Hacker News Reader

Comment by wqtz | Hacker News Reader

I guess the dude who wrote that function thought, maybe I shouldn't add a docstring or any comments to that function. What is he/she even supposed to write "function to commit corporate insurance fraud."?

Protip. If you are committing fraud in the future - use a compiled language, do not use offsite version control and UPLOAD ONLY THE BINARY.

View on HN

> Protip. If you are committing fraud in the future. Use a compiled language, do not use offsite version control and UPLOAD ONLY THE BINARY.

Until you get prosecuted and legally required to turn over the source code, as it happened here.

Seriously, the real pro tip is, "Don't commit fraud, even unethical businesses don't need to do that." If your workplace is encouraging outright criminality, document everything, and either become a whistleblower or run like hell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKGdhJybmT8

God that was such a good show, I might have to re-watch it if I ever have the time.

It's always weird when people try to give advice on how to commit crimes here, but it's even weirder when the advice is horrible.

I wonder what happened to that guy who wanted to get in touch with a drug cartel.

Does anyone know what happened to that guy? Or is everyone who could reply swimming with da fishes

It was a satire. Presumably nothing happened, other than that we all looked pretty silly and got a good laugh out of it.

I remember an old slashdot thread about a pedophile who took pictures of his victims and then tried to obscure it by swirl-distorting the faces. Police were able to sufficiently unswirl the faces and identify the victims and get a conviction.

The comments were all like, “well, duh you have to use a randomized Gaussian blur to make it irreversible”. “Yeah or black out the faces entirely.”

Finally someone said, “right. Or, you know, you could just not molest children.”

Edit: this might have been it but I remember a more involved thread:

https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=321921&cid=20908895

The bytecode of the binary could also be used to prove it was a random number generator, right?

You’re missing the point here, which is that it would be impossible to prove who wrote it by the bytecode/disassembly alone.

ah, yes. I missed the point. Thanks

And thus we arrive at yet another use for the venerable FCIB[1].

[1] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20171114-00/?p=97...

Put the fraudy bit in a config file and don't commit your config.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com