[]

> if they find more than 3000 eur in one place that is not pre authorized, they will confiscate it all and punish the people who had that kind of cash; it's becoming 'the law'

Can you please not make shit up to be obsessed about?

No need to curse to make your point, especially since this is a burgeoning area of both criminal and civil law in western countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#European_Unio...

So you need to be convicted by a court and the government needs to be able prove the money was obtained from illegal sources?

How is that unreasonable and more importantly what does it have to do with the €3000 limit discussed in this thread?

It can simply be seized.

Whether a conviction occurs in court is largely irrelevant, because it's in excess of the 3000 limit that this law actually puts in place, and therefore de jure illegal.

In the U.S., no conviction of the owner is even necessary, since the conviction is of the cash itself. This is likely coming to EU as well because it's a easy way for the enforcement state to increase its coffers and, in theory, stop money laundering.

> because it's in excess of the 3000 limit that this law actually puts in place, and therefore de jure illegal.

I don't get it, do you not understand the difference between possessing a certain amount of cash and making a single payment over a certain amount in cash?

How do you make a logical leap from the latter to the former?

Similar laws in the US have readily morphed into we're going to hold it until you prove it's not from illegal sources. Googling it will provide many examples.

I don’t care about examples from the US. How is that relevant or at all related to this specific ban?

> So you need to be convicted by a court and the government needs to be able prove the money was obtained from illegal sources?

The way you read laws isn't how the enforcers need to read it. That isn't a US specific issue.

Follow up, the EU is pretty much on the same page as US authorities. No convictions needed.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1acd50be-5237...

No need to add irrelevant links to make no point, there's nothing in the draft that prevents you from possessing >€3k.

> they find more than 3000 eur in one place that is not pre authorized, they will confiscate

Any sources which would substantiate this claim?

very nice, this is how I can now quickly say it and clearly think it:

I've only ever worked for gamblers!

which is to say only gamblers are ever willing to hire me

the 'cool' thing

is that not even the purported 'business owner' owns their own data, what do they actually own? what is even their business?

on the modern trend, all businesses really are: is just a collection of subscriptions to service providers like MS.... where's the actual business???

I just hope that the notion and traditional cultural practice of "this idea is mine, therefore it cannot be yours" dies soon

once it does we can have a new digital renaissance

but if people see the phrase "original copy" and don't see an oxymoron, i have no hope

This idea could be useful to prove, for example, illegal use of a OSS-licensed library in a closed-source software.

Also, I can understand Apple's mindset on this matter: you'd be rather disgusted if someone took the code you wrote and claimed to have written it all by themselves. It's not the idea that was (trying to be) protected here, just the work behind the code.

my much less informed take on this topic:

I considered "why?", "what?", and "how to?" by thinking the types of answers:

'what' expects an answer of a name, or reference.

'how' expects an answer of a recipe, like an algorithm possibly

'why' is more complicated, it involves intention. to keep it simple (and short), it's a mix of both of the above, but I provide no references nor bibliography; and quite honestly, I didn't even read through that whole 14-17 minute long article. at a glance, I am saying something roughly similar, but without knowing about all those academic erudites, and without invoking such arcane terminology as "teleological"

Purpose is a really helpful way of organizing thought about the world.

But “purposeful” does not mean “having to do with the concept of purpose”, so “teleological” ends up being a pretty useful word. Despite the smell of old books it carries.

> 'what' expects an answer of a name, or reference.

that's a 'who'

counter example: what is this website called?

you're telling me Hacker News is a who?

so long as we can read the source code AND debug the program, it's ok.

it may be difficult, but sometimes things are difficult

free and open source but private and paid for documentation???

The React Flow library has free documentation, but more extensive tutorials on how to use their library are part of their paid offering. (More about their model here: https://reactflow.dev/blog/asking-for-money-for-open-source/ .)

this actually may help me clear out a subtle distinction:

the documentation has the same socialpolitical problem as any other artistic expression encoded into a digital asset

but the code has a subtly different socialpolitical problem that goes a little bit further than the one of 'mere' digital assets.

I don't expect to be understood, I just wrote this to think to myself... albeit in public.

do not underestimate the agendas for centralization of power and control

do not underestimate the sticky pull of collecting ̶r̶e̶n̶t̶^C ̶t̶a̶x̶e̶s̶subscriptions from people

> Is it even possible to empirically validate such a thing?

I wouldn't think so because empiricism implies experience which implies time

because rent i.e. taxes i.e. licensing fees i.e. insurance coverage i.e. rent is just too good when you're collecting it and nobody would give it up