Live data from Hacker News

Woman allegedly impersonated prosecutor, dropped charges against herself

unionleader.com

281–290 of 336 posts

Re: Woman allegedly impersonated prosecutor, dropped charges against herself

#281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not; indulgences remit the temporal punishment associated with sin (mortal sins incur eternal punishment in additional to temporal punishment; merely venial sins incur only temporal punishment). Mortal sin can be forgiven only through contrition and reconciliation. Temporal sin can be forgiven at the leisure of the Church (i.e., through indulgences). To commit a sin with the intention of attempting to obtain for…

>To commit a sin with the intention of attempting to obtain forgiveness through reconciliation afterward is itself a mortal sin. Source? If you do it with a mortal sin I can understand it would be a second mortal sin. But it seems harsh to make a venial sin into a mortal sin from this.

The venial sin isn't the problem, you're attempting to deceive God through manipulation. I would think anyway, not a Catholic.

Re: Woman allegedly impersonated prosecutor, dropped charges against herself

#282
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if the prices are 1. the legal tools to make Spotify not lockin ones personal content and 2. Read some random article on the internet where the publisher actively does not want to protect the readers privacy then I think I know what price I want.

I really don’t. You’re telling me some music app is more important than being able to access local news from other regions?

Actually, no. Try to reread the comment.

Re: Woman allegedly impersonated prosecutor, dropped charges against herself

#283
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obrigado!

This is Portuguese for Thanks? Off topic, but reading it I just noticed it sounds an awful lot like ありがとう (“arigatou” as in “domo arigatou Mr. Roboto”). I think there’s an etymology lesson in this, although I’m not sure which way it goes, probably Portuguese -> Japanese via Nagasaki.

You shouldn't usually try to guess etymology based on superficial phonetic similarity, especially for such a common word. It is exceedingly unlikely that a country would adopt a language would just adopt a word for giving thanks (though there are exceptions).

Just for some fun of even greater coincidences between Japan and a Romance language, there are two almost identical words in Japanese and Romanian that have no etymological relationship: "sat" / "里" ("sa to") meaning village in both languages; and "baba" / "婆" ("ba ba") a derogatory term for an old woman in both languages ("hag").

Re: Woman allegedly impersonated prosecutor, dropped charges against herself

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a US site does not have any presence in the EU and is not selling anything to the EU visitors, why would they even bother adding the blocking? They can... do nothing instead. (Or disable buying subscription to the EU)

GDPR doesn't depend on whether you're selling something. Just visiting the website from the EU is enough to require the business to comply with the privacy laws.

It does depend on whether the law of the country applies for any reason though. Unless you're saying they should also comply with whatever CCP, Thailand, Iran, and many other countries have to say about allowed online content?

Re: Woman allegedly impersonated prosecutor, dropped charges against herself

#285
post #187
post #84

One has to wonder what legal frauds, asset grabs, and impersonations have transpired that were never discovered. Some perspective on this is the story of Alves dos Reis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alves_dos_Reis ) who in 1924 stole ~1% of Portugal's GDP in bank notes printed under forged orders. The scheme may have never been uncovered had Reis succeeded in maintaining a controlling interest in the Bank of Portug…

Part of my practice is financial fraud investigation. >One has to wonder what legal frauds, asset grabs, and impersonations have transpired that were never discovered. A lot. More than you'd expect. And by people and organizations you wouldn't expect. However, most people are objectively terrible at performing fraud. The things that ultimately lead to people being caught are so simple.

Yep, working on the other side (criminal defense) I quickly, within a year or two, found that fraud, or what the laws would consider fraud that could be prosecuted, tend to unravel extremely quickly in most cases, planning is almost always inadequate if they wanted to get away if any planning is involved at all, and common OPSEC failures tank a great deal of them almost right off the bat. Also, there's a definite correlation between how many co-conspirators are involved with how quickly their scheme is discovered. This goes for all conspiracies under the legal definition - when you need more than two people to agree to a common plan or purpose to commit something, it turns out keeping even just a partnership quiet and in check is really hard for all but the most simple schemes. OF course that does also imply that the better, more organized outfits never come through my (public defender) office and so, there's a selection bias there, but the volume of cases is very high and it's hard to imagine that this represents at least a large portion of acts that caused enough damage/loss to elicit police attention.

I think there are probably some very talented solo operators who did their homework and have contingency plans and have OPSEC down who are able to pull off some long running schemes that may never be uncovered, just knowing the points of failure in th processes I've seen, but the amount of specialized knowledge and discipline required is going to be comparable to what's required to succeed in almost any field. Except for the very few at the top of the chain that nobody knows about, most people are better off getting a real job instead.A lot of those people who engage in fraud do it and get caught because ths isn't what they wanted to do butout of necessity, greed, or shortsighted assumptions they opportunistically engaged in the scheme. The internet does enable, I believe, single individuals to commit long term fraud operations as effectively lone-wolf actors whose necessity to employ a service offered elsewhere can be effectively done anonymously, and these are the dedicated, professional, and sometimes sometimes ideologically engaged types whose choice to engage is a long-term project and the sheer amount of knowledge in divergent fields of expertise required makes me wonder that if it wouldn't be better served to actually run amnesty programs to get these people into the legitimate sector even as consultants if not corporate jobs because our retributive criminal justice system renders that basically impossible. A bug bounty for fraud, perhaps? Just a thought.

Re: Woman allegedly impersonated prosecutor, dropped charges against herself

#286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR doesn't depend on whether you're selling something. Just visiting the website from the EU is enough to require the business to comply with the privacy laws.

It does depend on whether the law of the country applies for any reason though. Unless you're saying they should also comply with whatever CCP, Thailand, Iran, and many other countries have to say about allowed online content?

This is already the case. Yes, you have to comply with CCP laws for _China residents_ if you want to have your website available in China. It doesn't say you have to apply the laws to all people around the world. But GDPR vs. China isn't a perfect comparison, because GDPR isn't blocking any content. It is not even _about_ the content. It's about following the privacy rights that I as an EU resident have and you as an US company might be breaking.

Re: Woman allegedly impersonated prosecutor, dropped charges against herself

#287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does depend on whether the law of the country applies for any reason though. Unless you're saying they should also comply with whatever CCP, Thailand, Iran, and many other countries have to say about allowed online content?

This is already the case. Yes, you have to comply with CCP laws for _China residents_ if you want to have your website available in China. It doesn't say you have to apply the laws to all people around the world. But GDPR vs. China isn't a perfect comparison, because GDPR isn't blocking any content. It is not even _about_ the content. It's about following the privacy rights that I as an EU resident have and you as an…

China has the jurisdiction over the Chinese resident, their ISP and other local infrastructure. It doesn't have jurisdiction over foreign companies and foreign companies don't have to comply with anything. (Unless they want to do business with Chinese residents or operate in China) Same applies to the EU situation.

You may want to be nice to the foreign visitors otherwise and comply with the foreign laws, but that's it.

Re: Woman allegedly impersonated prosecutor, dropped charges against herself

#289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does depend on whether the law of the country applies for any reason though. Unless you're saying they should also comply with whatever CCP, Thailand, Iran, and many other countries have to say about allowed online content?

This is already the case. Yes, you have to comply with CCP laws for _China residents_ if you want to have your website available in China. It doesn't say you have to apply the laws to all people around the world. But GDPR vs. China isn't a perfect comparison, because GDPR isn't blocking any content. It is not even _about_ the content. It's about following the privacy rights that I as an EU resident have and you as an…

[deleted]

Re: Woman allegedly impersonated prosecutor, dropped charges against herself

#290
post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's anyone supposed to do about it? Show a basic level of respect for your users' privacy whether or not it's not a legal requirement.

Is there evidence that they aren't besides not being confident about GDPR compliance? There's a lot more to GDPR than not selling data.

If you just aim to provide static content, i.e. public web pages and articles I think you’d really have to “go out of your way” to break GDPR (which in this case is likely tons of ad network code among other shady things).
Post reply on HN