alt.hn

4/20/2025 at 10:23:58 AM

Three Felonies a Day (2013)

 https://kottke.org/13/06/you-commit-three-felonies-a-day

by zekrioca

4/20/2025 at 4:28:25 PM

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.

by hn_throwaway_99

4/20/2025 at 5:46:26 PM

When i read these sorts of articles i often wonder which “think tank” (i.e. corporate interest) paid for it.

by woleium

4/20/2025 at 3:00:15 PM

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.

by ericyd

4/20/2025 at 3:08:17 PM

According to this review the book never backs up its claim: https://www.econlib.org/three-felonies-a-day/

by armada651

4/20/2025 at 4:32:03 PM

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

by nativeit

4/20/2025 at 5:27:50 PM

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.

by hn_throwaway_99

4/20/2025 at 5:02:32 PM

>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.

by gruez

4/20/2025 at 4:21:16 PM

At the same time, that review concedes he “would bet the number is more like three felonies a month.” That seems sufficient for abuse.

by fny

4/20/2025 at 3:44:20 PM

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...

by prmph

4/20/2025 at 4:07:59 PM

>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?

by gruez

4/20/2025 at 10:30:54 PM

>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.

by potato3732842

4/21/2025 at 4:17:38 AM

> Trivially easy to move that kind of money or goods/services of equivalent value when you have a family business.

And then you should register the gift; it's not hard when filing your taxes. Importantly, the gift exclusion limit is not $19k total, it's $19k per recipient, per year (indeed, a common estate planning technique for rich people is to give away the annual max to loads of their heirs every year). And if you're over the $19k limit, you don't even have any taxes to pay, it just reduces your estate tax exemption amount.

by hn_throwaway_99

4/20/2025 at 4:14:19 PM

>> 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.

by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK

4/21/2025 at 9:11:41 PM

>It only becomes a crime when you're absurdly over the limit.

I vividly remember my confusion learning about how many states in the US use an absolute value to turn speeding violation into a criminal charge, and namely Virginia which just a few years ago had that value set to 80mph (~130kmh) - a state with lots of interstate traffic and I-95 speed limit set to 70 mph (~115kmh).

And I could understand a predatory scheme set up by the government to generate revenue - set speed limit low, make fines really high. But in this case it's not clear to me what the state is gaining - throwing someone in jail for a weekend and labeling that person a criminal ruins their life for good but there's almost no profit for the treasury.

by robben1234

4/20/2025 at 4:24:35 PM

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.

by wrs

4/20/2025 at 4:28:46 PM

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.

by markburns

4/20/2025 at 7:28:12 PM

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.

by BoingBoomTschak

4/20/2025 at 10:38:54 PM

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.

by potato3732842

4/20/2025 at 4:03:23 PM

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).

by nashashmi

4/20/2025 at 4:20:55 PM

In many states, such as Maryland, traffic laws are criminal laws and breaking a traffic law is a misdemeanor criminal offense.

by rayiner

4/20/2025 at 5:05:59 PM

> 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

by prmph

4/20/2025 at 4:01:00 PM

There is a huge lifetime gift tax exemption.

by atian

4/20/2025 at 3:57:25 PM

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.

by hermannj314

4/20/2025 at 4:02:32 PM

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.

by _dark_matter_

4/20/2025 at 4:00:22 PM

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.

by jagged-chisel

4/20/2025 at 5:32:51 PM

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.

by hn_throwaway_99

4/20/2025 at 6:09:06 PM

I had an MRI last week. Cost me €35. Though if you miss the appointment, or fail to pick up the results, the penalty is €215. 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?

by Ylpertnodi

4/20/2025 at 4:20:44 PM

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!

by wrs

4/20/2025 at 4:50:20 PM

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.

by gizmo686

4/22/2025 at 6:23:38 PM

Yes, they are secret (otherwise it wouldn’t be a very good negotiation!). You will eventually see some form of the negotiated price for your insurance on the bill, but you won’t see the rebates and so forth that are in the broader contract, so that isn’t equivalent to a cash price. Also, you will probably not be able to see what the price is until it is actually submitted and covered.

by wrs

4/20/2025 at 5:03:58 PM

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.

by cameron_b

4/20/2025 at 4:02:23 PM

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.)

by fastaguy88

4/20/2025 at 4:27:12 PM

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.

by everforward

4/20/2025 at 4:10:07 PM

Those are not crimes either, though.

by titanomachy

4/20/2025 at 4:19:22 PM

The claim is specifically three "felonies" a day, though.

by gruez

4/20/2025 at 3:46:49 PM

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.

by djha-skin

4/20/2025 at 3:57:32 PM

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.

by Mistletoe

4/20/2025 at 4:36:21 PM

Soldiers fighting totalitarian surveillance cesspool would be like state fighting itself.

by GoblinSlayer

4/20/2025 at 4:10:23 PM

>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.

by snypher

4/20/2025 at 5:54:03 PM

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".

by djha-skin

4/20/2025 at 8:54:38 PM

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.

by ty6853

4/21/2025 at 3:04:20 AM

How do you feel about Iraq?

by amanaplanacanal

4/20/2025 at 4:57:54 PM

You are responding with a grey comment to a black & white statement (metaphorically).

Different thinking styles.

by robocat

4/20/2025 at 4:17:04 PM

There is a Russian adage about it. Evidently this:

"Был бы человек, а статья найдется" (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).

by kazinator

4/21/2025 at 12:05:53 PM

I am American who studied Russian for two years now. Maybe I don’t know anything but I would translate человек as “person” not “man” as I don’t think that it’s masculine gendered word implies it’s man since anyone is человек. But again I could be wrong and I am still learning so feel free to explain why I’m wrong.

by mnky9800n

4/21/2025 at 6:16:32 PM

Classic proverbs in English do not use "person". They use "man". "man" is the word that was used for "person" well into the 20th century, before political correctness took over speech and writing. For instance, the opening narrative for the original Star Trek TV sci-fi series starring William Shattner and Leonard Nimoy uses the words "to boldly go where no man has gone before".

If I were to make a literal translation, it would require the word "find" used in a reflexive/passive tense something like "given a person, an article can be found".

I made the translation fit a proverbial pattern, similar "where there is smoke, there is fire".

Also note that "chelovyek", though not denoting a male, is still a masculine word! A chlovyek's pronouns are "he/him". The cognate of that word in other Slavic languages, likewise masculine.

There are also precedents, like the title of Alexandr Men's book Syn Chelovecheskiy being translated to English as Son of Man.

by kazinator

4/20/2025 at 6:08:23 PM

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;

by qingcharles

4/20/2025 at 7:48:26 PM

(a)(1) is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

by Aloisius

4/21/2025 at 2:48:45 AM

Felony for multiple violations.

by qingcharles

4/21/2025 at 4:08:04 AM

It doesn't look like it is:

> (b)(1) A person who commits computer tampering as set forth in subdivision (a)(1) or (a)(5) or subsection (a-5) of this Section is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.

Repeat offenses for (a)(2) is a felony though. And (a)(3) and (a)(4) are felonies.

by Aloisius

4/21/2025 at 9:55:08 PM

A government that grows too large has to find things to do, and most often those things to do take away your freedoms. A government that is tasked with "solving a problem" most often solves that problem in a way that infringes on your rights.

Be very wary of big government and politicians who promise to miraculously solve all of your problems despite heading up a government that mostly poorly solves the problems it already has.

by silexia

4/20/2025 at 4:06:22 PM

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

by antiquark

4/20/2025 at 4:23:48 PM

- 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.

by wcfrobert

4/20/2025 at 4:26:52 PM

>- 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)

by gruez

4/20/2025 at 6:14:27 PM

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.

by qingcharles

4/20/2025 at 4:38:37 PM

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.

by wcfrobert

4/20/2025 at 4:51:47 PM

>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.

by gruez

4/20/2025 at 8:19:20 PM

"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.

by pixl97

4/20/2025 at 4:32:37 PM

> 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.

by kazinator

4/20/2025 at 4:31:43 PM

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.

by kazinator

4/20/2025 at 3:18:57 PM

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...

by xyst

4/20/2025 at 3:22:37 PM

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.

by Asooka

4/20/2025 at 3:29:54 PM

>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.

by gruez

4/20/2025 at 3:42:32 PM

And also the implicit claim that this is fine and normal and that insider trading laws shouldn’t be enforced against CEOs?

by dullcrisp

4/20/2025 at 4:23:15 PM

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).

by tavavex

4/20/2025 at 4:53:12 PM

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.”

by dullcrisp

4/20/2025 at 5:00:49 PM

Isn't this type of situation what blind trusts are supposed to be for? Although they'd obviously be inconvenient.

by jlund-molfese

4/20/2025 at 4:44:17 PM

>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?

by gruez

4/20/2025 at 3:27:21 PM

> 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.

by ecb_penguin

4/20/2025 at 5:04:15 PM

> 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.

by deknos

4/21/2025 at 12:42:28 AM

> Citation needed

That's not how things work.... It's also a weird way to have a conversation or discussion.

I can't prove a negative that millions of people didn't do something.

> At some point at some position you will be ALWAYS vulnerable.

It costs $50 to become a CEO. It does not make you vulnerable nor likely to commit federal crimes.

by ecb_penguin

4/20/2025 at 3:34:41 PM

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.

by vajrabum

4/20/2025 at 5:11:30 PM

> 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.

by deknos

4/20/2025 at 6:45:03 PM

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.

by xyst

4/20/2025 at 3:24:59 PM

Aaron wasn't convicted.

by sejje

4/20/2025 at 3:00:12 PM

> If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide

Ok but in not hiding anything, we all apparently do a lot "wrong."

by ralusek

4/20/2025 at 3:30:36 PM

“Only those who do nothing make no mistakes”.

by rad_gruchalski

4/20/2025 at 6:17:34 PM

Absolutely. I have a flawless record.

by Toorkit

4/20/2025 at 4:03:49 PM

Inaction can be a mistake, too. :P

by johnisgood

4/20/2025 at 3:52:00 PM

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.

by bartread

4/20/2025 at 3:17:01 PM

“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.”

by zellyn

4/20/2025 at 2:59:05 PM

I would love some examples for other occupations.

by ashton314

4/20/2025 at 3:51:17 PM

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.

by AyyEye

4/20/2025 at 3:36:31 PM

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...

by metaphor

4/20/2025 at 3:54:56 PM

The case against Nacchio is a different one.

by capitainenemo

4/21/2025 at 3:45:11 PM

I've read 3 felonies a day. The title is pure bullshit. The book is mostly about the feds targeting mob lawyers for being mob lawyers. Maybe a mob lawyer really does typically commit 3 felonies a day.

by gweinberg

4/20/2025 at 3:46:09 PM

Land of the free

by croes

4/21/2025 at 12:07:31 PM

Whoever told you that is your enemy

by mnky9800n

4/20/2025 at 10:55:33 PM

Three felonies a day? Rookie numbers.

by bombcar

4/20/2025 at 4:01:17 PM

[flagged]

by thrpdfmkr