All of this FEMA talk in socials reminds me of when I tried to trespass FEMA from a whole city once.

Story time:

FEMA came to my local city, which I am a councilman for, with updated flood zones mapped out and they requested the city join their national flood insurance program. This was earlier this year or last year, I can't quite remember when exactly.

The program allows building owners in the flood zone to buy "federal" flood insurance.

Sounds innocent, but the program also provides the city with a specific ordinance that the city MUST pass. The ordinance requires the flood insurance in the flood zone for any permits, and possibly for any federally-backed mortgages IIRC, and it requires the city to enforce it. So the city has to force folks in the flood zone to buy insurance.

And if the city didn't join the program, there would be consequences:

The city would be ineligible for FEMA assistance in the event of a disaster. New mortgages for buildings in the floodzone would no longer be able to use federally-backed loans ( ! ). And the city would no longer be eligible to receive federal grant money (cities get a lot of this, our money is broken).

I viewed this as the federal government forcing an ordinance on me and my local citizens that we don't want. It was the feds saying, "Do this or you don't get the millions of dollars that your city takes from us via grants."

I even went to an open house that FEMA put on about this issue and I asked why individual property owners couldn't just join the program voluntarily, why does the entire city need to do it and force the insurance on people. The people there weren't the people who could change anything, so it wasn't useful.

Flood insurance, in my opinion, should matter to three parties, none of which is the federal government: The building/homeowner, the bank/person behind the mortgage, and the insurance company insuring the home.

I voiced my concerns about this program and I suggested the program was unethical in its implementation. I urged a no vote and recommended the city trespass FEMA personnel from all city property to send a message to them. Then when (or if) the feds follow through with denying federal funds to the city, we get senators and local media involved.

Because federal grant money and federally-backed mortgages were being held hostage, the city council voted to join the program, with me being the only no vote. Even the other councilmen acknowledged just prior to the vote that they felt they were being forced and didn't have a real choice. Costs and regulations are so burdensome nowadays that small cities rely a ton on grant money. I hate it.

Oh, and by the way, this is probably something every city in the nation with even the smallest part of it in a flood zone faces. So if you live within a city, might be worth checking in and seeing how they handled this.

Now that it is on my mind again, I suppose the city could still trespass FEMA personnel. An item for next month's agenda. LFG!

Stay frosty out there.

I used to work these sort of stings. Very righteous cases.

I didn't see much bitcoin use in that world, noticed more CashApp/Venmo use. Vast majority was cash.

I did one time pay for a decoy escort ad using bitcoin because they only accepted Mastercard or bitcoin and my card for missions was a Visa. I didn't bother requesting for reimbursement from the Sheriff's Office on that one.

IDK, I heard something similar said about Arrakis and you see what happened in Dune Part 2...

Hehe, he said retards

So good.

Gross.

Glad you are still going to have a show. What Bitcoin Did was a good run. My go-to Bitcoin content!

A classic.

Based.

I pronounce it as "peanut butter."

Brazil is dumb!

Nice!

Thought this was bound to happen. Good news for privacy!

I haven't read the finding but based on your summary, it sounds like one could in theory limit the scope of a geofence warrant to physical areas where any device present would likely belong to a witness, suspect, or victim; Where identifying them would be relevant to the case and the search would not involve collecting data of "innocent" devices.

For example, I recall a case once where a remote energy infrastructure site was broken into and items stolen. It belonged to a private business, some sort of wind energy business IIRC. The only road leading into it was private property and no customers would have a reason to go out there. The crime was done in the middle of the evening too. So during the commission of the crime, anyone out there at the site could be assumed to be the suspect or at least a suspect of criminal trespass on private property. With a few cell sites covering the area and a WiFi router at the location, a geofence warrant of the area made sense.

But the conditions above are not the norm and a lot of geofence warrants would cover areas of populated cities or high trafficked roads.

I don't know... might just be Moscow time.

ES. The direction the place is going, the culture and religion, the weather and beaches, very appealing.

So bad.

Batching is normal. It isn't suspicious.

Interesting!

Thanks for sharing baklava with us!

I just made it too! Will have to catch up somewhere.