
You commit three felonies a day - danso
http://kottke.org/13/06/you-commit-three-felonies-a-day
======
gambiting
As a person coming from a former soviet republic, I am very familiar with the
saying "show me a man, and I will show you the crime he is guilty of" \- which
basically meant that if KGB wanted to charge you with something, they always
could find a paragraph for you, because there were so many and so vaguely
defined. As an outsider, to me it seems that the USA is not a "free" country
and I honestly don't see any difference between what the US and Russian
governments are doing to journalists and people who disagree with them.

Edit: Oh, and we already had massive surveillance back then. If you wanted to
travel out of your town - you had to register that fact with the nearest
police department. Wanted to travel abroad - had to apply for a passport,
which was only issued for a strict number of days and had to be returned upon
return. If you were placing a phone call, it would always start with a warning
"This call is being monitored. This call is being monitored". The post office
would open your parcels and letters. There was book censorship on a massive
scale. What the US government is doing has already happened. "Those who don't
remember history are bound to live through it again".

~~~
jasallen
"US...are doing to journalists"

The US government, _still_ maintains a pretty strong protection of
journalists. They will go after the leakers themselves, but rarely even
attempt to make a journalist reveal a source, let alone prosecute the
journalist directly for revealing secret information.

In fact, I say _still_ , but this tendency has actually grown stronger over
the last 50 years. It has, in my not-very-researched-opinion, grown stronger
due to public pressures and effective civil disobedience. So, that heartens
me. All governments screw-up, but some are screw _ed_ -up, I still don't think
the US is one of the screwed-up - relative to the rest of the world and
history - a LOT I wish they would do better.

~~~
zero_intp
Recent DOJ opinion (that a court gave warrant for) that an AP author was party
to a crime while (/because of) trying to avoid surveillance.

~~~
pmiller2
I'm not familiar with this opinion. Do you have a source?

~~~
notaddicted
I think parent^ poster was referring to this:

[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/700577-051413-letter...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/700577-051413-letter-
to-g-pruitt.html)

A reporter was being investigated for having access to classified information,
and the toll records (what number called or was called, and for how long the
call lasted) were subpoenaed.

[Via [http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/14/4331108/attorney-
general-d...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/14/4331108/attorney-general-
defends-surveillance-of-ap-reporter-phone-calls) ]

------
Uchikoma
From Atlas Shrugged:

“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr.
Ferris. “We want them broken. [...] There’s no way to rule innocent men. The
only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well,
when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many
things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without
breaking laws.”

~~~
ubernostrum
Since posting this quote is apparently now a thing that happens in practically
every HN thread, I will take the opportunity to repost this reply:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5708196](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5708196)

~~~
Uchikoma
Not sure what your rant against Rand has to to with the quote in this context?
Whenever someone uses "alea iacta est" to make a point, it's usually not the
case to discuss Julius Caesar.

------
ck2
And the felony history never goes away now.

Just think, a child who gets their first smartphone today, will have their
entire phone history recorded until death. Their geolocation saved. Their
email saved. All their financial transactions. All their friends and family
will be known. Every intercontact in society. Where they shop, eat, etc. Who
they date.

I mean why would the NSA ever delete it? They can just get taxpayers to fund
more and more storage.

I am also starting to wonder about the new requirement to digitize all medical
records and how many contractors will have access to that as well and when all
the databases will be allowed to intersect in the name of "security".

But I suspect the NSA doesn't know how many guns you own. That alone is
somehow seen as a violation of your rights.

~~~
300bps
I work with a Muslim from Yemen at an investment bank. He's as American as
anyone I know but be recently got a gun permit and got a visit from the FBI
about a week later. They wanted to know if he felt threatened, if there were
problems at his Mosque, why he wanted a gun, if there was anyone at his Mosque
who used hate speech, etc.

Something tells me he government knows if you have a gun.

~~~
ck2
Hmm, well "muslim" isn't a nationality, it's a religion almost as big as
christianity. is he an American citizen?

Because otherwise that is profiling. They don't show up and ask others if
there is any problems at their church or anyone using hate speech about the
government at the church.

~~~
menubar
almost as big?

check your data.

~~~
kahirsch
[http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html](http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)

~~~
grn
That link says that Christianity is 40% larger than Islam, so it _is_
significantly larger.

------
knotty66
"If you would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I
would find something in them to have him hanged."

~~~
ex_ex_nihilo
Cardinal Richelieu, if I'm not mistaken.

~~~
Perceval
Attributed to, but disputed in its authenticity.

------
trustfundbaby
Anyone who's had their company try to get rid of them is keenly aware of this
on a micro scale.

Its amazing how many weird rules and regulations you can suddenly find
yourself afoul of once somebody high up enough has it in for you ...
apparently this is true on a macro level (country/government) too.

------
ccera
I read that book when it came out. The title is sensationalist garbage -- the
book shows how some people get snared by some fairly stupid federal laws and
have their lives messed up by willfully malicious prosecution, which isn't
good, of course, but nowhere does the author demonstrate how an average person
commits three felonies in a YEAR, or in a LIFETIME, let alone in a day.

~~~
genwin
Have you ever not paid sales tax to your state, on an item you purchased tax-
free online? That's felony tax evasion when the amount is high enough; varies
by state.

~~~
aidenn0
Slight nit-pick; you need to pay use tax, not sales tax. Sales tax would be an
illegal state regulation of interstate commerce.

------
kolinko
There was a soviet saying - "Give me a person, I'll find you an article/a
paragraph". Meaning - for any person, finding a law that the person breaks is
just a matter of time and resources.

It's interesting to see Americans discover this...

~~~
mpyne
It's not new to Americans either, despite how stupid we're considered by the
rest of the world. There's been news articles noting the same issues with the
complexity of the legal code since even before 9/11.

Any student of the law has undoubtedly been aware for decades prior, when they
had to research volume after volume of legal decisions and statutory code to
establish what precedent (if any) to use in helping decide a later case, and
what laws (if any) applied.

------
kyllo
I'm not so convinced Nacchio is an innocent victim. And I also find it rich
that a former telecom CEO guilty of numerous financial crimes is being held up
as an example of targeted political persecution using frivolous laws. Insider
trading is not the type of crime you commit unknowingly. Has anyone even
refuted his guilt convincingly? That is a serious crime and also one with a
clear paper trail. If he did it, there would have been no need to frame him
for defying the NSA; the SEC would have got him soon enough anyway.

~~~
moron4hire
Insider trading is only a crime when people want to find you guilty of a
crime. That's why congresscritters are not prosecutable for insider trading.
Insider trading is the entire point of trading, you wouldn't make any money if
everyone had the same information.

~~~
kyllo
Perhaps those with the right type of political power/influence are able to
shield their trading activity from SEC scrutiny. But trying to use this guy as
an example of the "You commit three felonies a day" argument? Really?

Do we all commit three felonies a day unknowingly? Maybe. But the suggestion
that tens of millions of dollars in insider trading falls into that category,
is flat-out demented.

~~~
moron4hire
No, you're missing the point. It's not about obscuring anything from SEC
scrutiny. The SEC sees everything that is going on. You don't even have to
have used insider knowledge to be tagged with insider trading; the SEC says
that it's enough to have had access to insider information to be guilty of
insider trading. It does nothing about it because it would render Wall Street
moot. Insider trading is so vaguely defined and broadly applied that it is a
rule meant to be broken so they have something to blackmail you over when they
decide they want to shove you around over something else.

------
molf
So what are those three felonies?

~~~
einhverfr
Silverglate talks about a number of cases, some of which have been addressed
either before the book was written or after, but the overall problem is still
out there.

For example, see the honest services fraud charges against Jeff Skilling (of
Enron fame), on the idea that anything dishonest any corporate executive might
do would be depriving the corporation of honest services. Now the Supreme
Court reversed Skilling's conviction on the grounds that this was just too
vague and that honest services fraud was limited to kickback schemes and the
like.

However consider many more:

Lori Drew was prosecuted for unauthorized access to computer servers for
violating the terms of service of MySpace (iirc). The subsequent directed
verdict of acquittal (after the jury convicted) however did not really
eliminate the possibility of ToS violations turning into federal felonies.
This was not covered in the book but it is worth noting.

Many of the examples in the books are profession-related. Silverglate goes
into detail on the Hurwitz narcotics case where a doctor who operated in line
with emerging best practices for chronic pain management was tried and
convicted of drug trafficking on the grounds that he had statistical knowledge
of the likelihood that at patients might resell the drugs on the street.
Hurwitz's conviction was later vacated, but they tried him and convicted him
again of a smaller set of charges.

He goes also into medical billing disputes (I have family members who have
been on the losing side of these regarding the government and can attest that
these are still significant issues).

Another case he does not cover is the Joe Naccio case (covered in the link).

Another case he does not cover was that of my mother's uncle, who they accused
of purjury for claiming never to have been a Communist, when their evidence of
his lying was that he was legally representing the Communist Party USA and
others as a lawyer. They lost that case but came back one tax issue after
another until they found something to stick.

There are cases after cases to those of us who follow these things. It is a
systemic problem.

Keep in mind that under some of these theories of law, 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).

TL;DR: What felonies you commit are unimportant. If they want to, they will
find something.

~~~
Kiro
No, I want to know what felonies I commit.

~~~
taoufix
Maybe one of these:

* Illegal downloads.

* Forwarding a corporate email.

* Some weird term of service in one of the dozen "I read and accept these terms" check-boxes you clicked.

~~~
tptacek
How would "forwarding a corporate email" be charged as a felony?

------
rmc
Sometimes I get a whiff of nostalgia from posts like this. As if everything
was great back in the good old days, where the police weren't able to hassle
you, when laws were fair and simple.

Of course that was only if you were a white anglo cis straight christian.
Anyone who didn't fit that was able to be prosecuted/killed/oppressed/jailed.
But if we pretend those people don't exist, then everything was great in the
past.

~~~
coldtea
> _Sometimes I get a whiff of nostalgia from posts like this. As if everything
> was great back in the good old days, where the police weren 't able to
> hassle you, when laws were fair and simple._

People keep repeating this reasoning. I can't understand why.

"Everything" doesn't have to have been "better in the old days", and nobody,
except strawmen, argue that.

But SOME aspects of the old days, e.g pertaining to LESS fucking SURVEILLANCE,
were. That's enough to be angry about and want to reverse course on that
particular front.

> _Of course that was only if you were a white anglo cis straight christian._

Which is totally beside the point.

Did somebody argue here that slavery was good? No, people just argue that
modern surveillance (and legal-code-overload) is bad.

Not to mention that surveillance today is bad for everyone: "white anglo cis
straight christians", homosexuals, blacks, and what have you.

We should not mix up orthogonal issues.

~~~
justin66
> But SOME aspects of the old days, e.g pertaining to LESS fucking
> SURVEILLANCE, were. That's enough to be angry about and want to reverse
> course on that particular front.

> Did somebody argue here that slavery was good? No, people just argue that
> modern surveillance (and legal-code-overload) is bad.

Which is true but a little myopic. Until the Warren court decided that
wiretapping required a warrant, law enforcement could surveil your
communications at any time for any reason. For the individual the legal
situation is much better now, in spite of the obvious erosions of protection
and regressions, than they were "back in the day."

~~~
coldtea
> _Which is true but a little myopic. Until the Warren court decided that
> wiretapping required a warrant, law enforcement could surveil your
> communications at any time for any reason._

Only they couldn't do 1/100 of what they can now. Even wiretapping a single
person required a few days work, people listening, unwieldy tape machines to
record and replay it, etc. No AVR with stop words, not automatic routing, no
DSP etc.

Not to mention that people didn't share 1/100 of what they do now over then
snail mail and telephone.

Pragmatically, logistically, and by the norms of the era, only few people were
eavesdropped on. Communists, politicians, industrialists, journalists, etc.
Now it's everybody.

> _For the individual the legal situation is much better now, in spite of the
> obvious erosions of protection and regressions, than they were "back in the
> day."_

How is it better? The individual can be crashed now under the Patriot Act,
various child porn laws, and whatever they can come up with. That a few laws
also pay lip service to individual privacy I wouldn't count much on.

~~~
justin66
> Only they couldn't do 1/100 of what they can now.

Again, true but rather beside the point. I want the limits on intrusive
government power to be constitutional, not technological.

> How is it better?

There's a lot that can be said about this, but short answer: a lot of the
things they're doing are (thanks to the Warren court era's findings regarding
civil liberties which I mentioned) actually unconstitutional under the law.
There's a reason why they keep these programs so secret and it's not that they
don't want "the terrorists" to know that we can listen to their phone
conversations. It's because they know they are, to be generous, pushing the
envelope of what is legal.

I see a lot of hopelessness regarding these topics right now but there
shouldn't be. If people keep shining light on these secret programs, there
will be reform.

------
ck2
By the way you can start to read the book here:

[http://books.google.com/books?id=9Au2t9ZOtnAC&printsec=front...](http://books.google.com/books?id=9Au2t9ZOtnAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Or find it in your local library:

[http://www.worldcat.org/title/three-felonies-a-day-how-
the-f...](http://www.worldcat.org/title/three-felonies-a-day-how-the-feds-
target-the-innocent)

------
diminoten
Not new, such has been the case for most of human history.

An honest man is most able to live in the US without being harassed or
condemned, more so than at any other time in history.

I'm not saying we're done, or that it can't still be bad because it's better
than it was, but it's worth remembering that this isn't a solved problem that
we're just "too stupid/lazy/greedy/corrupt" to fix. I'd even go so far as to
argue that it's human nature to build governments where this is true, and it
will never _not_ be true.

A critical part of our justice system is the discretion of those who enforce,
legislate, and interpret our laws. You can't pretend like laws exist outside
of human (read: flawed) implementation, and I feel that this is more severely
perpetrated by those in STEM fields because they're used to the rigor that
comes with such disciplines whereas the law is a fluid and changing beast.

------
nutate
Compared to the 300 things I could get sued for daily, I think I'm probably
doing just fine odds wise.

------
meerita
A state that monitors without limits is dangerous for several reasons. Mainly
because those who watch may or may not alter its ethics, for example, for
personal gain. Someone with access to data can fuck another. A typical example
would be a company, which is surveilled and they know all their movements,
communications, contracts and any possible information that a government can
sell to competitors or people who pay for this information.

Amen to these problems will also be those, as noted in this article, the issue
of being "possible guilty" all the time is just plainly sick.

------
guyal
Other than refusing to consent to letting the NSA wiretap your customers, what
'innocent' actions can be viewed as felonies? I didn't see any specific
examples which applied to everyday life in the article.

------
emmelaich
See also

Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime

[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713)

------
ape4
Many people have software that isn't totally licensed.

------
brianberns
So what are the three felonies a day that I supposedly commit? Article is
quite short on details.

------
saraid216
...while I don't find this implausible, must the only provided example be a
CEO?

------
gasull
This is why "nothing to hide" argument is wrong.

------
chunkyslink
Is the USA now a tyranny?

