3 ms·
>This wasn't in pursuit of a future crime The future crime is him possibly moving or hiding assets, which is the justification for the secrecy. If that asset m
by harry8 3y ago
>This wasn't in pursuit of a future crime
The future crime is him possibly moving or hiding assets, which is the justification for the secrecy. If that asset movement were not possible there's no need of secrecy. If the asset movement is not a crime then it's even worse.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> future crime is him possibly moving or hiding assets, which is the justification for the secrecy This is sort of like saying cops wear bulletproof vests to prevent the future crime of their murder. Or that we put bars on jail cells to prevent the future crime of escaping prison. Or that we lock doors to prevent the future crime of theft. Like, sure. That too. But there’s a more-obvious motivation: preventing the behaviour per se.
- harry8 3y agoLocking your house, bars on jails, wearing a vest all take none of our rights away. Doesn't compare with giving away rights to government agencies for their convenience in countering things you haven't done and may not. If you can't see it now nothing i can say will help you and i wish you well.