[HN Gopher] Three Felonies a Day (2013)
___________________________________________________________________
Three Felonies a Day (2013)
Author : zekrioca
Score : 76 points
Date : 2025-04-20 10:23 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (kottke.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (kottke.org)
| ashton314 wrote:
| I would love some examples for other occupations.
| AyyEye wrote:
| If you have ever bought, sold, transported, held, or been alone
| in a room with a Gibson guitar you have been in violation of
| the Lacey Act.
| ralusek wrote:
| > If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide
|
| Ok but in not hiding anything, we all apparently do a lot
| "wrong."
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| "Only those who do nothing make no mistakes".
| johnisgood wrote:
| Inaction can be a mistake, too. :P
| Toorkit wrote:
| Absolutely. I have a flawless record.
| ericyd wrote:
| For such a short book review I feel like they could have listed
| out one or two example felonies that people likely commit each
| day. Feels like a weird tease.
| armada651 wrote:
| According to this review the book never backs up its claim:
| https://www.econlib.org/three-felonies-a-day/
| fny wrote:
| At the same time, that review concedes he "would bet the
| number is more like three felonies a month." That seems
| sufficient for abuse.
| nativeit wrote:
| I don't know that it was intended to assert or enumerate that
| as a literal statement? Seems like it was only trying to
| suggest that our code of laws is such that any individual
| could be targeted, and it's plausible that they could be
| found in violation of some statute given sufficient
| motivation on the part of investigators. This strikes me as
| intuitively true, and tracks with other signals such as the
| impact of "Broken Windows Policing"[1], the recent
| application of Justice Department investigations as political
| retribution, the ongoing phenomena of false confessions[2],
| the statistics involved with erroneous convictions[3], etc..
|
| That's a charitable reading of the title and the author's
| intentions. I don't know that their underlying point is even
| possible to quantify, but in my opinion that doesn't detract
| from its basic assertion that no one should feel out-of-reach
| from the kind of motivated prosecution they describe in the
| one highlighted example.
|
| I also ran across another comment under one of the more
| critical reviews of the book, and I found it relevant (as did
| the author of the critical review, in their reply)[4]:
|
| > Also, I think the book also makes an important point
| implicitly on 'rule of law' arguments as they relate to
| public policy. It's common for people to argue, for example,
| that regardless of the merits of illegal immigration or
| economic regulations, their violators deserve to be punished
| simply because, "it's the law." We can't just let the law go
| unenforced. Except the law (often very trivial laws) goes
| selectively unenforced - and selectively enforced - all the
| time, as illustrated in Silverglate's book. It's already a
| foregone conclusion that we pick in choose how many resources
| (if any at all) to devote to enforcing a particular crime,
| usually depending on how severe it's considered by most
| people.
|
| --
|
| 1. https://www.simplypsychology.org/broken-windows-
| theory.html
|
| 2. https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-
| psychology/fal...
|
| 3. https://innocenceproject.org/exonerations-data/
|
| 4. https://www.econlib.org/three-felonies-a-day/
|
| Edit: formatting
| gruez wrote:
| >I don't know that it was intended to assert or enumerate
| that as a literal statement?
|
| Here's the blub from amazon.com:
|
| >The average professional in this country wakes up in the
| morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then
| goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed
| several federal crimes that day.
|
| I don't know how you can read that and think "three
| felonies a day was a metaphor!"
|
| >I don't know that their underlying point is even possible
| to quantify, but in my opinion that doesn't detract from
| its basic assertion that no one should feel out-of-reach
| from the kind of motivated prosecution they describe in the
| one highlighted example.
|
| Sorry, but "they're were still directionally correct" is
| not an excuse for sloppy writing and outlandish claims. The
| author didn't have to incorporate the "three felonies a
| day" into his book. He could have named it literally
| anything else.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I certainly took that "3 felonies a day" literally, or at
| least in the realm of possibility. I think a "yeah, just
| kidding!" response is horrifically lame.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Here's one that most people on here probably violate daily:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43745382
| metadat wrote:
| Discussed previously:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5860250 - 169 comments (June
| 2013)
| zellyn wrote:
| "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest
| of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
| xyst wrote:
| The "case study" [1] in the author's post is unsubstantiated. The
| author of the "case study" (it's a short e-mail depicting a
| conviction of a C-level executive) even tries to parallel it with
| Aaron Schwartz conviction which is disgusting to me.
|
| The C-level executive and his lackeys were committing _insider
| trading_ and profited from it. You getting caught with your pants
| down is not government overreach, it's blatant greed. This does
| not have any similarity to Aaron Schwartz wrongful conviction.
|
| [1]
| https://web.archive.org/web/20130614024309/https://mailman.s...
| Asooka wrote:
| But that's the point - he wasn't doing anything that other CEOs
| weren't doing too, except he got targeted by the government and
| was imprisoned for six years.
| ecb_penguin wrote:
| > But that's the point - he wasn't doing anything that other
| CEOs weren't doing too
|
| 1. Millions of business executives go their entire life
| without insider trading
|
| 2. Lots of people commit crimes and are not caught. It
| doesn't mean you're excused when you are caught.
| deknos wrote:
| > 1. Millions of business executives go their entire life
| without insider trading
|
| Citation needed. At some point at some position you will be
| ALWAYS vulnerable. that's for the people at the top and at
| the bottom. both are very vulnerable. the people at the top
| have MUCH to loose. the people at the bottom can be stopped
| to have anything to loose and still be tortured.
| gruez wrote:
| >he wasn't doing anything that other CEOs weren't doing too
|
| Source? Are you making the claim that "other CEOs" (all?
| most? many?) trade on material nonpublic information? CEOs
| basically always have material nonpublic information on them,
| even without secret government contracts. That's why there's
| rule 10b5-1, to allow them to pre-declare their trades ahead
| of time to avoid such allegations.
| dullcrisp wrote:
| And also the implicit claim that this is fine and normal
| and that insider trading laws shouldn't be enforced against
| CEOs?
| tavavex wrote:
| I feel like we're reading two different posts. In my
| interpretation, the post describes the whole accusation
| as a logical contradiction. It's not your normal insider
| trading - it's an accusation based on the fact that the
| CEO did any stock transactions while knowing classified
| information that also related to his company. What was he
| supposed to do to make this right? Tell the general
| public the classified information? Avoid doing anything
| with his company's shares indefinitely (or at least, for
| the decades until said information is declassified)? The
| defense here goes beyond "everyone does this so this is
| fine" (though I wouldn't be surprised if others did in
| fact do this).
| gruez wrote:
| >Avoid doing anything with his company's shares
| indefinitely (or at least, for the decades until said
| information is declassified)?
|
| Wouldn't the contracts eventually show up on the
| financial statements?
| dullcrisp wrote:
| You got me, I just came to the comments to learn what
| felonies I'm committing so I may be missing some nuance.
|
| But I do believe that doing stock transactions while
| knowing material non-public information is the definition
| of insider trading that you're taught if you ever work at
| a public company. As for how exactly you're supposed to
| handle that if you're the CEO I'm not sure but I don't
| think the answer is "just do the insider trading,
| everyone does it."
| jlund-molfese wrote:
| Isn't this type of situation what blind trusts are
| supposed to be for? Although they'd obviously be
| inconvenient.
| vajrabum wrote:
| The feds don't generally indict unless it's a slam dunk. That
| means two things. Lots of people walk and they will go after
| someone if they have the evidence. As a small investor I'm
| glad they get at least a few. Insider trading is a kind of
| stealing where the victims don't generally even know they've
| been robbed and at the high end the amounts are large.
| deknos wrote:
| > The feds don't generally indict unless it's a slam dunk.
|
| You do not need to. You can ruin reputation. You can starve
| them in court proceedings and rituals.
| xyst wrote:
| This comment is also unsubstantiated stating "he wasn't doing
| anything that other CEOs weren't doing".
|
| Where's the proof? If this is true, then ask yourself. Why
| the fuck isn't the government [in the 2000s] doing their job?
| Why aren't the people demanding executives be held
| accountable?
|
| 6 years in club fed for a $52M+ profit in insider trading is
| peanuts.
|
| The neoliberal/neoclassical economy we live is wild.
| sejje wrote:
| Aaron wasn't convicted.
| metaphor wrote:
| The complaint[1] by the SEC against Qwest during the dot-com
| bubble...you decide if Nacchio serving "a trumped-up 6-year
| federal prison sentence" was appropriate.
|
| [1]
| https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/comp18936.pd...
| capitainenemo wrote:
| The case against Nacchio is a different one.
| prmph wrote:
| 1. Speeding over the speed limit can be a crime. I haven't ever
| driven in the US and not noticed that pretty much everyone around
| me is over-speeding
|
| 2. Failing to pay tax on certain gifts can be a crime
|
| > You make a gift if you give property (including money), or the
| use of or income from property, without expecting to receive
| something of at least equal value in return. If you sell
| something at less than its full value or if you make an interest-
| free or reduced-interest loan, you may be making a gift. [1]
|
| 3. If you are reading Hacker News on end instead of working for
| your employers who pays you, you could be stealing from them, a
| felony.
|
| 4. Jay-walking can a misdemeanor, and open to interpretation.
| Commit 3 misdemeanors and you could have committed a felony.
|
| 5. More examples come to mind
|
| [1] https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-
| employe...
| atian wrote:
| There is a huge lifetime gift tax exemption.
| nashashmi wrote:
| Traffic rules are not criminal laws. Breaking a traffic rule is
| not a crime. Likewise, reading news at work is not a felony,
| just a lack of discipline and work ethic.
|
| Understand that there are differences between rules, policy,
| regulations, and laws. Work is regulated (rule is on how to do
| things), policy is practiced (rule on how things are treated),
| while laws forbid (rule on what you cannot do).
| rayiner wrote:
| In many states, such as Maryland, traffic laws are criminal
| laws and breaking a traffic law is a misdemeanor criminal
| offense.
| prmph wrote:
| > Breaking a traffic rule is not a crime.
|
| You think over speeding and running a red light and hitting
| someone and potentially killing them is not a crime? Think
| again.
|
| Regarding reading at work, see this comment [1]:
|
| > checking Hacker News from work when you should be working
| is a federal felony, and if not honest services fraud,
| certainly something they could try you with for wire fraud
| (it is financial in that you are billing your employer for
| your time!). Moreover if you check a site for non-work
| purposes which has a note in the ToS which says that unlawful
| use is prohibited, then you have committed felony computer
| trespass (because you "accessed" their servers in excess of
| authorization provided by the ToS in pursuit of criminal or
| tortuous ends).
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5860641
| qingcharles wrote:
| Also:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43745382
| gruez wrote:
| >1. Speeding over the speed limit can be a crime. I haven't
| ever driven in the US and not noticed that pretty much everyone
| around me is over-speeding
|
| Most "over-speeding" isn't a crime, and is only a civil
| infraction. It only becomes a crime when you're absurdly over
| the limit.
|
| > 2. Failing to pay tax on certain gifts can be a crime
|
| Again, it _can_ be a crime, but not for the overwhelming
| majority of people. The gift exemption limit for 2025 is
| $19,000. How many people are getting that much in gifts, but
| don 't have their shit together for a tax lawyer? Moreover
| there's a section for it on your tax returns, so the "I forgot"
| excuse makes as much sense as "forgetting" to file taxes for
| your crypto sales.
|
| >3. If you are reading Hacker News on end instead of working
| for your employers who pays you, you could be stealing from
| them, a felony.
|
| >3. Jay-walking can a misdemeanor, and open to interpretation.
| Commit 3 misdemeanors and you could have committed a felony.
|
| Source on either of them happening in actuality?
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| >> How many people are getting that much in gifts
|
| The giver of the gift should file form 709 and potentially
| pay taxes, not the recipient. Recipient pays nothing.
| gruez wrote:
| >The giver of the gift should file form 709
|
| still, you only have to file if you're gifting above $18k
|
| https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i709
| wrs wrote:
| Despite the name, a gift tax return isn't to pay any tax,
| it's just to deduct the gift from a future (several million
| dollar) estate tax exemption. There's no reason to avoid
| filing one.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| >Most "over-speeding" isn't a crime, and is only a civil
| infraction. It only becomes a crime when you're absurdly over
| the limit.
|
| "Absurdly" is 15-20 depending on state and most highway
| traffic hits that outside of peak hours. The only reason the
| cops don't make a cash cow out of it is because doing so
| would get either the laws or speed limits changed to reflect
| reality.
|
| >Again, it can be a crime, but not for the overwhelming
| majority of people. The gift exemption limit for 2025 is
| $19,000. How many people are getting that much in gifts, but
| don't have their shit together for a tax lawyer? Moreover
| there's a section for it on your tax returns, so the "I
| forgot" excuse makes as much sense as "forgetting" to file
| taxes for your crypto sales.
|
| Trivially easy to move that kind of money or goods/services
| of equivalent value when you have a family business.
|
| >Source on either of them happening in actuality?
|
| The powers that be aren't stupid enough to actually burn that
| capability using it. I have zero doubt they verbally use it
| in negotiations all the time.
| markburns wrote:
| People obeying the speed limit encounter fewer people obeying
| the speed limit than people speeding and vice versa.
|
| My theory: I think this explains why so many drivers hate other
| drivers and think they are bad drivers.
|
| People that love to speed think they are good because they can
| drive faster and react quickly (presumably). They inadvertently
| see more people that don't drive in this style.
|
| People who drive carefully encounter more reckless drivers.
| BoingBoomTschak wrote:
| Driving carefully (resp. recklessly) isn't the same as
| driving under (resp. over) the limits.
|
| I've been pulled by _gendarmes_ who told me "yes, we know
| this limit should be 20 km/h higher" but still fined me.
| Absurd limits targeting the lowest common denominator in
| vehicle/driver reliability or simply because your local mayor
| wants to turn his city into a pedestrian/cyclist paradise by
| making it car hell really aren't rare here.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Nobody cares or even notices all the cars driving normally,
| it's the sub par people everyone notices. I think there's
| some minority of drivers who stopped getting any better once
| they got their license who soak up the hate from everybody.
| If that minority is say 5-10% it's basically guaranteed that
| literally everyone else is inconvenienced by one of them on
| every trip.
| croes wrote:
| Land of the free
| djha-skin wrote:
| It should be remembered that in 2013 all the Edward Snowden stuff
| came out. This reads like a reaction to those revelations. Read
| in that context, it makes more sense: this is less a book review
| and more an accusation. Its portent is that the NSA will do
| anything it needs to to get at your data.
|
| My father served in the military. He does not have a high opinion
| of Edward Snowden. He says that loose lips sink ships. He says
| that these kinds of leaks cause soldiers to die.
|
| I have no patience for men who cause soldiers to die, but after
| that experience I do remain skeptical of the NSA and NIST.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| What did the soldiers fighting in the wars die for if the
| government becomes a totalitarian surveillance cesspool anyway?
| The sacrifice means nothing if we become what they were
| fighting.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| Soldiers fighting totalitarian surveillance cesspool would be
| like state fighting itself.
| snypher wrote:
| >I have no patience for men who cause soldiers to die
|
| I'll remember this when I next think of when we spent twenty
| years sending our kids to die in the sandbox.
| robocat wrote:
| You are responding with a grey comment to a black & white
| statement (metaphorically).
|
| Different thinking styles.
| djha-skin wrote:
| I understand your statement and it has merit. However, I note
| the draft has not been active since the 70s. Those men all
| volunteered to serve their country. They believed in what
| they were doing, and so did I.
|
| Yes, some volunteered to get out of poverty, bad
| circumstances, etc., but that doesn't mean it was the only
| route out. They chose to be there.
|
| My uncle was in a bad situation, married early and had no
| money or degree. He joined the army and served in Desert
| Storm. He chose to be there. I was proud of him.
|
| I didn't join because at the time I graduated high school
| (2005), they weren't taking people who took Adderall for ADHD
| ("daily psycoactive drug" or some such nonsense). It
| disqualified me from military service. That's what the
| recruiter told me anyway. But I would have been proud to
| serve.
|
| I believe we did good in Afghanistan, fool's errand though it
| was. I believe a lot of lives were touched good. An entire
| generation of girls who would otherwise not have an
| education, for one. I was devastated when things didn't work
| out.
|
| For this reason, I get annoyed when people say "we sent our
| kids to die".
| ty6853 wrote:
| Meanwhile military recruiters were coming to high schools
| grooming underage kids to sign up for the war. The strong
| underlying tone was "you're poor let us fix it."
|
| If the local strip club came by and into the local school
| playing up the strip club to 16 years olds and asking them
| to come work the day they were 18 you all know we'd be
| appalled.
|
| Everyone knows what they're doing. They bait kids and then
| get them to sign up to die.
| bartread wrote:
| I can sort of buy it but, honestly, this argument would be a lot
| more convincing with more concrete examples that are relateable
| to ordinary people. Some CEO getting busted for insider trading
| is not "ordinary people".
|
| There's nothing in there that backs up this assertion: "The
| average professional in this country wakes up in the morning,
| goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep,
| unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal
| crimes that day."
|
| Like I say, I could buy it, but I need more concrete evidence -
| with examples - and less hyperbole, please.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| I asked if I could pay cash for an MRI rather than wait for
| insurance approval just to speed up the process of booking. I
| offered to manually file a reimbursement later if it was approved
| or pay cash if it wasn't.
|
| Apparently, in the United States that is considered insurance
| fraud or something, whereas when I lived in Luxembourg that is
| how the system worked. I don't even understand what world we have
| constructed in the US.
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| Keep in mind that the facility is likely making an error. But
| you won't convince them of that if any of the staff suspects
| anything could be perceived as fraudulent (even if it's not) -
| they'll just avoid the risk.
| _dark_matter_ wrote:
| Idk what happened on their end, but someone close to me was
| recently diagnosed with cancer. After the biopsy came out
| positive, they wanted to do a pet scan, but had to wait for
| approval from insurance (which apparently could take several
| weeks). I offered the same as you, and they agreed and did the
| pet scan within days.
| wrs wrote:
| That sounds like it might be the staff just being uninformed
| because nobody has ever wanted to do that before.
|
| But a likely _practical_ problem with that plan is that the
| cash price is unrelated to the price the insurance company has
| negotiated with the facility, and the negotiated price is a
| secret, so if you pay the cash price you won't be reimbursed
| for the amount you paid. You'd need to get them to agree to
| refund the difference if insurance approved later.
|
| For imaging in particular, there are some facilities that can
| handle direct payment rather than expecting everything to be
| paid by insurance. Maybe look for one of those if this comes up
| again.
|
| Yes, this is very messed up. Welcome to the USA!
| gizmo686 wrote:
| Are the negotiated prices secret? I've never had a major
| hospital visit. But every time insurance has covered
| something for me, I could look on my account claims and see
| both the official price, and the negotiated price.
|
| I also had an "amusing" experience with my dental insurance,
| where my provider went out of network, and I didn't know
| until I was in the chair (at which point I was at least asked
| before they proceeded). When I went to pay, they gave me a
| bill that listed only something to the effect of "anticipated
| insurance payment", which is what I was charged. They also
| filed an insurance claim on my behalf, which was eventually
| reimbursed fully. However, when I got the reimbursement
| notice from my insurer, it list a cash price about 50% higher
| than what I paid, which my insurance company was able to
| negotiate down for me.
| cameron_b wrote:
| Unless you actually spoke with someone on the legal side in
| billing, the assumption passed through hospital systems is to
| stay way away from things which could possibly be seen as
| fraud, quid pro quo, kickbacks, or any host of financial crimes
| that are unusual. The staff are taught "You are not a lawyer,
| let us handle that, here is your playbook" and not to deviate
| from that.
|
| That disposition of bracing against legal wrangling underscores
| most of the annoying parts of healthcare, especially the cost.
|
| -I work in a hospital system's technical department.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| That's not insurance fraud, that's (one way) insurance works,
| so I'm not sure who told you this was fraud or why. If you pay
| in cash, then submit a claim, your insurance company can very
| well deny you, but as long as you weren't reimbursed through
| some other process, there is no fraud.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| I had an MRI last week. Cost me EUR35. Though if you miss the
| appointment, or fail to pick up the results, the penalty is
| EUR215. Me...doctor...hospital. No other parties involved.
| Especially not an insurance company - but those do exist, if
| you wish. What, indeed, have you constructed in the US?
| fastaguy88 wrote:
| Not a lawyer, but there are a lot of crimes that are not
| felonies. Speeding 10 mph above the limit in a 65 mph zone - not
| a felony. Reading hacker news for an hour during work time and
| not being paid $800/hr - not a felony. Calling in sick when you
| are hung over - not a felony. There is no federal tax on gifts
| for the giftee. Indeed, I suspect there are a surprising number
| of crimes that could get you jail time that are not felonies.
| Insider trading - it's a felony, which is why people in companies
| with insider trading information are told they cannot trade at
| certain times.
|
| I'm pretty comfortable believing I have probably not committed
| more than two or three felonies in my life. (Don't want to find
| out I am wrong.)
| titanomachy wrote:
| Those are not crimes either, though.
| gruez wrote:
| The claim is specifically three "felonies" a day, though.
| everforward wrote:
| How much of that is them being categorically not a felony and
| how much is prosecutorial discretion? 15 over probably
| qualifies for a reckless operation charge of some kind.
| Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if a fake sick day is wire
| fraud even if it never actually gets charged that way.
|
| I would believe you've only committed two or three "name-brand"
| felonies, I'd be surprised if it were really that few under a
| maximally scoped prosecutor. Never borrowed antibiotics or a
| painkiller from a friend? Never decided it wasn't worth the
| effort to file a tax document for $3 of dividends?
|
| 3 a day feels high, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were
| double digits a year under an incredibly strict reading of the
| laws for the average person.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Parallel construction seems to be the more leveraged government
| tool these days.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
| antiquark wrote:
| Reminded me of the youtube vid, "Don't Talk to the Police" [1].
| One of the speaker's points is that there are so many laws that
| people might not know which law they broke.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
| kazinator wrote:
| There is a Russian adage about it. Evidently this:
|
| "Byl by chelovek, a stat'ia naidetsia" (Byl by chelovyek, a
| statya naydyot sa.)
|
| "Where there is a man, there is an article" (of law he's breaking
| that could be used to convict him).
| wcfrobert wrote:
| - Not reporting large cash transactions (over $10,000)
|
| - Using someone else's ID can be interpreted as identity theft
| (sharing student ID discount, Costco cards, epic passes)
|
| - torrenting copyrighted content (textbooks, music, movies, TV
| shows, audio books). I'm sure most of my classmates in school
| torrented some of those $200 textbooks.
| gruez wrote:
| >- Not reporting large cash transactions (over $10,000)
|
| If you're talking about Currency Transaction Report, only
| financial institutions have to file those.
|
| >- Using someone else's ID can be interpreted as identity theft
| (sharing student ID discount, Costco cards, epic passes)
|
| Is "identity theft" actually a distinct crime? Or is it just
| fraud? If it's the latter, it's not a felony unless you're
| getting absurdly high amounts of benefit.
|
| >- torrenting copyrighted content (textbooks, music, movies, TV
| shows, audio books). I'm sure most if not all of my classmates
| in school torrented some of those $200 textbooks.
|
| Copyright infringement is a civil infraction unless you're
| doing it commercially (eg. burning bootleg DVDs to sell)
| wcfrobert wrote:
| I was thinking form 8300.
|
| Could seeding a torrent be interpreted as distribution?
|
| You're right most of these would result in a slap on the
| wrist or fines. Perhaps 3 misdemeanors a day? But I think the
| overall sentiment still stands - that it's hard to be a
| saint.
| gruez wrote:
| >I was thinking form 8300.
|
| It's only criminal for "willful" infractions. If you sold a
| car and forgot to file, that's probably not willful.
| Moreover, how often are people really doing >$10k cash
| transactions? "it's hard to be a saint" is a massive
| shifting of the goalposts from "3 felonies per day".
|
| https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-
| employe...
|
| >Could seeding a torrent be interpreted as distribution?
|
| From wikipedia: United States v. LaMacchia 871 F.Supp. 535
| (1994) was a case decided by the United States District
| Court for the District of Massachusetts which ruled that,
| under the copyright and cybercrime laws effective at the
| time, committing copyright infringement for non-commercial
| motives could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright
| law.
| pixl97 wrote:
| "Willful" is one of those things highly dependent on
| whoever may be prosecuting you. If you have from some
| disliked class then the state is going to push very hard
| on you doing it willfully.
| qingcharles wrote:
| I was in jail with tons of people with identity theft
| indictments. In Illinois it is absolutely a separate crime
| with a whole list of ways you can easily commit it.
| kazinator wrote:
| I feel you are mixing something up here. Assume that the
| student ID discount or Costco card, etc, are being borrowed:
| used with the card holder's blessing. Or borrowing a Netflix
| password.
|
| It is the institution giving the student ID discount, or Costco
| or Netflix, who are not happy about it, and call it theft.
|
| But it is not theft of the identity.
| kazinator wrote:
| > I'm sure most of my classmates in school torrented some of
| those $200 textbooks.
|
| That is so 2020. Today, AI pirates the textbooks; the student
| just generate the homework.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| To be blunt, I think this blog post highlights everything that's
| wrong with Internet discourse today (and in 2013) :
|
| 1. First, make a bold assertion (i.e. that an average person
| commits three felonies a day) and provide absolutely _zero_
| evidence for this, or even an example of what those felonies are.
| Sure, this blog post references a book that I 'm assuming has
| more info, but given that "vague, overbroad laws" are the central
| thesis of this blog post, the author should at least give some
| examples or evidence of what he's referring to. "Lie with
| citations", where you make a claim, and with a referenced link,
| but that link only has a tangential relationship with your claim,
| is all too common online.
|
| 2. The post brings up the example of Joseph P Nacchio's
| prosecution with a telling that is clearly one-sided and doesn't
| even entertain the possibility that he committed serious crimes.
| I absolutely believe it was possible he was prosecuted for his
| decision to push back against the NSA, but I'm certainly not
| going to believe it from this blog post. The Wikipedia article on
| Joseph Nacchio states "Nacchio claimed that he was not in a
| rightful state of mind when he sold his shares because of
| problems with his son, and the imminent announcement of a number
| of government contracts." So it seems clear to me he at least
| admitted that some of his stock sales were improper.
|
| What I think is even more assinine is that the one single
| example, a CEO who was prosecuted for insider trading, absolutely
| does _not_ support the assertion that the average person commits
| 3 felonies a day, or that laws are overbroad. I 'm quite sure
| I've never made any equity transactions that could be considered
| insider trading, so my empathy for this situation is low.
| woleium wrote:
| When i read these sorts of articles i often wonder which "think
| tank" (i.e. corporate interest) paid for it.
| qingcharles wrote:
| In Illinois (and probably other states) it is illegal to violate
| the T&Cs of a web site: 720 ILCS 5/17-51 Computer
| tampering. (a) A person commits computer tampering when he
| or she knowingly and without the authorization of a computer's
| owner or in excess of the authority granted to him or her:
| (1) Accesses or causes to be accessed a computer or any part
| thereof, a computer network, or a program or data; (a-10)
| For purposes of subsection (a), accessing a computer network is
| deemed to be with the authorization of a computer's owner if:
| (2) the owner authorizes the public to access the computer
| network and the person accessing the computer network complies
| with all terms or conditions for use of the computer network that
| are imposed by the owner;
| Aloisius wrote:
| (a)(1) is a misdemeanor, not a felony.
| bombcar wrote:
| Three felonies a day? Rookie numbers.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-20 23:01 UTC)