Comments

• By hn_throwaway_99 2025-04-2016:281 reply

  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 woleium 2025-04-2017:46

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

• By ericyd 2025-04-2015:002 reply

  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 armada651 2025-04-2015:082 reply

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

  By nativeit 2025-04-2016:322 reply

  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 hn_throwaway_99 2025-04-2017:27

  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 gruez 2025-04-2017:02

  >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 fny 2025-04-2016:21

  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 qingcharles 2025-04-2018:09

  Here's one that most people on here probably violate daily:

  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43745382

• By prmph 2025-04-2015:445 reply

  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 gruez 2025-04-2016:074 reply

  >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 potato3732842 2025-04-2022:301 reply

  >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 hn_throwaway_99 2025-04-214:17

  > 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 EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2025-04-2016:141 reply

  >> 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 gruez 2025-04-2016:28

  >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

  By robben1234 2025-04-2121:11

  >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 wrs 2025-04-2016:24

  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 markburns 2025-04-2016:282 reply

  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 BoingBoomTschak 2025-04-2019:28

  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 potato3732842 2025-04-2022:38

  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 nashashmi 2025-04-2016:032 reply

  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 rayiner 2025-04-2016:20

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

  By prmph 2025-04-2017:051 reply

  > 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 qingcharles 2025-04-2018:12

  Also:

  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43745382

  By atian 2025-04-2016:01

  There is a huge lifetime gift tax exemption.