend whom I admire greatly.)
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  I've only somewhat recently heard of IJ, but it's one of the first orgs that I've ever actually felt compelled to support. Their marketing is really good at both being informative and persuasive. I really hope that their goals are as good as I read them to be.
- joncrane 5y ago
  It blows my mind that citizens have to pay their own money to support organizations like IJ, ACLU, Amnesty International, etc.
  - gred 5y ago
    Really? Why should we not organize to fight for causes that we believe in? Would you be happy delegating your moral compass to the U.S. Department of Do-Goodery?
    - effingwewt 5y ago
      He is saying it's the government's job to do those things so we don't have to. The fact that we have a failed government is not something we should all just bend over and accept as status quo
      - xboxnolifes 5y ago
        It certainly shows failings in our elected representatives, but everything IJ does is through the legal system. It succeeding shows the government hasn't completely failed.
aazaa 5y ago
> Lyon arrived @RDUAirport & gave his bag to @TSA to be scanned. He says he absolutely knew TSA would see the cash, but said he also knew there is no law limiting the amount of cash one can fly with in the U.S. Here's the real problem. Civil asset forfeiture is an extralegal action. It's outside the legal system, which is why it's nearly impossible to get your money back. It's why the legality of what Lyon was doing doesn't matter. It's not a system of law, but power. He who has the power makes the law on the spot. That the US collectively has resigned itself to this level of clear overreach, utterly indefensible on any legal grounds, not to mention the bill of rights, says a lot about what 9/11 has done. The terrorists won the battle the people of this country thought they were fighting.
- gamblor956 5y ago
  Civil asset forfeiture is an extralegal action. This is categorically wrong. CAF is outside of the criminal legal system, but is very much part of the civil legal system, and the governments loses CAF cases more often than they win them in CAF cases preceding or not involving related criminal cases. (But conversely, the governments almost always win CAF cases that occur after succesful criminal cases involving drugs, racketeering, fraud, or financial crimes.) CAF cases make the news when the victim doesn't get their money back in a timely fashion, for the same reason that fires and earthquakes do: because that's not the normal state of things. CAF is problematic, especially the way it is run in the South and Midwest, but don't make it out to be something that it isn't. EDIT: The OP asserted that CAF was extralegal, and it absolutely is not. CAF is specifically authorized by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, a federal law. The OP asserted that the "terrorists won" even though CAF predates 9/11 and was created to combat organize crime. (CAF laws in the U.S. date back to the 1700s, but were infrequently used until roughly 1920 when they were used to target organized crime during Prohibition. The modern federal CAF law was passed in the 1984, to fight the "war on drugs", specifically referring to the drug cartels, and were modeled on the Prohibition Era CAF laws.)
  - aazaa 5y ago
    > CAF cases make the news when the victim doesn't get their money back in a timely fashion, for the same reason that fires and earthquakes do: because that's not the normal state of things. Got a source for that?
darthvoldemort 5y ago
No one has explained to me how this is still legal. This "law" has persisted until Bush, Obama, Trump and now Biden. Why does no one on both sides of the aisle have the courage to stop this? Can no one mount a legal challenge against this?
- vkou 5y ago
  > Why does no one on both sides of the aisle have the courage to stop this? Because the other side of the aisle will crap on you for doing it, and why burn political capital on a minor problem, when you have more pressing issues, like waging a war, digging through fallout of the largest economic disaster since the Great Depression, getting a crappy single-payer healthcare system through, filling three supreme court seats, dealing with a global pandemic, or keeping the wealthy and powerful happy. The only people who actually ground their elections on this kind of platform are anti-authoritarian contrarians, which have a rolling average of two seats in Congress and one in the Senate. Constituents, frankly, don't care about this.
  - mrguyorama 5y ago
    Constituents ABSOLUTELY care about these things and other very important issues. The problem is, nobody cares about these things MORE than "stopping abortion", "muh guns", "fuck taxes", "status quo" that most incumbents scream about. We have a two party system that discourages caring about anything.
    - handrous 5y ago
      The US won't get significantly better unless our electoral system is fixed. That won't happen unless one of the two viable parties makes that a major policy goal... so, never.
- whywhywhywhy 5y ago
  Because once these things are in place they’re there forever. The government and its institutions will never hand back power they have been granted. Remember the patriot act when the next round of powers come in because of covid.
clipradiowallet 5y ago
I'd bet this type of behavior from the government is what causes "domestic terrorism"...not just the "radicals" mentioned in headlines.
- rablackburn 5y ago
  I’m not aware of any domestic terror attacks (shootings?) where asset forfeiture has even been raised as a contributing factor. The Las Vegas shooter is kinda-money related in that he was a problem gambler. That’s the closest I can think of. Do you have any citation where this has happened? Because if not, that’s probably a pretty poor “bet” you’re making…
  - mindslight 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack The IRC is distinct from civil asset forfeiture, but they're both obtuse bureaucracies that care not for the individuals they crush. (idk what's with the downvotes. What I said is pretty factual unless you're like an accountant)
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    When people can't get recourse through the courts they go around the courts. Killdozer dude is the quintessential example.
dangus 5y ago
Let's step back and pretend like the TSA/police never engage in civil asset forfeiture in the first place. That issue aside, this is still a colossally stupid way to make a transaction. A thousand bad outcomes that are possibly more likely than this scenario could have happened. The bag could have been lost in the taxi, lost by the airline, stolen by a passerby, left at home, and the list goes on. Has this guy ever heard of Western Union? Bitcoin? A cashier's check? Anything else besides a suitcase full of cash? This method of making a large transaction is so stupid that it's hard for me to even blame the government for considering it automatically suspicious. Of course, having no due process surrounding civil asset forfeiture is not right, but that doesn't mean that this transaction isn't suspicious. I'd go ahead and play devil's advocate here: the only reason to carry this much cash is to do one of the following: 1. Evade sales and income tax (You can say this isn't your problem, or that the government should take less of our money anyway, but countries that have high tax avoidance rates have poor infrastructure and public services – tax avoidance hurts honest people the most) 2. Make a transaction to exchange illegal goods or people It's entirely possible that this guy's story is just a lie. I think it's naive to pretend that this guy isn't likely to be connected to organized crime. That's the whole "organized" part of it: they're going to be armed with a good story and disciplined behavior, not like the people you see on Cops admitting guilt the second a beat cop starts asking questions.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  People trust cash. A lot of people dealing in used goods only accept cash. It's substantially more difficult to forge a load of $100s than it is to forge a money order. All you need to verify a stack of $100 bills is a $5 marker.
  - pempem 5y ago
    I'd take it one further. If CSCS type programs take hold outside of china, you will need cash to do many basic things without the support of the government who will be busy regulating if you can fly, take a train, open an account, throttle your internet etc. etc.
  - DHPersonal 5y ago
woodpanel 5y ago
There's a joke in Cuba: Two women argue about who has the better boyfriend. The one says proudly: "Mine works as a luggage-handler at the airport!" To which the other replies ashamed: "Mine's just a doctor..." With that in mind I wonder whether it is TSA policy to always have these officers cross-sworn in with the FBI, or if it's a legal loophole which officers can exploit? From the tweet-thread it looks like local police departments have similar "double-agents"... So if it is a loophole the guy in the video just figured how to maximize his reward for his moraly derelict actions. Like the luggage handler at Havanna-Airport.
- effingwewt 5y ago
  When shit like this is so mainstream it's cross-continental and yet nothing is ever done, just goes to further show governments only support and defend themselves.
anonAndOn 5y ago
As if stealing your money wasn't bad enough, often a little is skimmed off the top if they are forced to return it.[0] [0]https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-customs-agents-cash-forfeiture-20180531-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-customs-agent...
- Y_Y 5y ago
  If you don't have a bank account and aren't in a rush to move your money you can just overpay on your taxes and make about 4% from the IRS until you claim it back at least 45 days later.
  - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
    How do you make 4%?
    - op00to 5y ago
      IRS interest rate
      - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
        The IRS interest rate is better than my saving account interest rate, and is guaranteed. That's crazy.
    - Y_Y 5y ago
      Under law you currently get the "federal short-term rate" + 3%
      - willcipriano 5y ago
        Step one: Overpay by enough that 4% of the total is your entire tax burden. Step two: Pay no taxes for few decades, adding funds as required. Step three: Withdraw your capital and retire.
gorjusborg 5y ago
Don't want U.S. law enforcement seen as a villain? Crack down on this garbage.
pempem 5y ago
Does anyone else see the tax collector of Prince John from 1970s Robinhood? Here to steal from the people to give to the government.
drenvuk 5y ago
At this point, is it worth it to turn it into a criminal case where you fight them for the cash? They're trying to keep the cash inside of civil rules. what happens if you physically refuse to let them have your items? Because they're yours and you believe they're attempting to steal from you?
- Strom 5y ago
  Probably a really fast way to get yourself added to the no-fly list.
  - drenvuk 5y ago
    Probably. $115k vs no fly list. What's worse?
    - Macha 5y ago
      It's more like $115k vs $115k + no fly list.
- function_seven 5y ago
  The cash would remain within the civil rules, and on top of that you'd catch a charge and a criminal case. Even if you beat that rap, you're still back where you started with respect to the money.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
This isn't gonna stop until the people who get screwed start buying bulldozers and getting their own justice. It's just too lucrative for the courts to strike it down until striking it down causes less problems for them than not. Follow the incentives.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Just need to use those well-regulated militias to finally do some good in the world.
random_kris 5y ago
Use Bitcoin
- t0mbstone 5y ago
  The guy was a class A moron. Bitcoin would have solved his problem, sure, but so would a simple bank account. Literally all he had to do was put the money in a bank account and then pull it out once he landed. Traveling with that amount of cash is insanely stupid. So many things can go wrong... Someone steals the bag or it gets lost, etc.
- manuelmagic 5y ago
  I think it's not the main point discussed here...
coolspot 5y ago
I traveled with like $20k cash arriving from aboard via LAX. Declared in paper that I have those money and verbally when asked upon entry, then had to go with an officer to fill out some additional form, that’s it.
- samtho 5y ago
  The issue with the OP’s case is that this guy was flying domestically and traveling with any amount of cash is not a crime nor is required to be reported. Because this procedure of declaring cash is with Customs and Boarding Protection, it only ever applies when flying in from abroad.
- chickenpotpie 5y ago
  What’s your point? That this isn’t an issue because it didn’t happen to you one time?
dredmorbius 5y ago
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1440856486280785922.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1440856486280785922.html
lowbloodsugar 5y ago
"Flying with cash is legal". No, it clearly isn't. The law says that a government employee can take your money as long as they write some words on a bit of paper, and if any of that money ever came in to contact with any drug (which are legal in many states), or for many other reasons, then they can keep it forever. Claiming it is legal is just a way to get more clients.
- decebalus1 5y ago
  It's legal for a person to fly with cash, but not for the cash itself. That's the core of civil forfeiture. The person is not being charged with any crimes, the money is 'detained' for investigation.
caf 5y ago
If the government can file 'in rem' against the pile of cash, can you also file a habeas corpus motion on behalf of the pile of cash? The entire idea of 'in rem' actions is absurd on the face of it, and is the kind of nonsense that causes people to lose faith in the justice system. There are often comments here that (correctly) castigate software engineer types as having too much of a game-playing 'gotcha' sense of how the law works - or ought to work - but "Department of Justice vs. $137,425 in US Currency" is exactly the same kind of too-tricky-by-half game-playing, only by the lawmakers.
SkipperCat 5y ago
Why would you carry that much cash? I know he has every right to do so, but there are a lot of bad players out there (TSA included) and I would not want to risk it. You could deposit the money in a national bank (JPM, BoA, etc), call ahead and plan the withdraw from a local branch. I'm sure there are other players in this marker who would only charge a few grand to provide you the cash on site if you had the money in a trusted escrow. To me, that is cheap insurance, but also to me it's worth the $70 bucks to have my bank wire the money instantly to any bank account in the US. Not saying this guy did wrong, just saying you can't trust anyone to be on their best behavior when they see $115K.
- dudul 5y ago
  > Why would you carry that much cash? I know he has every right to do so, Well there you go. You answered your own question. He had every right to do so, so he did it. End of story.
  - SkipperCat 5y ago
    I agree he has a right to, but I still wonder why he chose that course of action. There are plenty of things to do that are 100% legit but not worth the risk. Maybe he just didn't know about CAF, maybe he thought it wouldn't happen to him or could other reasons. Either way, I hope other folks in the future take heed and don't trust LE with their bags of cash in transit.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mrtweetyhack 5y ago
Not true. It's "see cash, seize cash, pocket cash"

307 points by adolph 5y ago

All governments want cashless economies. They make it easier to track money, collect taxes, keep an eyes on the populace, etc. India did it by invalidating all large-denomination bills. China did it by limiting ATM withdrawals. United States is doing it in the most American way possible. Literal highway robbery!

lotsofpulp 5y ago
People, generally, want to be able to pay electronically too. It is very convenient.
- saurik 5y ago
  That is an unrelated thought: the world can slowly come to hardly ever use cash--or even achieve universal cashless-ness--without the continued existence of cash being actively discouraged by the government.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I agree, although I do not think civil asset forfeiture is specifically used to discourage the use of cash and incentivize people to go electronic, or at least it was not designed with that motive. Civil asset forfeiture is a power trip by the government that neither political party wants to touch, and it does a great job at reducing trust in the US's governing bodies. When I was a kid, I thought that kind of low level brazen corruption only happened in poorer or less developed countries. Now I get to see my countrymen doing it and admitting to it on video, year after year.
    - zepto 5y ago
      Why does nobody want to touch it? That is what is a mystery to me.
      - mywittyname 5y ago
        The police unions in this country are powerful. A lot of seized cash is treated as tax-free "bonuses" paid out to officers. Either directly, or indirectly by financing "team building exercises" at a Build Your Own AK Ranch or some shit. The prosecutors offices get their cut too, so they have an incentive to keep their mouths shut. Everyone else can be bullied into submission.
        zepto 5y ago
        > A lot of seized cash is treated as tax-free "bonuses" paid out to officers. Either directly… Is this documented somewhere?
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        Based on this tweet, no: https://twitter.com/JodyBarr/status/1440856532959170566?s=20 https://twitter.com/JodyBarr/status/1440856532959170566?s=20
        zepto 5y ago
        How is that tweet related to whether the money is paid out to officers?
- kragen 5y ago
  My experience is the opposite. I can open up my wallet and take out a $1000 bill* in about three seconds; if change is due, that typically takes about another ten seconds. Paying with a credit card takes about a minute, four to ten times less convenient, except a significant percentage of the time the time "no hay sistema" and it just doesn't work, and sooner or later your credit card number gets sold to the Russian Mafia on a carding forum. I guess for super organized people checking your monthly statement to see if you've been signed up for a porn subscription you don't know about is not a big deal, but if you're super organized can't you just organize yourself to have the cash you need when you need it? Also, do I really want Visa International to know what brand of constipation medicine I take and which anarchist magazines I subscribe to? (None, I swear!) Anything I buy on a credit card is something I can expect to have to explain to the police or the immigration authorities sooner or later, possibly after the next military coup, or maybe just because there was a protest nearby that turned violent and they'd like to know why I was in that neighborhood that day. Also, why do I need acetone? I'm not cooking meth, am I? If you think this stuff will never affect you, well, nobody ever thinks it will affect them, until it does. Most people alive have lived through an invasion, a coup, or an episode of extreme governmental repression, and most people who haven't yet will. Bitcoin is a nice alternative when it's applicable, but transaction costs are a bit high for buying a cigarette or a restaurant meal, and it's a headache when the confirmation time is 45 minutes instead of 10 minutes. Hopefully Lightning will fix this. ______ * Inflation is bad here, yo. $1000 is about US$6, but printing $2000 bills hasn't been approved yet.
  - cvak 5y ago
    Why would paying with a credit card take a minute? It's 3s with contactless, and since covid it doesn't require a pin code.
    - kragen 5y ago
      Beats me. When did credit cards ever require a PIN, though?
      - hackstack 5y ago
- anyxdf 5y ago
  I don't think so. Spending control is much easier when you withdraw a fixed amount at the beginning of the month. Checking bank statements is easier (they are very short). You don't have to worry who will abuse your credit card or bank details.
actually_a_dog 5y ago
If the US government actually wanted to (mostly) eliminate cash, they could just stop printing currency, and wait for what's in circulation to wear out. That would take about 23 years [0]. As it is, though, only about 8% of all USD exists in physical form [1], anyway, making the USD largely a digital currency already. --- [0]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/how-long-is-the-life-span-of-us-paper-money.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/how-long-is-the-life-spa... [1]: https://money.howstuffworks.com/currency.htm https://money.howstuffworks.com/currency.htm
- dmitrygr 5y ago
  That would be reported by the news and people would care. Whereas here we get this reaction: "they seized his money and say he is suspected of being a drug dealer, well then i have nothing to worry about - i am not a drug dealer."
  - bserge 5y ago
    Works even better in the EU. 20K in cash on an economy flight? Criminal! No other way. No way you saved up all of that, you poor pos!
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      It's better to have a clear law, even if it's wrong, so you can carry 19K in peace, then be randomly and unpredictably harrassed by authorities.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    Eh, people would care for about 5 minutes, just like everything else. Remember when basically every American adult with a credit history had their entire credit files stolen? How many people do you hear talking about that now?
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      That is materially different than having your cash stolen from you by a seemingly random person at the airport. One results in a very small probability of it affecting you in any way, the other is someone stealing from you.

bserge 5y ago

Can't get paid more than 1500 in cash in France. 2000 Pounds is "a lot of money" to exchange in the UK. The limits are suspiciously higher if you're well dressed and stepping out of an expensive car or moving millions. Tells you how pathetically poor the poor really are.

SilasX 5y ago
"And the brilliant part is, we have inflation as a matter of policy, and never update the threshold, so eventually the limit is meaningless and we can seize all cash!"
godelski 5y ago
There's a proposal for a new fed program that will track anything over $600 in the US now[0]. It is pretty much aimed at gig workers. Previously the IRS just didn't care about anyone below the poverty line. I'm not sure I'm even fine with the spirit of what is happening here, since these people would be getting that money back in refunds anyways. Also, I think a problem is that it is placing the burden on people who already don't have money, by complicating their taxes. It's weird to see banks and credit unions sending petitions around[1]. But this is also why I'm nervous about a fed crypto coin. [0] https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/tax/bloombergtaxnews/daily-tax-report/XM2J61K000000 https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/tax/bloombergtaxnews/da... [1] https://www.cuna.org/advocacy/actions/grassroot-action-center.html?vvsrc=%2fCampaigns%2f87852%2fRespond%3fvvsn%3dBAAAAA9bACscVAdVe0Y7FAA https://www.cuna.org/advocacy/actions/grassroot-action-cente...
- version_five 5y ago
  I think there is a sort of "war on the poor" going on (or escalating really). Not specifically organized, but pushing into areas that have an outsized impact on the poor and finding no resistance because they don't push back. Think of most consumer facing environmental laws (emissions, charge for bags, bike lanes etc), car seat laws, health stuff - like basically any covid rule, it's all super regressive. I think there is positive feedback because it keeps the poor "in their place" while simultaneously signaling how progressive the proponents are. Expect it to get a lot worse.

standardUser 5y ago

It's surreal to me how little political or public support there is for ending these kinds of egregious government overreaches.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Especially when one party seemingly champions “civil rights” or “the little guy”, and the other party champions “small government”. And yet a government employee stealing someone’s cash with no justification does not fall under any of those categories.
- snicker7 5y ago
  As mentioned in the tweets, the bipartisan FAIR act is supposed to reform civil asset forfeiture.
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    > @RepWalberg filed legislation in Congress (FAIR Act) that could end these seizures. The bill’s stuck in committee since April.
    - pempem 5y ago
      The broken system doesn't mean we don't have the right representation - we have to figure out how to amplify it and fix the system imho
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Civil asset forfeiture has been a problem for 30+ years and multiple presidential administrations, of both parties.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    There's a bill "in committee" for everything under the sun. It's meaningless.

arwhatever 5y ago

I particularly hate it when the airport officials seize all of my cryptocurrency. :-)

williamscales 5y ago
You jest, but wait until they put you in a small room and beat you with a wet noodle until you give up your passphrase.
cooljacob204 5y ago
It's not like they seize money out of my bank account..
- 8note 5y ago
  Nothing is stopping them. Travelling with access to money isn't particularly different from travelling with money

andrewmg 5y ago

Here's more information on the Institute for Justice class action (mentioned in the Twitter thread) that's challenging TSA airport forfeitures: https://ij.org/case/dea-tsa-forfeitures/ https://ij.org/case/dea-tsa-forfeitures/ IJ is the leader on this issue, and if you oppose civil-forfeiture abuse, you might consider supporting IJ's work. (Disclosure: the IJ attorney pictured in the thread is a friend whom I admire greatly.)

xboxnolifes 5y ago
I've only somewhat recently heard of IJ, but it's one of the first orgs that I've ever actually felt compelled to support. Their marketing is really good at both being informative and persuasive. I really hope that their goals are as good as I read them to be.
joncrane 5y ago
It blows my mind that citizens have to pay their own money to support organizations like IJ, ACLU, Amnesty International, etc.
- gred 5y ago
  Really? Why should we not organize to fight for causes that we believe in? Would you be happy delegating your moral compass to the U.S. Department of Do-Goodery?
  - effingwewt 5y ago
    He is saying it's the government's job to do those things so we don't have to. The fact that we have a failed government is not something we should all just bend over and accept as status quo
    - xboxnolifes 5y ago
      It certainly shows failings in our elected representatives, but everything IJ does is through the legal system. It succeeding shows the government hasn't completely failed.

aazaa 5y ago

> Lyon arrived @RDUAirport & gave his bag to @TSA to be scanned. He says he absolutely knew TSA would see the cash, but said he also knew there is no law limiting the amount of cash one can fly with in the U.S. Here's the real problem. Civil asset forfeiture is an extralegal action. It's outside the legal system, which is why it's nearly impossible to get your money back. It's why the legality of what Lyon was doing doesn't matter. It's not a system of law, but power. He who has the power makes the law on the spot. That the US collectively has resigned itself to this level of clear overreach, utterly indefensible on any legal grounds, not to mention the bill of rights, says a lot about what 9/11 has done. The terrorists won the battle the people of this country thought they were fighting.

gamblor956 5y ago
Civil asset forfeiture is an extralegal action. This is categorically wrong. CAF is outside of the criminal legal system, but is very much part of the civil legal system, and the governments loses CAF cases more often than they win them in CAF cases preceding or not involving related criminal cases. (But conversely, the governments almost always win CAF cases that occur after succesful criminal cases involving drugs, racketeering, fraud, or financial crimes.) CAF cases make the news when the victim doesn't get their money back in a timely fashion, for the same reason that fires and earthquakes do: because that's not the normal state of things. CAF is problematic, especially the way it is run in the South and Midwest, but don't make it out to be something that it isn't. EDIT: The OP asserted that CAF was extralegal, and it absolutely is not. CAF is specifically authorized by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, a federal law. The OP asserted that the "terrorists won" even though CAF predates 9/11 and was created to combat organize crime. (CAF laws in the U.S. date back to the 1700s, but were infrequently used until roughly 1920 when they were used to target organized crime during Prohibition. The modern federal CAF law was passed in the 1984, to fight the "war on drugs", specifically referring to the drug cartels, and were modeled on the Prohibition Era CAF laws.)
- aazaa 5y ago
  > CAF cases make the news when the victim doesn't get their money back in a timely fashion, for the same reason that fires and earthquakes do: because that's not the normal state of things. Got a source for that?

darthvoldemort 5y ago

No one has explained to me how this is still legal. This "law" has persisted until Bush, Obama, Trump and now Biden. Why does no one on both sides of the aisle have the courage to stop this? Can no one mount a legal challenge against this?

vkou 5y ago
> Why does no one on both sides of the aisle have the courage to stop this? Because the other side of the aisle will crap on you for doing it, and why burn political capital on a minor problem, when you have more pressing issues, like waging a war, digging through fallout of the largest economic disaster since the Great Depression, getting a crappy single-payer healthcare system through, filling three supreme court seats, dealing with a global pandemic, or keeping the wealthy and powerful happy. The only people who actually ground their elections on this kind of platform are anti-authoritarian contrarians, which have a rolling average of two seats in Congress and one in the Senate. Constituents, frankly, don't care about this.
- mrguyorama 5y ago
  Constituents ABSOLUTELY care about these things and other very important issues. The problem is, nobody cares about these things MORE than "stopping abortion", "muh guns", "fuck taxes", "status quo" that most incumbents scream about. We have a two party system that discourages caring about anything.
  - handrous 5y ago
    The US won't get significantly better unless our electoral system is fixed. That won't happen unless one of the two viable parties makes that a major policy goal... so, never.
whywhywhywhy 5y ago
Because once these things are in place they’re there forever. The government and its institutions will never hand back power they have been granted. Remember the patriot act when the next round of powers come in because of covid.

clipradiowallet 5y ago

I'd bet this type of behavior from the government is what causes "domestic terrorism"...not just the "radicals" mentioned in headlines.

rablackburn 5y ago
I’m not aware of any domestic terror attacks (shootings?) where asset forfeiture has even been raised as a contributing factor. The Las Vegas shooter is kinda-money related in that he was a problem gambler. That’s the closest I can think of. Do you have any citation where this has happened? Because if not, that’s probably a pretty poor “bet” you’re making…
- mindslight 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack The IRC is distinct from civil asset forfeiture, but they're both obtuse bureaucracies that care not for the individuals they crush. (idk what's with the downvotes. What I said is pretty factual unless you're like an accountant)
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  When people can't get recourse through the courts they go around the courts. Killdozer dude is the quintessential example.

dangus 5y ago

Let's step back and pretend like the TSA/police never engage in civil asset forfeiture in the first place. That issue aside, this is still a colossally stupid way to make a transaction. A thousand bad outcomes that are possibly more likely than this scenario could have happened. The bag could have been lost in the taxi, lost by the airline, stolen by a passerby, left at home, and the list goes on. Has this guy ever heard of Western Union? Bitcoin? A cashier's check? Anything else besides a suitcase full of cash? This method of making a large transaction is so stupid that it's hard for me to even blame the government for considering it automatically suspicious. Of course, having no due process surrounding civil asset forfeiture is not right, but that doesn't mean that this transaction isn't suspicious. I'd go ahead and play devil's advocate here: the only reason to carry this much cash is to do one of the following: 1. Evade sales and income tax (You can say this isn't your problem, or that the government should take less of our money anyway, but countries that have high tax avoidance rates have poor infrastructure and public services – tax avoidance hurts honest people the most) 2. Make a transaction to exchange illegal goods or people It's entirely possible that this guy's story is just a lie. I think it's naive to pretend that this guy isn't likely to be connected to organized crime. That's the whole "organized" part of it: they're going to be armed with a good story and disciplined behavior, not like the people you see on Cops admitting guilt the second a beat cop starts asking questions.

mywittyname 5y ago
People trust cash. A lot of people dealing in used goods only accept cash. It's substantially more difficult to forge a load of $100s than it is to forge a money order. All you need to verify a stack of $100 bills is a $5 marker.
- pempem 5y ago
  I'd take it one further. If CSCS type programs take hold outside of china, you will need cash to do many basic things without the support of the government who will be busy regulating if you can fly, take a train, open an account, throttle your internet etc. etc.
- DHPersonal 5y ago

woodpanel 5y ago

There's a joke in Cuba: Two women argue about who has the better boyfriend. The one says proudly: "Mine works as a luggage-handler at the airport!" To which the other replies ashamed: "Mine's just a doctor..." With that in mind I wonder whether it is TSA policy to always have these officers cross-sworn in with the FBI, or if it's a legal loophole which officers can exploit? From the tweet-thread it looks like local police departments have similar "double-agents"... So if it is a loophole the guy in the video just figured how to maximize his reward for his moraly derelict actions. Like the luggage handler at Havanna-Airport.

effingwewt 5y ago
When shit like this is so mainstream it's cross-continental and yet nothing is ever done, just goes to further show governments only support and defend themselves.

anonAndOn 5y ago

As if stealing your money wasn't bad enough, often a little is skimmed off the top if they are forced to return it.[0] [0]https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-customs-agents-cash-forfeiture-20180531-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-customs-agent...

Y_Y 5y ago
If you don't have a bank account and aren't in a rush to move your money you can just overpay on your taxes and make about 4% from the IRS until you claim it back at least 45 days later.
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  How do you make 4%?
  - op00to 5y ago
    IRS interest rate
    - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
      The IRS interest rate is better than my saving account interest rate, and is guaranteed. That's crazy.
  - Y_Y 5y ago
    Under law you currently get the "federal short-term rate" + 3%
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      Step one: Overpay by enough that 4% of the total is your entire tax burden. Step two: Pay no taxes for few decades, adding funds as required. Step three: Withdraw your capital and retire.

gorjusborg 5y ago

Don't want U.S. law enforcement seen as a villain? Crack down on this garbage.

pempem 5y ago

Does anyone else see the tax collector of Prince John from 1970s Robinhood? Here to steal from the people to give to the government.

drenvuk 5y ago

At this point, is it worth it to turn it into a criminal case where you fight them for the cash? They're trying to keep the cash inside of civil rules. what happens if you physically refuse to let them have your items? Because they're yours and you believe they're attempting to steal from you?

Strom 5y ago
Probably a really fast way to get yourself added to the no-fly list.
- drenvuk 5y ago
  Probably. $115k vs no fly list. What's worse?
  - Macha 5y ago
    It's more like $115k vs $115k + no fly list.
function_seven 5y ago
The cash would remain within the civil rules, and on top of that you'd catch a charge and a criminal case. Even if you beat that rap, you're still back where you started with respect to the money.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

This isn't gonna stop until the people who get screwed start buying bulldozers and getting their own justice. It's just too lucrative for the courts to strike it down until striking it down causes less problems for them than not. Follow the incentives.

Ekaros 5y ago
Just need to use those well-regulated militias to finally do some good in the world.

random_kris 5y ago

Use Bitcoin

t0mbstone 5y ago
The guy was a class A moron. Bitcoin would have solved his problem, sure, but so would a simple bank account. Literally all he had to do was put the money in a bank account and then pull it out once he landed. Traveling with that amount of cash is insanely stupid. So many things can go wrong... Someone steals the bag or it gets lost, etc.
manuelmagic 5y ago
I think it's not the main point discussed here...

coolspot 5y ago

I traveled with like $20k cash arriving from aboard via LAX. Declared in paper that I have those money and verbally when asked upon entry, then had to go with an officer to fill out some additional form, that’s it.

samtho 5y ago
The issue with the OP’s case is that this guy was flying domestically and traveling with any amount of cash is not a crime nor is required to be reported. Because this procedure of declaring cash is with Customs and Boarding Protection, it only ever applies when flying in from abroad.
chickenpotpie 5y ago
What’s your point? That this isn’t an issue because it didn’t happen to you one time?

dredmorbius 5y ago

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1440856486280785922.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1440856486280785922.html

lowbloodsugar 5y ago

"Flying with cash is legal". No, it clearly isn't. The law says that a government employee can take your money as long as they write some words on a bit of paper, and if any of that money ever came in to contact with any drug (which are legal in many states), or for many other reasons, then they can keep it forever. Claiming it is legal is just a way to get more clients.

decebalus1 5y ago
It's legal for a person to fly with cash, but not for the cash itself. That's the core of civil forfeiture. The person is not being charged with any crimes, the money is 'detained' for investigation.

caf 5y ago

If the government can file 'in rem' against the pile of cash, can you also file a habeas corpus motion on behalf of the pile of cash? The entire idea of 'in rem' actions is absurd on the face of it, and is the kind of nonsense that causes people to lose faith in the justice system. There are often comments here that (correctly) castigate software engineer types as having too much of a game-playing 'gotcha' sense of how the law works - or ought to work - but "Department of Justice vs. $137,425 in US Currency" is exactly the same kind of too-tricky-by-half game-playing, only by the lawmakers.

SkipperCat 5y ago

Why would you carry that much cash? I know he has every right to do so, but there are a lot of bad players out there (TSA included) and I would not want to risk it. You could deposit the money in a national bank (JPM, BoA, etc), call ahead and plan the withdraw from a local branch. I'm sure there are other players in this marker who would only charge a few grand to provide you the cash on site if you had the money in a trusted escrow. To me, that is cheap insurance, but also to me it's worth the $70 bucks to have my bank wire the money instantly to any bank account in the US. Not saying this guy did wrong, just saying you can't trust anyone to be on their best behavior when they see $115K.

dudul 5y ago
> Why would you carry that much cash? I know he has every right to do so, Well there you go. You answered your own question. He had every right to do so, so he did it. End of story.
- SkipperCat 5y ago
  I agree he has a right to, but I still wonder why he chose that course of action. There are plenty of things to do that are 100% legit but not worth the risk. Maybe he just didn't know about CAF, maybe he thought it wouldn't happen to him or could other reasons. Either way, I hope other folks in the future take heed and don't trust LE with their bags of cash in transit.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mrtweetyhack 5y ago

Not true. It's "see cash, seize cash, pocket cash"