Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by thih9 1943 days ago
> I'm just starting to forge documents (...) The isn't even criminal to do because I'm not defrauding anyone

Some might see sending forged documents as fraud; you'd intentionally deceive an organisation for personal gain, i.e. more privacy. (TINLA)

Just to be clear, I also want more privacy; at the same time I'd prefer a different approach, e.g. shaming plus boycotting.
2 comments
kstrauser 1943 days ago
More practically, if you get caught then your kid probably gets banned from the league. This might be pretty hard to explain to a younger child in terms that would make them appreciate that you're doing it for the right reasons.
link
water8 1943 days ago
Do you think little league has the investigative powers of the FBI or something?
link
kstrauser 1943 days ago
This can and does come up when, say, you have a team for 10 year olds and one of the kids looks like they drove themselves to practice. A coach can challenge the other team’s paperwork, in which case the challenged coach digs it out and everyone looks at the evidence. If it seems to be faked and the umpire agrees, the cheating team forfeits, and the kid’s parents (and possibly the coach if they were in on it) can be banned.

No, Little League doesn’t do a top secret clearance check on every player. Individual players may be checked if it’s believed they’re cheating though.

link
alisonkisk 1943 days ago
That's not what fraud means. If that were fraud, then any lie to anyone would be fraud.
link
thih9 1943 days ago
> If that were fraud, then any lie to anyone would be fraud.

Not really, unintentional and/or harmless lies wouldn't be fraud.

> That's not what fraud means.

Could you elaborate? What does fraud mean according to you?

link
throwawaygulf 1942 days ago
>Not really, unintentional and/or harmless lies wouldn't be fraud.

Yes really. Intentional or unintentional lies to anyone would be considered fraud if we go by your ideas.

>Could you elaborate? What does fraud mean according to you?

It's not what it means according to me, it's the definition according to the law: "with intent to defraud". Changing or redacting documents without the intention of defrauding is by definition not fraud. QED.

link
thih9 1942 days ago
> Intentional or unintentional lies to anyone would be considered fraud if we go by your ideas.

It seems you’ve misunderstood my earlier comment.

> the definition according to the law: "with intent to defraud"

Defining “fraud” with “defraud” feels a bit circular.

link