Comment by ranger_danger

Comment by ranger_danger 4 days ago

12 replies

View on Hacker News

Criminal convictions in the US require a standard of proof that is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and I suspect cases like this would not pass the required mens rea test, as, in their minds at least (and probably a judge's), there was no ill intent to cause a denial of service... and trying to argue otherwise based on any technical reasoning (e.g. "most servers cannot handle this load and they somehow knew it") is IMO unlikely to sway the court... especially considering web scraping has already been ruled legal, and that a ToS clause against that cannot be legally enforced.

s1mplicissimus 4 days ago

coming from a different legal system so please forgive my ignorance: Is it necessary in the US to prove ill intent in order to sue for repairs? Just wondering, because when I accidentally punch someones tooth out, I would assume they certainly are entitled to the dentist bill.

Reply View 2 replies
  • johnnyanmac 4 days ago

    >Is it necessary in the US to prove ill intent in order to sue for repairs?

    As a general rule of thumb: you can sue anyone for anything in the US. There are even a few cases where someone tried to sue God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_against_supernatural_...

    When we say "do we need" or "can we do" we're talking about the idea of how plausible it is to win case. A lawyer won't take a case with bad odds of winning, even if you want to pay extra because a part of their reputation lies on taking battles they feel they can win.

    >because when I accidentally punch someones tooth out, I would assume they certainly are entitled to the dentist bill.

    IANAL, so the boring answer is "it depends". reparations aren't guaranteed, but there's 50 different state laws to consider, on top of federal law.

    Generally, they are not entitled to pay for damages themselves, but they may possibly be charged with battery. Intent will be a strong factor in winning the case.

    Reply View 0 replies
  • Aachen 3 days ago

    Manslaughter vs. murder. Same act, different intent, different stigma, different punishment

    Reply View 0 replies
heavyset_go 4 days ago

There's an angle where criminal intent doesn't matter when it comes to negligence and damages. They have to had known that their scrapers would cause denial of service, unauthorized access, increased costs for operators, etc.

Reply View 2 replies
  • Aachen 3 days ago

    That's not a certain outcome. If you're willing to do this case, I can provide access logs and any evidence you want. You can keep any money you win plus I'll pay a bonus on top! Wanna do it?

    Keep in mind I'm in Germany, the server is in another EU country, and the worst scrapers overseas (in China, USA, and Singapore). Thanks to these LLMs there is no barrier to have the relevant laws be translated in all directions I trust that won't be a problem! :P

    Reply View 0 replies
  • ranger_danger 3 days ago

    > criminal intent doesn't matter when it comes to negligence and damages

    Are you a criminal defense attorney or prosecutor?

    > They have to had known

    IMO good luck convincing a judge of that... especially "beyond a reasonable doubt" as would be required for criminal negligence. They could argue lots of other scrapers operate just fine without causing problems, and that they tested theirs on other sites without issue.

    Reply View 0 replies
slowmovintarget 4 days ago

I thought only capital crimes (murder, for example) held the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Lesser crimes require the standard of either a "Preponderance of Evidence" or "Clear and Convincing Evidence" as burden of proof.

Still, even by those lesser standards, it's hard to build a case.

Reply View 5 replies
  • Majromax 4 days ago

    It's civil cases that have the lower standard of proof. Civil cases arise when one party sues another, typically seeking money, and they are claims in equity, where the defendant is alleged to have harmed the plaintiff in some way.

    Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Most things that can result in jail time are criminal cases. Criminal cases are almost always brought by the government, and criminal acts are considered harm to society rather than to (strictly) an individual. In the US, criminal cases are classified as "misdemeanors" or "felonies," but that language is not universal in other jurisdictions.

    Reply View 1 reply
  • eurleif 4 days ago

    No, all criminal convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-5-5...

    >Absent a guilty plea, the Due Process Clause requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt before a person may be convicted of a crime.

    Reply View 2 replies
    • hdgvhicv 3 days ago

      Proof or a guilty plea, which is often extracted from not guilty parties due to the lopsided environment of the courts

      Reply View 0 replies