Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethin | Hacker News Reader

Because a crime was committed, and a pretty serious one at that?

If I blow up your house or steel $100000 from you and we both resolve our differences out of band, should I just be allowed to go about my day like I never did anything, or should I be punished for the crimes I committed? If I am not punished, it makes a mockery of the law that is (supposed) to have protected you, and if it happens repeatedly people will start wondering why the law even should exist if it clearly and obviously doesn't work. Granted, this has yet to happen again, but if OAI isn't punished it sets a very bad baseline precedent: that if I just hack you with an AI model, it's a-okay, and you can't do anything about it because eh, it's all good man!

View on HN

If I steal $100000 from you, and you decide you value your relationship with me more than you value that $100000? Yep, you can just decide to let me have it and let it slide.

Believe it or not, deciding that you weren't wronged and not suing isn't a crime. It happens all the time. What people do with each other is up to them.

Did Bob allow his friend Jack to borrow his truck? No. Does Bob want to sue Jack for taking his truck anyway, and driving it into a ditch? No. Does Jack owe Bob big time for the mess he caused? Yes, but not in any formal legally binding way.

This works for corporations too. When two corporations find themselves at odds, threat of legal action is often used by one company against another as a leverage to resolve things behind closed doors instead. In a more amicable fashion - with no legal expenses of a protracted court battle and no loss of reputation on either side.

A lawsuit is not the same as a criminal prosecution. One is supposed to remedy damages, the other is supposed to be because it is in the public interest that people follow laws and we don't devolve into anarchy (or more dangerously, some might-makes-right society where it is more beneficial to appease the powerful than it is to pursue what is just).

It is possible for a prosecutor to decide it is not in the public interest to persue a prosecution (or that there isn't sufficient evidence to prove a criminal action beyond reasonable doubt), and certainly the victim's opinion could be considered, but ultimately whether criminal charges should be pursued is and ought to be based on a different test to civil matters, one focused on the public interest rather than mere restoration.

I agree with your stance mostly. I get the sentiment, but both of your examples seem civil to me. Both of those situations can and ideally should be resolved out of the courts, and neither carry social weight.

If one entity is injured by another, and subsequently made whole, however the two parties define that, then it is none of my business.

Corporations commonly hide criminal activity in order to save face.

In the oil industry there is a portion called land management where the portions of oil and gas from wells can be split across a large number of entities. This can lead to numerous complexities that open up opportunities for fraud/theft in division of the profits. Quite often it is easier for the corporation to cover up that this occurred and pay off the person never to talk under NDA about it rather than have to have their customers find out and potentially take millions in losses.

Computer related hacks are very similar. Quite often these are covered up and never disclosed unless the information shows up in public at some point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com