U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/politics/civil-asset-forfeiture-supreme-court.html <comment><USER2> The important thing to understand about this case is the background and what the SCotUS actually ruled on. It's actually rather narrow ruling even if it is extremely important. The court exercised judicial restraint here, and made the minimum ruling necessary.

Timbs was convicted of possession/sale/whatever, jailed for a year, and fined $1,200. The state confiscated his Range Rover as well.

Timbs sued or appealed the confiscation by Indiana, which he he could prove he didn't buy with drug money. The judge of the lower court of Indiana agreed.

The state appealed the judge's ruling. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that the 8th Amendment did not apply to the states.

The SCotUS unanimously disagreed and vacated the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling. The 8th Amendment _does_ apply to the states. However, _that 's all that they ruled upon_. They didn't not rule on whether or not confiscating the SUV was an excessive fine, and remanded the case back to the Indiana state courts.

Now the state of Indiana will be given an opportunity to prove in Indiana court that confiscating the SUV is not an excessive fine. That seems unlikely, however, since the charge Timbs was convicted of carried a statutory maximum fine of $10,000, well below the value of the SUV.

<comment><USER3> I find this very remarkable about American legal system. The supreme court could have technically showed some bleeding heart by not showing judicial restraint. Instead they just did their job. Americans must thank this judicial culture.

<comment><USER4> It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches.

Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker.

It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

<comment><USER3> I am from India and Indian courts are nothing but bunch of old men sermonizing everyone else. They often have barely read law, believe in extraordinary processes and completely arbitrary legal doctrines such as "constitutional morality" that compels them to actually ignore the law.

Digging deep I realize that this is because most of them will retire at 60 after which they either seek lucrative jobs from their political masters or they want to appear on TV debates as "experts". They have even reserved a lot of jobs for their own kind post-retirement. A number of institutions in India can only have "retired judge" as their chief.

Even though there are strong arguments why judges in USA too should have term limits or retirement age, I think there are these issues in our blindspot that need attention too.

<comment><USER5> It's the same in the US

The masses are bought in and ignore it

Not one of the judges on the SC questions the correctness of the process

They just regurgitate the things they've been taught and studied

There is no more outside the box consideration of the system here than there is in India

And this forum is just as emotionally blind to it as all the others

<comment><USER5> They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system

They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases

Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself

Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to reasses it's Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary

We got James Madison's version of government, who described the Senate as a legislative body to protect the rich minority from the poor majority. Thus the justice system evolved over time only assessing laws and building its existence on questions of property rights and ownership.

Not saying it's scandalous or wrong but it's only concerned with internal consistency, like India.

Look at how the GOP is largely pushing a platform that's hundreds of years old, with an outcome that resembles the way things were before the New Deal

It's just old guys advocating for their personal feelings. Exactly what the person from India said :shrug:

<comment><USER2> >They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system

> They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic > fashion, based upon their biases

> Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself

It's literally their job to do work within the system. The SCotUS is explicitly restricted to interpreting the laws that already exist and were passed by existing legislatures. If you want massive, sweeping changes in the structure and nature of a law, you need to go to the legislature or otherwise pick up rifle and start a revolution. It is not the job of SCotUS to create new law. That's why they get so much flack for "legislating from the bench" when they make sweeping decisions. They're not supposed to do that, and they typically only do when making rulings surrounding the Constitution itself and it's Amendments.

<comment><USER3> We must also remember that once we accept the position that SCOTUS can create new law, it can go both ways and not sure your way.

Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams both give examples of poker. Imagine a standard Poker game where everyone knows the rule, some win some lose and yet there are no fights. Change the Poker game rules such that the dealer can change the rules at his whim and we will have fights (even though the dealer might not actually affect anyone's earnings).

SCOTUS not going out of their way is good for society.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > _Justice Thomas agreed with the result in the case, Timbs v. Indiana, No. > 17-1091, but said he would have gotten to the same place by a different > route. While the majority relied on the due process clause of the 14th > Amendment, Justice Thomas said he would have ruled "the right to be free > from excessive fines is one of the 'privileges or immunities of citizens of > the United States' protected by the 14th Amendment."_

I was going to comment that the real biggest legal problem with civil forfeiture is how it circumvents due process, but it sounds like that was the actual ruling given by the supreme court. I think the title of the article disagrees with the last paragraph. It was actually Justice Thomas who wanted to rule that it constituted excessive punishment, while the rest of the court ruled that it constituted a breach of due process.

<comment><USER7> That's not quite right. The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government, until after the civil war when the 14th amendment was passed. Since then the clause in that amendment saying no one can be deprived of life or liberty without due process has been interpreted to mean most of the bill of rights also applies to the states. This ruling said as much for the 8th amendment prohibitions on excessive fines.

Thomas just wanted to use a different clause of the 14th amendment to achieve the same outcome.

<comment><USER8> As a permanent resident who lives in the US, the idea that basic protections of law should only apply to citizens is terrifying. It's not the same outcome at all. Due process is afforded to "persons".

<comment><USER9> No country on Earth affords equal rights to citizens and non-citizens. If this "terrifies" you, I encourage you to reflect on your fears and whether some of them may be disproportionate to reality.

<comment><USER10> Germany provides many Basic Rights to everybody.

Others are only for citizens (and EU citizens, but via a strange legal method), but the most fundamental ones state "Everyone", not "every citizen".

<comment><USER11> Same with Sweden. For example, Allemansrätten (Freedom to Roam) applies to alla människor (or all people), not just citizens.

<comment><USER10> Right. It's mentioned in every tourist guide I've seen about Sweden, and it is drawing outdoor types to the country.

Smart move. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A swipe against excessive civil forfeitures succeeds. These aggressive actions require citizens to forfeit property far in excess of any harm committed. In the court case, a man had his car seized when caught selling a few hundred dollars of heroine.

We have laws to punish illegal behavior, but it's not right that all your property get snatched up too. The most egregious of these cases often involve no due process at all. People who are stopped and found to have large amounts of cash simply have it seized, even if they are never charged with a crime.

Recourse is often slow and expensive. It's unlikely that this ruling will immediately change the rampant unconstitutional practices many police departments and towns rely on. But it is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, they will be taken to task in time.

<comment><USER13> > In the court case, a man had his car seized when caught selling a few > hundred dollars of heroine.

Interesting perspective there. Some people think that heroin dealers deserve to be fully hung, drawn and quartered, their head placed on a spike to be pecked at by the crows.

Others might think that 'it was just a bit of dope, why should he have to forfeit anything for that?'.

The car is potentially proceeds of crime it also enables the crime of dealing to be carried out. A reasonable case for him forfeiting it can definitely be made without that being the police preying off the 'victim'. In the UK any police action that leads to people losing stuff as it is deemed proceeds of crime goes to the crown, i.e. the queen, rather than to the local police department. In the USA you need something similar so that the police can't be accused of being on the take.

<comment><USER14> > The car is potentially proceeds of crime

The car was reliably documented as being purchased from his father's life insurance proceeds. There was no question of it being potentially purchased by illegal means.

Far more importantly, the entire question is irrelevant: we have standardized maximum fines and the burden of proof for very good reasons. Civil forfeiture skips both, making a mockery of the justice system for profit.

Those who believe current punishments for a given crime insufficient should seek to alter the law, whereas exorbitant forfeiture devalues the entire purpose - it serves neither as effective discouragement (being utterly arbitrary and unrelated to criminal magnitude) nor to rehabilitate (rather, the reverse, as departing inmates' tendencies to return will only be exacerbated by forfeiture-induced poverty).

<comment><USER2> > The car was reliably documented as being purchased from his father's life > insurance proceeds. There was no question of it being potentially purchased > by illegal means.

This is why it was such a perfect case for the Supreme Court to rule upon. It was clear that the only justification the state could give for the confiscation was the single conviction.

Cheers to Timbs for being willing to take this all the way to get such an important ruling!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What's frustrating here is that so much of our government depends on actual case law.

This it's possible for massive injustice to happen for decades before we have a resolution.

This is one of the reasons technology can be so frightening because there's no case law and the rate of technology is exponential which means there is the potential for GREAT evil to happen without any resolution except to fight it out and get it in front of the Supreme course.

<comment><USER16> The alternative to case law is that ambiguities in the statute are interpreted differently each time. Being subject to the law, I would much rather live in a system designed to automatically reduce ambiguities over time, rather than to have to wait for the legislature to have the political will and resources to address them.

<comment><USER17> The executive branch can also help here. Someone can run for district attorney, say "my office won't use civil forfeiture", and it's gone.

What is scary is that that's not the platform people run on, or win elections by running on.

<comment><USER18> That's even more arbitrary, and won't solve the problem, as the next administration can reintroduce it. It's a temporary patch of the problem, and is technically also an abdication of the executive from their assigned role.

<comment><USER19> Nobody said it solves the problem. The point is that it helps.

Also, "I am not going to use an unjust power that I have" is hardly an abdication of their role, it's just a choice made using the power of the office.

<comment><USER18> The problem is that it's /not/ a power they have, and ought to be shut down by the judicial ASAP. The only reason it's not is because it's not been prosecuted for prior administrations, and has become a pattern of laxity, allowing the legislative to claim to wash their hands of culpability when a law they stand for in public isn't acted on in private.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Hmm I wonder how this will affect the other civil forfeiture practice of charging the item itself with the crime (eg: "United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency" [0]) where the owner of the property is never actually charged with a crime. Maybe this will stop that because without a conviction any fine could be considered excessive?

The logic behind these cases has always baffled me. How do courts get around due process requirements of seizing claimed property like that?

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency)

<comment><USER21> This specific case was taken and argued by the Institute for Justice ([https://ij.org](https://ij.org)), a civil liberties legal charity, that has a goal of addressing exactly this problem.

The original civil forfeiture practices were put in place at the height of "the war on drugs" in the 80's as I recall. The rationale was you had drug dealer types that were successfully evading prosecution on the tougher criminal standards of proof while also flaunting the wealth they obtained from their drug related businesses. So the idea was you could have a civil process with a lower standard of proof than the criminal ones with which could punish them.

Of course, as the old saying goes, "the path to hell is paved with good intentions." and you get cases like this or worse even.

I contribute to the Institute for Justice for just this reason.

<comment><USER22> > The original civil forfeiture practices were put in place at the height of > "the war on drugs" in the 80's as I recall.

No, they were in admiralty/customs law and predate the US, but came along with the body of law the US kept at it's founding.

There was some new activity around Prohibition.

Then big activity starting in 1970 around the drug war.

(That's for federal civil forfeiture, while state level civil forfeiture has the same pre-US history, the later evolution varies by state.)

<comment><USER21> Fair enough.

The big push in my lifetime was the big push around drugs. My family was involved in politics in the early 80's (I was fairly young at the time). I recall a lot of "get tough" political talk around that time and some touting establishment/expansion of civil forfeiture for these purposes.

In truth, while understanding the history is important, I think that is ultimately secondary to what needs to be done with it now. It's a backdoor to punitive recourse that bypasses legitimate interests of criminality and due process. It's an abomination.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Non-paywalled press release from the Institute for Justice, who worked on this case as part of their mission to fight civil forfeiture: [https://ij.org/press-release/u-s-supreme-court-rules- unanimo...](https://ij.org/press-release/u-s-supreme-court-rules-unanimously- that-states-cannot-impose-excessive-fines/)

<comment><USER24> "Ruling Requires Cities and States—Not Just the Federal Government— To Abide by the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause"

Wow, this is pretty big. They just extended constitutional protection of this clause to lower levels of government.

<comment><USER25> It seems to be a pattern where protections aren't extended until a state or some government gets silly and the courts just decide that it is absurd to not have the same protection at that level and extends it.

<comment><USER23> Yeah, that's an issue with how the US justice system works, and a natural tradeoff from the other properties it has. The legal system works off of precedent and cannot write law, so there's no binding opinion until and unless it comes up in a legal case. Also, you have to be harmed by a law in order to have standing to challenge it. So as long as people aren't getting harmed by the lack of an "obvious" legal conclusion, the courts will basically just let it sit there until someone comes and challenges it, whereupon the "yeah, that's absurd, we're going to give a unanimous Supreme Court decision on this" comes into effect.

Sometimes it gets into a weird dynamic where the lower court _knows_ that the Supreme Court would overturn their decision, but there isn't precedent, so they deliberately make a ruling that they expect the Supreme Court to review (and overturn) on appeal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> BTW, if you have civil forfeiture at all (which I think should't exist), why does the money go to the seizing agency? Shouldn't it all go straight to the general fund to avoid a conflict of interest?

Ditto punitive damages in court cases (where the defendent pays, say, $3M in restitution but say $500M in punitive damages because they could easily afford the $3M and need to suffer enough to change their ways). Why doesn't that money go into the government general fund?

<comment><USER27> Also agree it shouldn't exist, but if there were a general fund, it shouldn't go towards funding any government agencies even in a distributed fashion. Maybe credit it out to all tax payers?

<comment><USER28> If it gets credited out to taxpayers, I would expect any public pressure to get rid of civil asset forfeiture to disappear very quickly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> What I'd like to know is if private property that was seized in the past will be returned?

One of my friend's dad had a hip surgery and was bed bound for a few weeks. The family had to be at work so they hired a live in helper who was an older woman in her 60s.

This older woman's story was a tragic one to hear.

She had immigrated from Asia to US with her husband and family and had managed to buy a 3bed house. Well life happened and they ended up divorcing in her 60s, and she ended up as owner of the house.

With no income and no real skill, she rented out rooms in her house to pay bills. One renter was a drug dealer. When he was arrested, somehow the lady was dragged into the case and she ended up losing the house to the police, due to this seizure of private property. This was the first time I heard about such practices.

With no house and no other choices, she had to turn to working as a live-in- helper to avoid becoming homeless.

I hope all properties seized through such cases are returned.

<comment><USER30> The landlord is supposed to proceed with eviction if a crime occurs on their property. The police will even tell the landlord that if they don't evict, they will seize the house under "nuisance laws".

<comment><USER31> Which is insane, because the police shouldn't be putting people in harm's way by pushing them to piss off drug dealers who have the keys to their homes!

<comment><USER30> The Sheriff's Office can be requested to serve evictions that might not go easy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Finally! Joyful day!

I've not read all of the decision yet, but it seems that any decision about retroactivity was left for later. That will now lead to a bunch of fun cases where plaintiffs demand their property and monies back, and the cities and States will have a hard time ponying it up. Localities and States that play fast and loose with the Constitution should pay a steep price when it later turns out that the SCOTUS gets to make the obvious ruling. That will teach the cities and States to not violate the Constitution willy-nilly. It was obvious to anyone who bothered to read the Constitution and Incorporation case law that civil asset forfeiture was on very thin ice, both, as a matter of jurisprudence, and as a matter of plain reading of the Constitution.

</comment><comment><USER33> It will be interesting to see exactly how this ruling is applied in the field. My guess is that not much will change, as the most problematic and widespread applications of civil forfeiture don't involve a crime where a monetary fine would be allowed as a penalty. Rather, the police simply steal (they prefer the term "seize," but it's just stealing) the money/assets claiming that they suspect it to be the fruit of a crime, then hope the person they stole it from does not have the resources necessary to hire an attorney to recover it. Charges are not filed, and in the majority of cases, the victims never get the money back.

IANAL, but at first glance it seems that such cases would be unaffected by this ruling. No fine is being imposed that could be considered excessive under this ruling - the person is simply failing to claim their property.

<comment><USER20> It seems like those cases should be because if there's no crime filed against a person related to the case there's no fine to assess in the first place so any 'fine' (read asset forfeiture) is excessive because it's >$0. Very much not a lawyer but the logic seems to hold.

The whole asset forfeiture without any charges being filed always seemed really sketchy because in the end you're still taking assets from a person (so long as they're claimed, eg maybe if they find a pile of money in an abandoned drug lab a seizure would be valid if no one comes forward saying it's theirs at which point they should charge the person with crimes and seize the money after trial).

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Naming the property as a suit defendent seems like pure legal sophistry. The whole civil forfeiture scheme should run afoul of the the 4th amendment against unreasonable search and seizure.

Originally, they had the phrase "life, liberty, and property", if I recall, but "happiness" sounded more poetic or something in the Declaration of Independence. They definitely had protection of property from the government in mind when writing the Constitution.

<comment><USER35> The only argument I have heard is that it was useful for prosecuting property where no owner will claim it, or the owner is unavailable for prosecution because they are not in the country. Imagine a drug cartel shipped a large pile of cash to the US and it was seized. I could imagine it might make sense to have US vs. Big Pile of Cash because the cartel isn't going to claim it and you could prove it was likely part of the drug trade. IMHO it went sideways as soon as it was used when an owner was available.

<comment><USER36> This argument doesn't even fly. In the case that the owner is unknown you could simply file a suit against John Doe, Unidentified Owner of Big Pile Of Cash.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf)

Here is the ruling in full if anyone is interested.

</comment><comment><USER38> Listen and read the oral argument here (oyez):

—edited, correct case:

[https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts10/oral_argument_audio...](https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts10/oral_argument_audio/24777)

<comment><USER39> The date is 1993, so it seems to be an older case?

<comment><USER38> Corrected, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Good thing, it only took about 35 years or so. This was one of legacies of the glorious War On Drugs.

<comment><USER41> I guess my thinking is how does this affect the funding for Trump's wall. IIRC about $2.5billion was supposed to come from DoD drug seizures... this case seems highly relevant

<comment><USER42> It likely doesn't.

My assumption would be that those seizures would have already had to pass the constitutional muster because they were federal cases. This is simply the SC stating that they interpret the constitution as being the law of the land, and that the states can't be more punitive than the feds. That money will still be there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> What is scary is that something like the Patriot Act can be signed in overnight and something like this will take decades.

<comment><USER44> The interesting thing, though, is that once a civil right is established and incorporated against the states, it's basically unassailable under our system. So while it takes a long time to get those rights properly enshrined, at least they seem to be safe.

<comment><USER45> >So while it takes a long time to get those rights properly enshrined, at least they seem to be safe.

Our rights are so unassailable that I need to repeatedly pay a non-negligible amount of money to the government bear arms and get the approval of my local police chief if I want said arms to be reasonably modern. /s

Some animals are more equal than others. Some rights are more unassailable than others. At least I can bitch about it on the internet and nobody's quartering troops in my home (edit: yet).

<comment><USER44> Keep in mind that the 2nd amendment hasn't even been incorporated against the states for 10 years yet (McDonald v Chicago). So while the right has been incorporated, the court has yet to really rule on the scope of what that means.

Just 10 years ago, it wasn't clear that you as an individual actually had that right, as it pertains to state restrictions - things have certainly improved.

Edit: I guess my original point I failed to make is that the courts have actually affirmed less rights than most people realize, but when they do (finally) do so, they tend to stick around.

<comment><USER45> I suspect that nothing will change until the court rules that some form of scrutiny stricter than the status quo needs to be applied before curtailing the 2nd before that ruling will have any teeth. Incorporation means nothing without strict or intermediate scrutiny because states can just do whatever they want in the name of some nebulous concept like "public safety".

<comment><USER44> There are numerous cases in lower courts attempting just that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> This is good.

Even better: It's a unanimous decision. The Supreme Court is not even _close_ to thinking that this was OK.

(Yes, Thomas agreed with the decision, though he wanted to state that he got there by a different route. That's not bad - it gives two distinct reasons why the ruling is correct, which is better than just one.)

</comment><comment><USER47> This article has left me confused. Does this mean civil forfeiture is unconstitutional? Or just that it can only be used if it does not constitute an "excessive" fine?

<comment><USER48> Only if it's not excessive.

<comment><USER47> How disappointing. This leaves individuals forced to prove that a fine was excessive after police have already seized their property.

<comment><USER49> This is largely a straightforward thing to do - and this ruling will make police departments much more hesitant to seize civil assets.

<comment><USER50> Is it straightforward to do without a lawyer, though? What if you can't afford one?

<comment><USER49> The decision from the supreme court will change when police try to attach to money, it will no longer be a straightforward matter to do so, and is much more likely to be attached to a criminal case now - which means a lawyer would be involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> >The court had, however, previously ruled that most protections under the Bill of Rights apply to the states

>...the Indiana Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Timbs, saying that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of excessive fines did not apply to ones imposed by states.

Does anyone know which rights people assume they have but don't because the protection only applies on the federal level?

<comment><USER52> The 3rd (quartering of soldiers) and 7th (jury trial for civil cases) Amendments have not been incorporated at all, as well as parts of the 5th (Grand Jury indictment) and 6th (jury from the location of the crime).

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine)

<comment><USER53> The 3rd was incorporated against the State of New York by the Second Circuit court of appeals, it just has never reached the Supreme Court.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> My favorite site on Supreme Court cases: [https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1091](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1091)

Sadly they haven't updated with the decision yet.

</comment><comment><USER55> Thank goodness. Overly aggressive local, state, and national prosecutors need a reality check.

</comment><comment><USER56> Best part is Gorsuch's half-page long concurring opinion which places Indiana in its place with a wonderful last sentence: "But nothing in this case turns on that question, and, regardless of the precise vehicle, there can be no serious doubt that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to respect the freedom from excessive fines enshrined in the Eighth Amendment. "

Thomas is not far behind with: " As a constitutionally enumerated right understood to be a privilege of American citizenship, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines applies in full to the States. "

</comment><comment><USER57> This sounds so insane to me: "In fiscal year 2018, state and local agencies received $400 million through this arrangement, known as equitable sharing. The amount varied widely by agency — the Surprise Police Department in Arizona received $570,000, while the Buffalo Police Department in upstate New York got $130,000. The New York Police Department took in $7.8 million.

In Philadelphia, forfeiture proceeds once accounted for 20 percent of prosecutors' budget, while agencies in New York and California tended to take in the highest sums, according to the Institute for Justice."

</comment><comment><USER58> Link to the opinion: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf)

Based on one very quick reading of the case, my understanding is:

1\. Defendant ("D") purchased a $42,000 Land Rover using funds from a life estate policy covering the life of his now-deceased father.

2\. D sells $225 worth of heroin to undercover cops. Ends up paying ~$1200 in fines, one year on house arrest, 5 years probation

3\. Max penalty in Indiana for his crimes is $10,000

4\. Cops seize his Land Rover, arguing it was used in the performance of selling heroin.

5\. He sues the State of Indiana, arguing that the seizure is an excessive fine.

6\. Trial Court and Appellate Court rule in D's favor. Indiana Supreme Court reverses. D appeals to US Supreme Court.

7\. Supreme Court rules that the 8th amendment protects against excessive fines, and that because the rule against excessive fines is part of our national history and tradition, the 14th Amendment makes that part of the 8th amendment apply to the states. Further, excessive fines can be used for silencing political enemies and income generation, rather than being a legitimate part of the process of "retribution and rehabilitation" that we want the justice system to provide. When a State's actions benefit the State, the Court will carefully scrutinize those actions.

8\. State of Indiana tried to argue that while "excessive fines" are part of the 8th amendment, it does not apply specifically to civil in rem forfeitures (aka property seizure).

Supreme Court cites a case clarifying the way the analysis is done--only the broad category of "excessive fines" is reviewed, rather than picking out very specific instances of fines, like property seizure.

9\. This was a unanimous decision. Technically it was 7-0 with 2 concurring opinions. The two concurrences were Gorsuch and Thomas, who both agreed with the outcome, but said that a different part of the 14th amendment (privileges and immunities) is what should be used, rather than what the other 7 relied on (the due process clause).

10\. The case was remanded to Indiana Courts for rulings consistent with this opinion. The Supreme Court answered only whether excessive fines, barred to the US government by the 8th amendment, also applied to the States through the 14th amendment. It did not answer whether the seizure of the Land Rover was actually excessive. Indiana will (get a chance) to decide that.

Based on my reading, it appears that the avenue for property seizure is based upon fines defined by statute. To perform a civil asset seizure, a person must be convicted of a crime. If they are convicted of a crime, the seizure must not constitute an excessive fine. Is this how others interpreted the ruling?

<comment><USER59> > To perform a civil asset seizure, a person must be convicted of a crime

This is very unclear to me. I can see how that could be read into the decisions, but I don't think that's what they are actually saying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I see a bunch of confusion here.

This case did not involve "civil forfeiture" but "criminal forfeiture" since the property was being seized as part of a criminal conviction:

[https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal- forfeiture](https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture)

</comment><comment><USER61> The more significant aspect of the ruling was Justice Thomas and Gorsuch's concurring opinions, in which they emphasized that the Court's decision should have been based on the "privileges and immunities" clause and not the due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment.

</comment><comment><USER62> Related article:

[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/20/court- const...](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/20/court- constitutional-ban-on-high-fines-applies-to-/)

</comment><comment><USER63> It took this case to set a precedent, I'm sure there were other more high crime to value ratio forfeitures. I'm glad this is in place because it was a tactic used by low life's to take someone's house by slapping on a small criminal offense on someone

</comment><comment><USER64> "Law enforcement agencies have resisted efforts to curtail civil forfeiture, saying they rely on the proceeds for sorely needed equipment"

Weird weird reasoning... "I don't have the stuff I want, so I should be able to steal the thieves things"

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> One of the most important things about this rule is that the court found that the eighth amendment protections against excessive fines and punishments apply to state/city governments as well, meaning it's finally officially incorporated.

<comment><USER65> For anyone reading this, it's known as the doctrine of Incorporation [1]. Portions of the Bill of Rights are "incorporated" when it's determined they apply to the states (note: it can also be found the clauses don't apply to the states and this is known as Reverse Incorporation).

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights)

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> How is it that some articles, like this one, manage to stay on the front page for more than a day, while others (which seem to be popular, based on points and comments) seemingly vanish within hours? Is the human intervention in these rankings stronger than I realize?

Edit: I'm not opposed to this article's longevity, by the way. Far from it, it is a very important topic.

</comment><comment><USER67> there are only two truly valuable and scarce commodities in this universe: time and the rule of law. The hegemony of Unites States( and other countries with similar attitude towards law ) lies not its army or the dollar - but in the fact that at its core it is ruled by law. this 9-0 verdict is proof of it.

</comment><comment><USER68> No paywall: [https://raidargist.com/supreme-court-puts-limits-on- police-p...](https://raidargist.com/supreme-court-puts-limits-on-police-power- to-seize-private-property/)

</comment><comment><USER69> Stop linking paywall articles.

</comment><comment><USER70> paywall

</comment><comment><USER71> Dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19209206](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19209206)

<comment><USER72> You're right, but that article is somehow more narrowly scoped, which probably explains why this one got upvoted so quickly. Given that difference, maybe we'll keep this one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Please don't editorialize the title. It should be _" Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property"_

<comment><USER74> I think the NYT updated the title. Unfortunately, [http://newsdiffs.org/](http://newsdiffs.org/) seems to be broken right now.

<comment><USER75> Holy cow, what a website. Those people are saints for running that website.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> this is amazing

</comment><comment><USER77> I'm not terribly concerned with this particular seizure from the drug dealer the case is about, but glad it sets a precedent for other cases where police may try and abuse power to pick on citizens.

<comment><USER78> Why not this case, in which police abused their power to pick on a citizen?

<comment><USER77> Perhaps because it's a citizen who was able to afford the expensive car by profiting off of something illegal?

<comment><USER46> He didn't. He afforded the expensive car _by his father dying_. (That is, he used the life insurance proceeds to buy the car.)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Backbone vs Ember - <AUTHOR> http://smus.com/backbone-and-ember <comment><USER2> I would recommend the JS Jabber from this week over this blog post: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3587689>

Jeremy & Yehuda touch on most of the issues in this post and you can hear the points directly from their POV rather than filtered through someone else.

Additionally it's interesting to hear that Jeremy & Yehuda are at odds (philosophically) on several other issues which I think help to round out the ideas behind Backbone, Ember, and other projects both of them are involved in.

</comment><comment><USER3> We're using both Ember and Backbone here at Square. Backbone has proven useful for small apps (<https://squareup.com/retail>) while Ember is an effective replacement for Rails when it's backed by a good JSON api.

<comment><USER4> What do you build your JSON api with? I've been using rails against large javascript applications. It seems like ember.js is a good match against rails (especially with <https://github.com/emberjs/data>)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Guh. A fun dive into politics, but I'm not such a big fan of Boris' conclusions, as you might imagine.

        > Backbone by itself is not sufficient for building complex web apps.

That bit is particularly galling ... It's one thing to opine about stated philosophy, and another thing to really look at how the rubber hits the road.

SproutCore/Ember (5 years worth of apps, major corporate backing): <http://sproutcore.com/#application-slider>

Backbone.js (1.5 years worth of apps, just plain 'ol open source): <http://backbonejs.org/#examples>

'nuff said.

<comment><USER6> Bro come on :(

Ember is a total, ground-up rewrite of some of SproutCore's ideas and you know it. I don't count any SproutCore examples as Ember examples, and saying that Ember is anything other than plain 'ol open source is unfair.

I don't count the time you spent on Backbone at DocumentCloud against Backbone's open source, because it would be ridiculous to do so, and you shouldn't count time spent at Tilde working on Ember (mostly on our free time) against Ember being open source.

Our largest contributor (according to <https://github.com/emberjs/ember.js/contributors>, Peter Wagenet) has done almost all of his work on his free time, and we have a wide variety of contributors who were never on the payroll of this so-called "major corporate backing".

There's a lot that you validly disagree with about our approach, but trying to attack us for being "not real Open Source" is a low blow.

<comment><USER5> Apologies -- since the article was treating SproutCore+Ember as a single continuous entity, I was blurring the same line -- and thinking of the Apple and Strobe years... I'll try to keep the blows above the belt ;)

But, I do think that looking at the empirical -- _what's been built with 'em, and how_ \-- is one of the most useful points of comparison.

<comment><USER6> I absolutely agree that comparing actual apps is a very useful point of comparison.

Ember itself is actually relatively new. The fact that Ember inherited some of its runtime semantics from SproutCore might give the mistaken impression that there is shared code. Everything, including Ember's runtime, was rewritten from the ground up for Ember, and it's only with the release of Ember 0.9 that I consider the APIs and codebase stable.

Some companies, like ZenDesk, hopped onboard earlier in 2011, while the codebase and APIs were still undergoing a lot of churn, and helped flesh things out. That said, when taking the scope of Ember into consideration, Ember's adoption curve is behind's Backbone's, so it's not surprising that there are many more impressive Backbone apps in the wild.

We're proud of many of the apps that people are building with Ember today, and as the year progresses, hope to compare favorably to Backbone's impressive list.

<comment><USER5>
        > ... as the year progresses, hope to compare favorably
        > to Backbone's impressive list.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing them. The more different takes on JS- heavy apps the better.

I'm about to crash, but would you mind expanding on what you've written here -- "rewritten from the ground up", and so on -- in relation to earlier posts like this one:

[http://blog.sproutcore.com/sproutcore-amber-a-report-by- yehu...](http://blog.sproutcore.com/sproutcore-amber-a-report-by-yehuda/)

... which describe what I've always understood to be the heart of Ember as an iteration on the core SproutCore internals. Does that blog post no longer describe what ended up happening to Project Amber?

<comment><USER7> Can't we all just get along...

I've been working with Backbone intensively since V0.1, and though I've very scarcely looked at ember, I've been following the heated discussions on both sides. Personally, I think it's damaging to both your publicizing efforts.

Perhaps what would be more beneficial is a more complex hello world app than the todo list. One that expresses the flexibility of Backbone's minimalism, along with the larger out-of-the-box functionality of Ember. I'm personally in the Backbone camp, but it would be easier to let the user decide what is best for him/her.

<comment><USER8> On the contrary, I've found the discourse between Jeremy and Yehuda vigorous, respectful, and edifying. In my opinion, these are the best kinds of technical discussions; they are like a rock tumbler that wears away at our solutions until we're left with shiny best practices--and can move on to the next big problem to solve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Just thought I'd throw out SmartClient here:

<http://www.smartclient.com/>

It's an example of what you get when you follow the "framework does everything but the kitchen sink" philosophy to the end and pile on feature after feature. (It's open source, too!) It's great if you need to hack together a "enterprisey" client and don't really care about style or extendability (rare but these requirements happen.)

The databinding support, controls, and the amount of stuff it does out of the box is absolutely incredible for a free open source framework. But, it's ugly as hell, bloated, and if you want to do anything off the beaten path, you're fucked. But it's a remarkable piece of engineering that goes under the radar (similar to OpenLaszlo) but also a cautionary tale for the Ember guys to not take it too far.

<comment><USER8> Hey, Ember.js maintainer here--

Luckily, providing a widget library is, and will always be, outside the scope of Ember.js. While we'd be quite pleased to see someone else develop a widget library on top of Ember, it's not something that we're personally interested in doing.

The goal of Ember.js is to roll up common patterns web developers are using into the framework so that they can write less boilerplate. In fact, part of the reason we renamed SproutCore 2.0 to Ember.js was to emphasize the point that our value proposition is in the architecture, not the library of controls.

As a veteran of the SproutCore project, keeping things lean and focused is my top priority. And, if it helps, we're all extremely allergic to anything that feels "enterprisey." :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm particularly interested – if anyone has experience using Ember – about the concerns raised about Ember's performance with large amounts of data and "hairy custom view situations," as borismus puts it. Is Ember actually going to be slow when dealing with large data sets?

<comment><USER11> There are some pretty legitimate concerns with Ember and large data sets right now as the treatment of those datasets tends to be fairly naive and linear. There are several people, myself included, who are working on ways to address that problem--but modifying a large collection, at the moment, can trigger the entire collection to re-render which can be extremely expensive.

FWIW, I'm not an expert on Ember.js or Backbone; just someone trying his hand at hacking the Ember.js code to work more effectively with collections (since some of the use cases I have would be impossible using the current methods of bindings and collections).

<comment><USER12> >modifying a large collection, at the moment, can trigger the entire collection to re-render which can be extremely expensive.

How large is large enough to cause problems?

<comment><USER13> I would also like to know this. :-)

<comment><USER14> me as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > _In my experience writing Backbone apps, views are very primitive and tend > to cause issues. There's no support for any sort of view nesting, which is > totally critical for large applications with complex UIs. In contrast, Ember > provides an easy way of nesting views inside one another._

I have run into this. It's really frustrating, in Backbone.

</comment><comment><USER16>
      In my experience, there's very much a need for a controller when writing even
      moderately complex apps. You're presented with several options:

      1. Write controller code in views
      2. Write controller code in models
      3. Write controller code in a router
      4. Write your own controller infrastructure

      If you care about separation of concerns, none of these options are really
      acceptable.

I care about separation of concerns when it's limiting the program complexity, and I don't have any problem with 3. Routing code is very lightweight, and it's sometimes beneficial to associate it with controller code -- those concerns are closely related, and not often referred to separately. In backbone, it's very easy to split a router into many (controller-style) files. If others have experiences to the contrary, I'd be interested to hear them.

</comment><comment><USER17> I see the difference as something like Django/Sinatra vs Rails. Backbone requires the developer to be more explicit, whereas Ember is more opinionated and performs magic behind the scenes as long as you follow the conventions.

On a practical note, my experience earlier this week suggests Backbone right now is far easier to get your hands dirty with. I was excited to use Ember, but I had a practical time constraint and discovered it's a rough ride right now, so reverted to Backbone for this task. There's really very few examples, unless you want to start diving into older Sproutcore docs and trying to figure out the diffs.

In contrast, Backbone has a wealth of articles and even design patterns and books. Of course, it's an apples-versus-oranges distinction with Ember being so much newer, but an important practical issue for developers to be aware of if they're deciding right now.

</comment><comment><USER18> Ember is definitely an alternative to Backbone, but people should stop conflating Ember with SproutCore: the two frameworks are targeted at completely different types of apps.

FWIW, the SproutCore community has rejected the Ember approach for the kinds of apps SproutCore is meant for: large, desktop-style apps that need to run fast in modern web browsers. The supposed "features" Ember provides, like auto-updating templates, have proven to have such bad performance in existing SproutCore apps that developers have almost universally been ripping them out (this was discovered at the most recent SproutCore User Group last month).

Ember is an alternative to Backbone -- a 600 LOC micro-framework. That should tell you all you need to know about Ember's scope. (SproutCore is well over 20K LOC.)

</comment><comment><USER19> I've been working with Backbone exclusively for the last six months or so, so don't know what other frameworks are doing with nested views. The OP marks this as one of Backbone's shortcomings.

I've been writing my backbone app effectively with nested views, where parent views pass relevant information to child views either through initialization or functions on the child view, while the child view "communicates" with the parent view through events that the PV can bind to.

I kind of like the idea of child views not knowing or caring who created them or why. I do this e.g. with buttons, forms, panels and subpanels, etc.

Is there a good resource for best practices here?

</comment><comment><USER20> Boris, I dont know if it happens only to me, but your blog is badly rendered on my Chromium (Linux Mint): many many words are overlapped (like all the paragraph "I like..." under your photo). Everything seems fine in Firefox, I'll try with Chrome on Windows at work.

Edit: Chrome on Windows is ok, maybe there's something wrong on my Linux installation

<comment><USER21> I have the same problem with Chrome on Ubuntu from time to time. Reloading the page usually fixes it. It's annoying, though.

<comment><USER15> Huh. That's been a known issue for quite some time now. I think it's triggered by this, maybe?

         -webkit-text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'll add my voice to those that would like some much better documentation from ember.js. I'm starting to finds some stuff on stack overflow but it has taken a while to find. A few things that would help tremendously when people get started:

-Examples of the built in controls(tab,select,textfield,textarea). There are only like 6 of them but when you find out they exist and are not documented they feel like 600. The sroutcore history amplifies this assumption.

-The fact that sub views(ie textfield) don't bubble but are really easy to implement by extending TextField. See: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8646238/handling-blur-on-...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8646238/handling-blur-on-textfield-child-in-ember-view) (PS. Why is this? It seem silly that I can't do {{view Ember.textField change="parentview.change"}} in my views.)

</comment><comment><USER23> Just to remind, there is also batman.js which is very similar to amber.js but more CoffeeScript oriented.

<comment><USER22> I've been building and ember app in coffee script. Works well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Isn't Knockout simpler than either one?

<comment><USER25> I have written several knockout/coffeescript apps lately and am wondering the same thing...

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Over the past few weeks I've seen a number of Ember evangelists making claims about BB as 'hard to use' or 'suitable for small apps'.

I don't agree.

The fact is that BB is stable and has loads of documentation and live apps. Ember not so much.

<comment><USER19> I love that BB is such a small library. The concise docs at documentcloud plus the source code was all the reference as I needed, even for my first framework-oriented browser app.

I ought to connect with the community more, but so far getting up and running with it (and building a moderately complex app) has been a breeze, as far as Backbone is concerned.</comment></comment>


Circumventing Ubuntu Snap confinement - <AUTHOR> http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/42320.html <comment><USER2> Before anyone suggests the X SECURITY extension (as in SSH's "untrusted" X forwarding): That only provides one level of confinement. Everything running behind the SECURITY extension trusts _each other_. So if I run ssh -X somehost emacs, an "untrusted" XEvilTeddy won't be able to snoop on the terminal where I ran SSH, but it can snoop on my entire emacs window.

In college I spent a bit of time trying to write what's effectively a NATing proxy for the X protocol: clients get their own XIDs in their own namespace, and can't refer to other clients' resources. They see a virtual root window that only has their own windows. If X is going to stick around and people are going to attempt to care about security, it'd be worth implementing something like that.

<comment><USER3> The subuser project is using Xpra to isolate and bridge the untrusted code into the trusted space. [http://subuser.org/news/0.3.html](http://subuser.org/news/0.3.html)

<comment><USER4> Now thats interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't see Canonical make the claim that Snap provides confinement on Ubuntu desktop, the blog post linked to by this post doesnt seem to?

<comment><USER6> _The security mechanisms in snap packages allow for much faster iteration across all versions of Ubuntu and Ubuntu derivatives, as snap applications are isolated from the rest of the system. Users can install a snap without having to worry whether it will have an impact on their other apps or their system._

[https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/04/20/canonical- unveils-6th...](https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/04/20/canonical-unveils-6th- lts-release-of-ubuntu-with-16-04/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> If I avoid using/installing Snap packages, do I avoid the security issues the author is alluding to in his post?

<comment><USER8> No. It was already possible for any X11 application to do this. Some people interpreted snap as providing additional protection against this, but it does not. Fixing it requires switching from X11 to another display server with a better security model, such as Wayland or Mir.

<comment><USER4> From elsewhere i have learned that there are a couple of ways to "harden" X.

[http://www.x.org/wiki/Development/Documentation/Security/](http://www.x.org/wiki/Development/Documentation/Security/) is one.

Another is to run each program inside their own "server", via xnest, xephyr or similar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Snap!</comment>


Goodbye from Team Trapster, service is being discontinued - <AUTHOR> http://newsletter.trapster.com/webview/762785

<comment><USER2> I'm not surprised to see this happen. Waze stepped up their game and knocked it out of the park in this area. Yeah, Google snatching 'em up helped, but I still would've thought they'd surpass Trapster's user base and involvement regardless.</comment>


Tcl Tutorial - <AUTHOR> http://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl8.5/tutorial/tcltutorial.html <comment><USER2> Since version 8.6 just came out, why not drop the 8.5 from the URL?

<http://tcl.tk/man/tcl/tutorial/tcltutorial.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> well....I wonder who and why Tcl is used.

<comment><USER4> <http://wiki.tcl.tk/1887></comment></comment>


How a UN intern was forced to live in a tent in Geneva - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33893384

<comment><USER2> Compare this statement:

> "Interns get a lot of experience," says Ahmad Fawzi, head of the UN's > information service in Geneva. "First-hand knowledge about how the > international system works: it's invaluable for them, and they have fun."

(while not paying your interns) to Article 23 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

> (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration > ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, > and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

<comment><USER3> Not to mention that unpaid internships decrease economic equality and social mobility by automatically disqualifying those who can not afford to work without pay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Newsflash: young adult learns the harsh reality that living in highly desirable area is expensive, and adapts without whining by finding a pleasant and affordable alternative; local media freaks out.

Heck, _I 'd_ like to spend a summer working in Geneva (paid or not) and living in a tent on a mountain lake. Kudos to the kid for making it work in a way he'll long remember fondly.

<comment><USER5> I wouldn't say Geneva is highly desirable area. There are far nicer places in switzerland if you love nature and all that (IMHO of course).

<comment><USER6> The one advantage of Geneva vs other Swiss cities if you are cost-conscious is you can commute across the border and live in France, where living costs diminish almost proportionally with commuting time.

Ferney is perhaps half Geneva rent, if you're willing to go all the way to the villages at the base of the mountain (20 minutes drive if your office is near the airport), you can get a 3-bedroom house for what gets you a rat-infested studio near Cornavin (been there done that, thought about the French house VERY hard). This is without mentioning things like cars or groceries which are a LOT cheaper especially since the peg was removed.

And of course you keep paying tax in Switzerland as a "frontalier" (25%, it's the highest canton...). And you can use GVA which is an EasyJet hub to jet around Europe on weekends on the cheap.

I believe some Germans do this with Zurich and Zug from Konstanz, although that is a bit more hardcore with a 45 minute drive without traffic. Konstanz is another frontalier city with good quality of life, ultra low costs (4 euro ostrich fillet steak delivered to your office! don't ask...) and plenty of culture and food options.

Mountains-wise I might be biased, but I've yet to meet anything that beats the biodiversity, food, low cost and incredible variety of options in Haute Savoie. Just stay away from the tourist hubs and start from the smaller village resorts. The Swiss side just feels more barren, more touristy (or friendlier to non-hikers, which are there in force) and definitely a lot more expensive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > [...] the United Nations practice (one it shares with big business and some > European Union institutions) of employing interns on an unpaid basis.

It's only bad when private businesses do it, of course.

</comment><comment><USER8> One of the problems with unpaid internships is the system favors the wealthy: if you can't afford (via "[your] family and [your] own funds") to buy your way in, you won't get "first-hand knowledge about how the international system works".

From the article: "I am from a developing country," says Sabine, "and I know of many people from my university who would have loved this opportunity but could probably not afford to do it."

Populism aside; 1%-er arguments aside—from an _organizational_ perspective, you're missing out on talent who can't pay.

(From the other side, I laughed a hiring manager off the phone in college who told me their internship [in Manhattan] was unpaid. You may be selecting for "passion", but the best* talent knows their worth.)

(* Not saying I'm the best, but I had other options, as will anyone reasonable.)

</comment><comment><USER9> I have done similar things for no good reason at all. I wanted to know what it was like to study CS at a university, so I put up my tent on a nearby campsite and walked into some random classes. For medium-term solutions, it beats staying in hotels or hunting apartments. You simply put up your tent or caravan and have your own private place.

<comment><USER10> Yes, I knew a guy who worked in construction at Vail and lived in a tent. It was summer, and I don't know how long he did this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interns being unpaid is still better than most organizations working with volunteers that they also expect to pay a fairly large sum for the privilege of volunteering.

<comment><USER12> Wait who does that? I've never heard such a thing.

<comment><USER13> Northwestern Law's environmental clinic? We worked there and paid like 6-7k a semester for the honor.

Still a great deal compared to sitting through a boring ass class though.

<comment><USER12> Touché.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Living in a tent during summer in Switzerland is not that bad. A friend of mine did that. And he was far from the only one on the campground.

</comment><comment><USER14> not totally unheard of here in NZ and i think he was a kiwi(?). i remember the story 10-15 years back about how a couple of guys claimed unemployment benefit and lived in a cave in one of our national parks and hitchhiked up the mountain to ski every day. what can you say? it's a national park, you're supposed to go camping in it...

</comment><comment><USER15> At the very least, organizations should offer unpaid interns subsidized loans.

</comment><comment><USER16> Make those assholes pay their parking tickets in NY and get the guy a room</comment>


For-Profit College Group Sued as U.S. Lays Out Wide Fraud - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/education/09forprofit.html

<comment><USER2> "Education Management, which is based in Pittsburgh and is 41 percent owned by _Goldman Sachs_ "

Excuse my french but holy fucking shit. Is there anything these scumbags DON'T have their hands in? Energy, Finance, Housing, now we find out about Education.

What's it going to take to arrest these people already? How many people have they screwed over in their never ending quest for pure profits?

<comment><USER3> The financial industry represents a third of American corporate profits. Goldman Sachs is the most prominent player in the financial industry. Like Britain, the US is quickly becoming simply a hedge fund, with a government attached. With practically no constraints on corporate money entering politics and voters perpetually responsive to political advertising, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for politicians to seriously take on the most powerful, influential industry in the country, by far.

<comment><USER4> >voters perpetually responsive to political advertising

Maybe not anytime soon, but perpetually?

<comment><USER5> "Perpetually" means "always, continually." US voters are very reliably responsive to political advertising; media campaigns seldom fail to swing opinion in the direction they want to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The problem is not for profit colleges, the problem is guaranteed government loans to anyone who goes to college. This is exactly what happened with the housing bubble. You have a government entity (in the housing case it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that's giving out money without any checks and balances.

So as a result you get a few amoral businesses who buy up colleges that have regional accreditation and balloon their enrollment with online programs in order to collect the free money being handed out by the government. This shit only works as long as you have a blank cheque issued by the government to anyone who goes to a regionally accredited college.

The solution is not to clamp down on the only bit of free enterprise that still exists in higher education. The solution is to let the market price the risk/value of college degrees.

<comment><USER7> _The problem is not for profit colleges, the problem is guaranteed government loans to anyone who goes to college._

1) It is hard to claim that for-profit colleges aren't part of the problem. They clearly have more of an incentive for this kind of a fraud (though other schools might have some incentive).

2) For profit colleges have expanded primarily based on student loans. Without student loans, indeed for-profit colleges wouldn't be a problem but mostly because they wouldn't exist.

<comment><USER8> _They clearly have more of an incentive for this kind of a fraud (though other school might have some incentive)._

Could you explain this statement?

Also, many non-profit colleges (including plenty of schools as bad as any for- profit) also would not exist without student loans and other govt subsidies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There are a lot of parallels with this and the 2008 housing bubble. The recruiters are just trying to get as many students to enroll as possible, they don't care whether or not the students can actually afford the loans. They are just a bunch of scumbags that prey on people that are trying to get an education. As those jerks are making money hand over fist, tuition at state run universities is going up like crazy, even as they are having to cut tons of programs.

I hope the US government cleans them out.

<comment><USER10> Actually, the US government is helping them out.

Guaranteed loans? I'll take 3 please.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Frontline had an interesting documentary on this industry a year or so back called "College Inc". If I remember rightly, they even discussed one of the schools named in the suit, Argosy University (along with a lot of hard-sell tactics and high student loan default rates that accompany the for-profit industry).

It was an eye-opening program. Here's the link if interested: <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/>

I think Netflix also has the episode available for online streaming.

</comment><comment><USER12> Any time you have a massive government subsidy to an industry, people will eventually line up to scam it.

In this case, it's a shame because there are a lot of innocent bystanders who get scammed. In addition to the taxpayer footing the bill by providing lower cost loans, people graduate the schools with worthless degrees.

I am a big fan of charter schools, and in theory support for-profit colleges, but I wish I had more data points on where they succeed. Perhaps there will be a collegiate disruption similar to Khan Academy.</comment>


Becoming CTO at OpenAI (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://blog.gregbrockman.com/define-cto-openai <comment><USER2> Just casually having dinner with Elon Musk and Sam Altman, as one does.

<comment><USER3> CTO of well known tech company (Stripe) speak with their investor and a person looking to poach him.

<comment><USER2> Am I supposed to be collecting the baseball cards of Silicon Valley's elite?

<comment><USER4> That context is extremely relevant in this case.

<comment><USER2> Yes I understand the relevance but I am not a person reading that blog post with that context. The context I have is this:

Here I am, some guy browsing hacker news. Oh look, some other guy wrote a blog post on becoming a CTO. I will click on that. Oh, he had dinner with Elon Musk and Sam Altman and came up with his idea with them. Sounds like something I will never do in my life. Next.

I hope HN can get over the sleight of me not showing proper deference to the masters of the universe.

<comment><USER5> Don't you think in some ways it's the opposite of what you're describing?

I mean to me they're "just" people. Successful people but just people. I may or may not have lunch with them.

You passing on because you would "never" do that in your life seems to be the deification. And not sure why you think you wouldn't. Seems like it could happen easily if there was a reason for it.

<comment><USER6> Are they "just" people? I'm not sure.

I've worked with or been around some of these top people before and, with few exceptions, they seem to have some kind of aura or something. I can't explain it exactly but it's disquieting.

<comment><USER7> The aura comes from other people putting them on a pedestal. The tech world is surprisingly small and you don't have to be an SV elite to meet folks at this level.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This post is incredibly motivating! I really long back to the days of working in start-up with the smartest people around. Maybe time for that again...

<comment><USER9> It's nice to hear some of the back story behind OpenAI, especially since they seem to be making so much progress lately. It would make a nice documentary some day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I love the way you solicit applicants for the various jobs! I think I'm going to borrow that for my own company. No silly questions, just a couple of focused paragraphs about yourself that relates to the work you'll be doing.

<comment><USER11> Thanks!

Probably about time to write an update. Things have progressed quite a bit since this post :).</comment></comment>


Skrill 1-Tap mobile payment demo - <AUTHOR> http://ice.skrill.com/

<comment><USER2> (Skrill is the new name for MoneyBookers)</comment>


The smallest large display would be projected straight onto your retina - <AUTHOR> https://hackaday.com/2020/04/15/the-smallest-large-display-is-projected-straight-onto-your-retina/ <comment><USER2> I'm not sure if there is a good short primer on Retinal Displays or not, but I don't think this is it.

As the article itself outlines, it's been decades of research and we haven't really been able to make any practical progress yet. There are a lot of reasons for this that are as much social as they are technical.

At my previous company a few years ago we took a crack at a concept [1], but never got it off the ground because prototype costs were in the millions and there are only a few places that we could source the kind of hardware you need to build these things.

Last I checked in 2017, Oculus/Facebook was making the most progress on this but even then were having trouble miniaturizing things. I'm really curious where they are with it.

[1] [https://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?docid=20180131926&SectionNum=1...](https://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?docid=20180131926&SectionNum=1&IDKey=363814FA3947&HomeUrl=http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO1%2526Sect2=HITOFF%2526d=PG01%2526p=1%2526u=%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.html%2526r=1%2526f=G%2526l=50%2526s1=%25252220180131926%252522.PGNR.%2526OS=DN/20180131926%2526RS=DN/20180131926)

<comment><USER3> What exactly cost so much? You can build a retinal display using a $200 off- the-shelf laser projector if you turn down the power and add less than $100 in lenses. I've done it, and I've even managed to get it up to 8K resolution with some more time and money thrown at it. I've since formed a company to try to commercialize it: [http://www.alphalux.io](http://www.alphalux.io)

<comment><USER4> Not sure what you are attempting to commercialize, but your website doesn't explain at all what you have made. Unless I'm supposed to guess it from your background picture of 3d rendered glasses with some sensors in them...

From most studies I've read on the subject, there are a couple big issues. Firstly, physics is hard. It's very difficult to get a useful amount of digital information presented that closely to your eye, where it is in focus, and comfortable to look at. Scaling up resolution beyond a low-res screen is even more difficult. Secondly, tech just isn't there yet. The closest thing I've seen in the market is Google Glass, and that was a huge flop. It also looked dorky as hell, while providing very little _real_ value. Sure, you could read a text, if you squinted and focused your attention up and to the right, but at that point, pulling out your phone is just as easy. It it also makes you look like a strange android while taking your attention away from the real world.

For a product like this to work in the market it has to meet a lot of requirements. Resolution, invisibility (as in, it doesn't feel like you're wearing a clunky awkward device on your face), battery life, safety (you're shining light into your eyes), and provide real, _useful_ , functionality.

Useful functionality, to make it worth caring about a device like this, is _good_ augmented reality integration. And I mean _very good_. If you put the device on your face and the mapping of the real world stutters for a second, you're going to hate it and never use it - and no one will buy it.

Also, no, being able to project a little cartoon monster on the surface of a table is not "useful" AR functionality...

<comment><USER5> > Also, no, being able to project a little cartoon monster on the surface of a > table is not "useful" AR functionality...

I would think being able to do that means you've solved most the hard problems you mentioned, so if it can be done well it means we've achieved a certain level of usefulness.

Sort of like how bouncing a white square between two movable white rectangles was a "useful" bit of functionality for consumer AV electronics. Pong isn't exactly blowing anyone's mind now, but it did mean they had to solve a lot of problems to make a machine that could interface with current televisions, deal with user input, do it and update the display within an acceptable time period so it was responsive, and hit a cost and form factor so the general public could make use of it.

<comment><USER4> > I would think being able to do that means you've solved most the hard > problems

I guess the other hard problem, besides just creating the tech, is real-world application,

Reminds me of the Leap Motion device. The creators made some really cool tech, and it works pretty well for what it is, but most people struggle to find a really useful application for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Saying this, I feel a bit like somebody in the 1800s saying they don't want to board a train because they don't want to suffocate, but here it is:

I don't want any lasers shone directly into my eyeballs because I don't want to go blind.

<comment><USER7> Well, it is definitely one of those technologies where it doesn't pay to be an early (first decade) adopter. For all those people who wouldn't board a train, there were also people who didn't take their cocaine prescriptions, lick their radium paintbrushes, or take their thalidomide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Virtual Retinal Displays (VRD) have been around for a while (1). More recently entering the consumer market. I didn't see the article mention the Avegant Glyph (2)

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display)

2\. [https://avegant.com/video-headset](https://avegant.com/video-headset)

Edit: formatting

<comment><USER9> A DLP projector for your retinas. Cool concept. I bet the parts are cheaper than the equivalent laser setup.

<comment><USER10> Looks like they're dead, I wonder if the MEMS latency issues killed it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I guess the ultimate version of this is figuring out how to get your brain to generate the right image via direct simulation of the visual cortex, without painting anything on your retina at all.

<comment><USER12> Is that just a "that would be cool" or do you know of research into this (even so much as a feasibility study)?

<comment><USER13> I would keep an eye on Valve.

I don't think they're anywhere near doing it yet but Gabe Newell heavily implied that he wants to steer Valve in this direction in his recent interview about Half Life: Alyx on IGN.

<comment><USER14> I wonder if the logos with the red handle in the eye then on the back of the neck was foreshadowing

<comment><USER15> That would be cool, but I doubt that was the original intent, given how old that logo is and that the "red handle" is just a valve, simply referencing the company name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What kind of health issues would this type of technology cause? I can't see it being very good for your eyes to have them focused on lasers being projected directly into them into at extremely close range for long periods of time on a regular basis.

<comment><USER17> I'd also be concerned about, what happens if something goes wrong? What happens if there's some sort of power delivery issue, and the laser burns far too bright just for an instant before dying?

Is that an unfounded concern?

<comment><USER18> It's analogous to in-ear monitors.

[https://blog.64audio.com/protecting-your-hearing-while- weari...](https://blog.64audio.com/protecting-your-hearing-while-wearing-in- ear-monitors/)

> _Most pro-level IEMs are capable of producing SPLs (sound pressure level) > well above 120db. A phantom power spike or a microphone falling on the floor > can easily produce a signal loud enough to damage your hearing._

The article above recommends putting a brickwall limiter on the monitor mix. However, a brickwall will only do so much for a sudden screech centered at 3kHz, right in the zone where human hearing is the most sensitive. And what if the limiter gets disabled? Murphy's Law guarantees that at some point the safety system will fail.

The only way to guarantee that devices like these won't emit signals which damage your sensory organs is to make them _physically incapable_ of producing such signals.

<comment><USER19> Computer interfaces are dangerous

I have been wearing headphones a lot recently and I think I got an ear infection from them. I barely slept the last 2 days because my ears are itching so much. Although only when I lay, not when I sit.

And I purposely have been using over-ear headphones rather than in-ear devices, so I thought you do not get an infection from over-ear headphones

<comment><USER16> I can't use in the ear head phones at all. Ever since I was young they've given me ear infections. They're also terrible for your ear. Your tragus is there to help protect your eardrum from loud noises, among other things. Sticking noise emitting things behind it is a bad idea.

I've been alright with over the ear style ones for the most part. Though I can see why they, noise cancelling ones especially, could cause infections if worn for long periods.

They create moist anaerobic environments liked by a lot of bacteria and because headphones tend to be left around or carried outside, they're not the cleanest things around. So as they sit nice and snug around your ears, bacteria have a nice happy place to live all cuddled up close like to the entrances to your ears.

<comment><USER20> I mostly don't use ear buds, but when I do/did I'd wipe them with rubbing alcohol before using. Not, like, constantly, but after putting them down for more than a moment, every trip to the gym, etc.

<comment><USER16> I've been prone to ear and sinus infections since I was a kid. Apparently I have narrow sinuses. I end up with a sinus infection nearly every time I get sick.

To be fair, I find the sound quality lacking on most ear buds, even expensive ones.

When it comes to low frequencies, the size of cone makes a difference. You'll never get the same kind of bass from an earbud as an over the ear headphone or a speaker.

Music just isn't the same without bass or with lackluster bass. Bassvin most tracks is the bridge between melody and rythym and in many genres actually carries the song. If I had a choice between high quality treble and lakcluster bass, like most ear buds offer, despite, marketing and lousy high end with full bass, id' take the latter every time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> So the power from the optical system is spread over the retina by the MEMS mirrors. What happens if the laser stays on and one or both of the scanners stops?

<comment><USER22> This is the first scary question that everyone asks with these devices, because the answer is "you burn a hole in your retina".

It is an inherent danger in the system, but I would be interested in reading a full risk analysis on this type of system. Industrial processes always have risk analysis and avoidance, with failsafe for all possible failure modes being desired. I wonder what kind of hardware failsafes you could put into this. You never, under any circumstances, want to burn someone's eye. But you also don't want someone's expensive toy to brick itself because they jumped with it on.

<comment><USER23> [https://journal.burningman.org/2015/03/black-rock- city/tales...](https://journal.burningman.org/2015/03/black-rock-city/tales- from-the-playa/theres-a-black-dot-in-the-middle-of-everything-i-see/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Excellent reality check "Lasers Are Not Magic" [http://doc- ok.org/?p=1386](http://doc-ok.org/?p=1386)

"Can I make a full-field-of-view AR or VR display by directly shining lasers into my eyes?" \-- No.

</comment><comment><USER25> Immediately thought of the Bosch Light Drive[0] product when I saw this. There's been no news since they were unveiled, though, as far as I can tell...

[0] [https://www.bosch-sensortec.com/products/optical- microsystem...](https://www.bosch-sensortec.com/products/optical- microsystems/smartglasses-light-drive/)

<comment><USER26> That is mentioned in the article -- BML500P is the part number for the unreleased thing.

<comment><USER25> Ah, good catch. I skimmed for the Bosch product but didn't see it the first time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Seems like this is something that could eventually be placed onto a contact lens (maybe just the reflective part) to help with alignment.

Also I wonder if a lightfield concept could be used to allow the lens in your eye to focus the image so you don't get that weird 'permanently in focus' effect that has to be somewhat jarring.

</comment><comment><USER28> VRDs sound great in theory, but the more you learn about them the more you realize that they aren't the right solution for the problem. Compared to other AR optics approaches, they're vastly more expensive, more dangerous, and have more limitations to overcome. For example, a VRD will only display if your eyes are looking in one direction (see the North glasses), so a VRD-based headset would need eye tracking (and vastly more complex optics to move the image around) for basis use.

Diffractive optics can achieve much better effects at a fraction of the cost and without any risk.

</comment><comment><USER29> I would be really interested in the visual correction opportunities offered by this kind of technology. I suffer from a rare cornea disease called Pellucid Marginal Degeneration that results in a very disfigured cornea. It would be amazing to have a pair of glasses that scan your cornea for abnormalities, and then adjust the angles at which photons hit your eye in a way that "cancels out" the astigmatic abnormalities.

<comment><USER19> That is what I am interested in too.

I have 3 diopters astigmatism. Or more, the optometrists have trouble measuring it, their measurement fluctuates between 2.5 and 3.5 diopters. If the glasses just slip a little, I can hardly read anything.

I hope I do not develop anything worse. My father had keratoconus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> "The smallest large display would be projected straight onto your retina"

Bosch, yes. I am 100% sure I have read about it before on Ycombinator.

[https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer- electronics/gad...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer- electronics/gadgets/bosch-ar-smartglasses-tiny-eyeball-lasers)

</comment><comment><USER31> I won't be an early adopter, but this technology has been a source of great fascination and excitement for me, and I look forward to the day it becomes a mainstream reality.

</comment><comment><USER32> The prospect of ciliary muscle atrophy (or exhaustion) from longer term use of this is pretty scary. I wonder if they're considering how to abate that.

<comment><USER3> How do you deal with ciliary muscle exhaustion from staring at a computer screen for extended periods?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> something interesting for the wearables sector.

I thought this would go along with it for safety sake:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22634890](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22634890)

</comment><comment><USER33> Alternatively, use your optic nerve or visual cortex.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Magic Leap: [https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/8/17662040/magic-leap-one- cr...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/8/17662040/magic-leap-one-creator- edition-preview-mixed-reality-glasses-launch)</comment>


Show HN: My MT940 bank statement parser (PHP) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/sandermarechal/jejik-mt940

<comment><AUTHOR> I would love to get some feedback on this. Also, I would love to support more banks. If your bank supports exporting MT940 statement files and you'd either like to contribute or provide me with your information, let me know!</comment>


AddyMate - a smart address book with enhanced privacy controls - <AUTHOR>

Hi all,
I'd like to get the HN community's feedback on a web service I've built out of the Washington, D.C. area - www.addymate.com. You can use the code ADDYINVITE to signup & access the features.
AddyMate is a FREE service that helps you easily lookup your contacts in one place by keeping them insync with your Google & Yahoo address books. It is also a place to safely share your contact info with others while controlling who all can see which details using AddyMate's enhanced privacy settings.
AddyMate supports the linking of your Facebook & LinkedIn accounts so that you can automatically connect with your social & professional connections on AddyMate when they sign up as well.
It has all the functionalities you'd expect from a contact management service that's relevant in a socially connected world via a easy & intuitive user interface built to quickly get you in touch with your contacts:
- Full 2-way contact sync with Google & Yahoo;
- Sharing your contact details with your Facebook & LinkedIn connections;
- Finding & merging duplicate contacts;
- Address book import from Hotmail, Outlook & Windows Mail;
- Access to your contacts from your phone.
Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks,
Rajdeep <comment><USER2> Hi Rajdeep, neat UI. Just logged in and its an useful App for me. Btw, need ur opinion on my Idea in my post <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2437872></comment>