Written by: Alek Hidell

What if I told you that if you were arrested and had your property seized, even if you were exonerated of all charges, the police could still keep your car, house, money or whatever property they seized from you? Well it’s true. I have personally seized somewhere around twenty to twenty-five cars throughout my career in law enforcement, most for drug charges. In order to seize someone’s property, the criteria is generally pretty vague and can apply in a slew of situations.  If the property is used in the commission of a felony, then it is fair game.  Now what does in the commission of a felony mean? Just that, if you use a vehicle, house or any other property to aid in committing a crime, ie; a car as a getaway vehicle, then that property could be seized under what is known as Civil Forfeiture. If you have a felony amount of marijuana, cocaine or any other drug, then technically any vehicle used to transport that substance could be seized. One might think, what’s wrong with that? On the surface it appears a legitimate punishment for committing a crime, however;  it is commonly used by law enforcement as a means of extorting money out of suspects, whether or not they are convicted of any crime.

From my experience, the main item seized by police is the suspect’s vehicle.  The vehicle, once seized, is then basically sold back to the suspect at a price set by the officer in charge of seizures.  A lot of factors go into what price is set on seized vehicles.  If a vehicle is a newer SUV or something that can be converted into a police vehicle, then you are not getting your vehicle back at all.  Owe on the car? Doesn’t matter.  If you owe on the vehicle and the police seize it, you are out a vehicle and are still responsible for paying it off.  The worst part about this is there are no protections in place which allow you to recover your property if you are found not guilty of whatever charge you were hit with.  Now I understand the spirit of the law; to seize money and property that were gained as a result of illegal activity, however, the broad application and generalized wording of forfeiture law leaves more innocent victims of the police in their wake than was intended.

One thing I felt strongly about when I was a cop was the ability to have discretion in my encounters.  No one should dictate to me how to do my job, if it was within the confines of law and policy.  The problem with discretion is that it can be abused.  Such is the case in many forfeiture cases.  If the swat unit needed a new car, and a dumb marijuana charge, which happens to be a felony, could result in you acquiring a new vehicle for the department, you might be inclined to charge the felony and seize the car, when normally you would seize the pot and squash the charge.  I have seen this happen.  Manipulation of the system, resulting in the economic hardship of the people they should be protecting and serving, happens all the time.  Police really lump everyone into two categories; scumbag or not scumbag. This categorization of society by police is probably the single biggest factor considered when dealing with the public.  If you are in the former category, its game on and police will show you no mercy.  If you fall into the latter, you are pretty much golden.  Police look to the latter as the people they do the job for in the first place and will let them slide on almost anything, within reason.  If you are in the scumbag category and your property is seized, odds are you will never see that property again.  Not because they will keep your property indefinitely, but because the amount of money you will need to recover your vehicle after all fees are paid is way beyond what the average person can afford.  Let’s face it, cops pick on the poor because they are easy targets.

Unfortunately, if you think this is an American problem, you would be mistaken.  While one would think that this type of forfeiture is obviously unconstitutional and serves no purpose but to fill the coffers of police agencies, it is being accepted around the world.  The European Union, in February of 2014, passed a proposal which mandates individual states modify their forfeiture laws to include the seizure of property from people “without a criminal conviction” and people who “could have been convicted if tried.”  This type of legislation only reinforces to me the relationship between police agencies, their agenda and the governments that support them, even in the face of blatant unethical behavior.

This is just one of many police issues which must be addressed as we move forward as a society.  As the police state grows, we must stand ever vigilant in standing up for freedom. Whether it is the seizing of personal property or the gunning down of unarmed citizens in the street, the unethical treatment of the underprivileged must end.  How do we combat these types of practices? Go to your local police department and get copies of their forfeiture policy.  Go to city counsel meetings and let your local representatives know that this practice is unacceptable. Write your congress person and voice your disdain for civil forfeiture as it stands.  Finally, go out and vote.  Let the powers that be know that we will not stand for unethical and unconstitutional practices like this any more.

Written by: NiRA

The creator of the WWW has cautioned that the liberty of the internet is endangered by the government and corporation concerned in controlling the web.

Tim Berners-Lees, the British computer scientist who is famous for inventing the web 25 years ago, on Saturday demanded for a bill of rights that will guarantee the freedom of the internet as well as user’s privacy.

In London at the Web We Want festival, Sir Tim Berners-Lee said about the future of internet:-

“If a company can control your access to the internet, if they can control which websites they go to, then they have tremendous control over your life”

“If a government can block you going to, for example, the opposition’s political pages, then they can give you a blinkered view of reality to keep them in power.”

“Suddenly the power to abuse the open internet has become so tempting both for government and big companies.”

Sir Tim Berners-Lee who is aged 59 is the director of the World Wide Web Consortium, a federation which creates guidelines for the improvement of the internet.

He demanded for an internet version of Magna Carta, 13^th century English agreement attributed with assuring basic rights and freedoms.

Apprehensions over the freedom and privacy on the internet have increased in the wake of the exposure of mass government monitoring of online action succeeding leaks by the former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.

A presiding by the European Union to allow individuals to ask search engines like Google to remove links to information about them, called as the “right to be forgotten”, he also elevated his concerns on the potential for censorship.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee said:-

“There have been lots of times that it has been abused, so now the Magna Carta is about saying… I want a web where I’m not spied on, where there’s no censorship”

He included that in order to be a neutral medium, the internet have to reveal all of humanity, even if it includes some ghastly stuffs.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee included:-

“Now some things are of course just illegal, child pornography, fraud, telling someone how to rob a bank, that’s illegal before the web and it’s illegal after the web”

Links: Protect your PC and mobile devices from hackers & governments and surf anonymously 

__________________________________________________________________________

Source:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/28/tim-berners-lee-internet-bill-of-rights-greater-privacy