[Stranger43]

How is that justified as compatible with a fair justice system, or have we kind of given up on this when it comes to dealing with modern financial services, or Internet services?

Or is it just as the mentioning of terrorist mean that we leave the confines of modern democracy and enters the territory of fascists policies, as we become what we fight?

the fact that accounts are locked and funds frozen by hacked together system dependent on irrational machine learning algorithms and never heard in open court is the premise for any number of dark dystopian science fiction stories and deeply scary and yet we seem to keep enacting laws and frameworks that rewards companies like Microsoft for arbitrary enforcement by making it impossibly expensive to challenge punishment dished out private enforcers(microsoft/facebook/youtube etc.) who can be punished by the state for not enforcing aggressively enough

[marcosdumay]

> How is that justified as compatible with a fair justice system

It's not. It's also not practiced exactly that way.

There is always a maximum duration for those things, and after that duration secrecy is gone.

Also, before locking somebody's account, the law enforcement people have to get in front of a judge, and make a really good case for why it should happen. Normally judges do not like people asking for unilateral actions (on most places judges are very competent lawyers, and if there is something that lawyers really love is their antagonistic system for decision making).

Money laundering laws are not like anti-terrorism ones.

[Stranger43]

The problem here is that when it's the banks doing it there really is'nt a court involved, nor police there simply is an algorithm spotting something and usually that's the end of the story.

If the block was followed by mandatory court action by whoever made the block with failure to successfully prosecute resulting in compensation paid to unjustly accused, there would be balance but thats also not how this kind of block works, as the courts are usually not involved when it's the banks/services own mandatory anti-fraud process thats being invoked, and not the police conducting an investigation prior to an actual open court case.

The problem is that private organizations are being asked to police their customers on their own under a framework thats basically outside of the justice systems, under penalty of fines by a justice system, that is not issuing the same fines when the private organization punish the innocent.

Again the problem is we have a mechanism that made some sense when nothing ever happened without sooner or later happening in a court that can/will punish the police for false arrest when/if the resulting prosecution fails, that due to the fact that a false/incorrect negative action no longer have consequences for those making it happen, especially as it happens under the pretense of being done but a free private organization by private organization that are theoretically free to reject customers even if that rejection is practically ordered by the state.

[marcosdumay]

Wait, are you talking from the US? Are banks blocking their customer's money there without the government intervention?

I haven't heard about something like this happening anywhere, but it's not hard to imagine it, unfortunately.

[stouset]

No, situations like described are almost exclusively a result of a governmental request.