Hacker News Reader

Comment by Cthulhu_ | Hacker News Reader

I think if you get caught exfiltrating data they'll sue you for much more than $200K.

I don't think anybody would do it purely for money. I would rather see someone who is terminally ill and decides to do some "good".

There are not too many mentally-sharp, fully-employed, terminally-ill people that I have met. Even fewer at tech companies.

And even fewer who are single and childless. (Google would likely go after the estate of anyone who did this.)

I wonder how hard they would press an estate. It’s bad PR to go after widows and surviving children, and the data has already escaped.

This is something they’d want to settle quietly, so the family would have leverage.

They’ve made so many terrible decisions already. Going after widows wouldn’t change anything.

I wonder how hard Google could press an estate. For a living person the main consequences would be criminal, not civil, but you can't go after a dead person criminally. Civilly it's not really clear to me that Google would have been harmed enough to create noteworthy damages.

The book publishers might actually be the bigger problem. They'd have civil copyright infringement claims with giant statutory damages.

> It’s bad PR to go after widows and surviving children

Do you think they care? People with cancer are often laid off from companies. Sometimes a bit after their diagnosis becomes known to the company.

But the one would be enough, especially in large organization. Surely they would need access to the exact data too.

And what I'm saying is that it's probably unlikely that this "one" exists.

I'm sure they'd go after you, but hypothetically: What damages would they claim? They still have the data, which isn't their IP to begin with.

Good point. But it would still be a breach of Google policy, most likely and they signed a pact with the devil so ...

Sui generis database rights

Is that some sort of real thing, some significance in law?

Yes

You could look it up and see for yourself. It's applicable to all sorts of collections such as map data and I'd presume also a book database but IANAL so best if you see for yourself - my intention was just to point out (what I hope is) the applicable legal principle for anyone curious about this

I don't know about that ... HN is a conversation. It's not a very interesting conversation when you say a few words and then refuse to say more, telling the other people at the table to look it up.

I could look up lots and lots of things to see for myself. I wouldn't be reading your comment, and there is not enough time in the universe. Readers don't have time to look up everything other people post. It's up to the commenter, I think, to say what they intend and what's valuable about it.

Fair enough. Not everyone always has time to reiterate Wikipedia on what seems to me a relatively well-known concept, at least among people to whom this is relevant (e.g. me as an OpenStreetMap contributor, database copyright is like the first thing you learn after making your first edit because that's why you can't copy data from just any source). There's always a lucky ten thousand around I suppose :). Maybe I should have at least cited something

I don't have much interest in Wikipedia, and even then an encyclopedia article doesn't explain what you mean and doesn't apply it to this situation.

Humans don't communicate by exchanging links to reference material.

Copy data into extra large capacity micro sdcard and hide it in your rubiks cube, nobody will suspect a thing

I wish an extra capacity SD card was enough, google books holds (probably) an insane numbers of books

Comments on the source mention dataset sizes ranging between 1.5PB and 200PB

my guess would be the 7PB mark

For 200PB one would need 25kg worth of 2TB microSD cards... that would be lots of Rubik's cubes =P

It’s the “ Copy data into extra large capacity micro sdcard” step that gets you caught. Nobody is stopping you from leaving with an SD card or USB stick at Google.

Importantly, this would work way better on a speedcube than the rubick's brand cubes. Never use the rubick's brand rubicks cubes. I use the Moyu RS3m V5 maglev, and I think that it would work well for hiding uSD cards.

If your money is in private crypto or offshore you have nothing to worry about.

Except perhaps jail time.

Lying about your assets to avoid paying a lawful fine is criminal. Just because they can’t see your money doesn’t mean they can’t prove that you have it, and can’t jail you for hiding it to get out paying a fine.

Google, Amazon, and FB: It's not me, right

So is stealing

i'd strongly caution anybody foolish enough to go down this path

financial watchdogs and international treaties make it impossible unless you are perhaps a multi billionaire who can afford to buy people at the political level

Reply on news.ycombinator.com