Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ballenf 2047 days ago
The article says:

> Once I had permission quickly made a proof of concept ...

So unless you want to accuse him of lying, there's no fraud here. And the fact that Chase didn't file a police report makes me convinced there was nothing remotely illegal about his actions.

2 comments

He mentioned having permission, but not by whom nor any assurances that said permission was appropriately disseminated to all relevant parties internally or appropriate lines of communication established to someone with the authority to expeditiously intercede in the case of issues.

As I said, such a situation could have occurred due to a miscommunication/misunderstanding, rather than taking a deliberate stance to prosecute him. A team (or member on said team) or some automated system unaware of that permission could have flagged the fraud and involved the authorities. Communication silos are a fact of big businesses. Politics and power tripping executives are too, who may decide whoever gave such permission didn't have the authority and push ahead anyway for whatever reason. And inflexible legacy systems are too, which may trip some automated fraud detection system that automatically triggers a legal reaction.

The charges may have ultimately been dropped when everything got sorted out, or a judge could have dismissed the case based on the permission he was given (if the situation got to that point). But that's not for the law enforcement agent serving your warrant to decide, his job is just to bring you in. And in the event that happens, it's far better for your lawyer to already be prepared on how to address the situation than only getting them involved at that stage.

Whether or not Chase filed a police report has nothing to do with the legality of his actions. There are lots of reasons to file or not file: Publicity, hassle, likelihood of recovery, and on.

It seems like he took great pains to keep it legal, but the presence or absence of a police report means nothing.