5 ms·

No, it doesn't mean that the executive branch can do "whatever [it] wants", it means that the executive branch can seize US assets from certain people outside t

No, it doesn't mean that the executive branch can do "whatever [it] wants", it means that the executive branch can seize US assets from certain people outside the US or prevent them from accessing the US financial system. That's a lot of power, but it isn't unlimited power.

stefantalpalaru 12y ago
> it means that the executive branch can seize US assets from certain people outside the US or prevent them from accessing the US financial system You must be new to this brave new world. In 2012 the US seized $26000 from a Danish businessman while being transfered to a German bank within an electronic banking system that the US is not a part of (SWIFT): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT#US_control_over_transactions_within_the_European_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT#US_control_over_transacti...
- balabaster 12y ago
  8-| I hadn't come across this one before. I can't honestly believe they could have gotten away with that. They're enforcing an embargo under U.S. Law on finance being transferred between two countries that they have no jurisdiction in? That's er... I can't even come up with a word to describe that audacity.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    It is too bad Europe does not have the guts to stand up for itself.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
fweespeech 12y ago
It can seize assets from any foreign national based on the standards of evidence they've used in the past to declare someone a "hacker". Under the CFAA, accessing a web page as an unauthorized person would probably be justification enough.
- navait 12y ago
  You're missing the part where criminal intent is required.
  - fweespeech 12y ago
    Without a jury trial [which isn't required for this], it is just the prosecution deciding the target has criminal intent. There is no check or balance as you imply. The Treasury and Executive are jury, judge, and executioner.
  - pzxc 12y ago
    Aaron Swartz didn't have criminal intent. Look how that turned out. Even if he hadn't committed suicide, look at how that would have turned out. Intent speaks to motivation, which speaks to the internal workings of one's mind. That may be relevant in a criminal trial. But it's far too nebulous of a concept to be considered when they're deciding whether to freeze your bank account. So they won't, no matter what lip service they pay. They will "freeze first and ask questions later." We all know it's the truth.
    - jackpirate 12y ago
      He certainly did have criminal intent in that he knew what he was doing was against the law.
  - dkersten 12y ago
    Criminal intent has been ignored left, right and center already. I certainly wouldn't want to bet that it will matter here.
Shivetya 12y ago
Don't know about it not being unlimited as any case will tried in an American court, go see what happened to Kim Dot Com. The government court upheld the governments seizure of his money. When you control the legal system your not going to have much difficulty prosecuting the unpopular.

stefantalpalaru 12y ago

> it means that the executive branch can seize US assets from certain people outside the US or prevent them from accessing the US financial system You must be new to this brave new world. In 2012 the US seized $26000 from a Danish businessman while being transfered to a German bank within an electronic banking system that the US is not a part of (SWIFT): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT#US_control_over_transactions_within_the_European_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT#US_control_over_transacti...

balabaster 12y ago
8-| I hadn't come across this one before. I can't honestly believe they could have gotten away with that. They're enforcing an embargo under U.S. Law on finance being transferred between two countries that they have no jurisdiction in? That's er... I can't even come up with a word to describe that audacity.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  It is too bad Europe does not have the guts to stand up for itself.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

fweespeech 12y ago

It can seize assets from any foreign national based on the standards of evidence they've used in the past to declare someone a "hacker". Under the CFAA, accessing a web page as an unauthorized person would probably be justification enough.

navait 12y ago
You're missing the part where criminal intent is required.
- fweespeech 12y ago
  Without a jury trial [which isn't required for this], it is just the prosecution deciding the target has criminal intent. There is no check or balance as you imply. The Treasury and Executive are jury, judge, and executioner.
- pzxc 12y ago
  Aaron Swartz didn't have criminal intent. Look how that turned out. Even if he hadn't committed suicide, look at how that would have turned out. Intent speaks to motivation, which speaks to the internal workings of one's mind. That may be relevant in a criminal trial. But it's far too nebulous of a concept to be considered when they're deciding whether to freeze your bank account. So they won't, no matter what lip service they pay. They will "freeze first and ask questions later." We all know it's the truth.
  - jackpirate 12y ago
    He certainly did have criminal intent in that he knew what he was doing was against the law.
- dkersten 12y ago
  Criminal intent has been ignored left, right and center already. I certainly wouldn't want to bet that it will matter here.

Shivetya 12y ago

Don't know about it not being unlimited as any case will tried in an American court, go see what happened to Kim Dot Com. The government court upheld the governments seizure of his money. When you control the legal system your not going to have much difficulty prosecuting the unpopular.