Three Felonies a Day (2013)
kottke.org
kottke.org
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.
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
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.
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...
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).
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).
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?
The giver of the gift should file form 709 and potentially pay taxes, not the recipient. Recipient pays nothing.
still, you only have to file if you're gifting above $18k
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
I'll remember this when I next think of when we spent twenty years sending our kids to die in the sandbox.
Different thinking styles.
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".
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.
"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).
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.
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;> (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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5860250 - 169 comments (June 2013)
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.
- 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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
That is so 2020. Today, AI pirates the textbooks; the student just generate the homework.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wouldn't the contracts eventually show up on the financial statements?
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.”
You do not need to. You can ruin reputation. You can starve them in court proceedings and rituals.
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.
Ok but in not hiding anything, we all apparently do a lot "wrong."
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.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/comp18936.pd...