7 ms·

Wow, does 6-months in jail seem a little severe? How does one even get someone prosecuted for this crime? We hired a licensed plumber on 2 occasions - to inst

Wow, does 6-months in jail seem a little severe? How does one even get someone prosecuted for this crime? We hired a licensed plumber on 2 occasions - to install a sink and later a shower. We just had a different plumber out because the sink was plugged up. He pointed out that the prior plumber had installed the sanitary-t upside down basically guarantying it would eventually become clogged. We also had him look at the shower because we couldn’t figure out how to get the screen out to clear the hair. Turns out the grate was also installed upside-down and the screws holding the screen in are in-accessible. So, there is no way to get it out without demoing the shower. Should this plumber be sentenced to 6-months in jail?

yrro 7y ago
Just sued for the cost of putting the job right.
conistonwater 7y ago
I understand it depends on whether the FBI can show malice, planning and intent, and the size of the damage ($42k in the Siemens case). So in your plumber case it's probably impossible unless it's like a pattern of fraud rather than just one mistreated client. If a plumber actually tried to make a fraudulent business model out of such behaviour, then I could totally believe they might get jail time. Furthermore, if you sue the plumber yourself, that's a civil case and so jail time is not possible at all (the Siemens case was handled by the FBI). I personally do not think that 6 months' jail for stealing $42k from somebody is so severe, to be honest, it's a lot of money.
- ggggtez 7y ago
  Right. If you stole a car (often valued at less than $40k), you could have gotten 1-9 years in the USA (depending on the value of the car).
ppseafield 7y ago
Did the previous plumber install a timer on a pipe, ensuring it would leak every 6 weeks?
- NullPrefix 7y ago
  The "timer" was based on hair amount in water flow.
drc500free 7y ago
Unlike code, law considers intent.
jlarocco 7y ago
If he's purposely making mistakes to get work in the future then I don't think 6-months in jail is that bad. It's just plain fraud isn't it? Not to mention an expensive inconvenience for all of his customers who have to deal with his shoddy work. On the other hand, it's entirely possible the plumber made an honest mistake.
- sporkologist 7y ago
  Yes the plumber obviously went to upside-down plumbing school where he learned the profit-maximizing techniques of installing everything upside-down.
  - taberiand 7y ago
    Nah he's probably just Australian
  - pc86 7y ago
    Or he made a mistake. Is your argument that the programmer in the FA was tired after a long day and accidentally concocted a scheme to defraud his client of $40,000?
- taxidump 7y ago
  This sounds similar to planned obsolescence, so the moral is if you design it that way, as a manufacturer, you are ok. Definitely a grey area here. Edit: After some thought, I feel a precedent. My car has parts that don't become obsolete, they flat break requiring never ending service. Surely I can sue for fraud as the auto company has the ability to use another means. (Devils advocate)
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Deliberately introducing errors in one's work to defraud an employer is not remotely close to planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is not the deliberate introduction of malfunctions, it is the engineering tradeoff between longevity and other characteristics. For example, Apple noticed that most customers replaced their phones within 2-3 years. A lithium ion battery's lifetime is determined by its charging and discharge characteristics. Its life is extended if it is charged more slowly and neither charged or discharged fully. But this increases charge time and reduced usable battery capacity - both of which are key selling features for smartphones. So Apple optimized the iPhone's battery management to deliver good charging and usable capacity, with the tradeoff that it would degrade significantly beyond 2-3 years of use. This contractor's activities would have been analogous to Apple introducing code that checks the current timestamp with the timestamp from when the phone was sold and degrading performance when that difference exceeded a threshold.
narag 7y ago
You're assuming the guy did that just to you. If he does the same in every installation, I'd say that six months is not enough.
ropiwqefjnpoa 7y ago
No he shouldn't. We need to stop sending people to jail for all but the most heinous of crimes. He should be ordered to pay you back twice for what it cost to install and repair.
- loco5niner 7y ago
  Twice seems a very low.
- rumanator 7y ago
  It sounds like you're confusing criminal liability with civil liability.
  - nerdponx 7y ago
    Does it matter? Practically, what seems more just to you: jail time, or remuneration with additional penalties?
    - ropiwqefjnpoa 7y ago
      That would be interesting, the victim gets to decide the penalty (up to a limit of course). The perp would have to plead their case to the victim directly, not just the judge. No jury necessary unless requested.
  - ropiwqefjnpoa 7y ago
    No, I just don't think jails solve the problems besides costing taxpayer money. Maybe more things should be considered civil.
bjornsing 7y ago
That age-old saying comes to mind: “Never attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained by incompetence.”
- lioeters 7y ago
  Also known as: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." However, I tend to disagree with this approach when the final result is that the "incompetent" one stands to profitably gain from their alleged incompetence or ignorance.
ufmace 7y ago
It seems the specifically designed logic to fail at a certain date is the reason. If stuff breaks because of a screwup, or at least something that people can be convinced is a routine screwup, that's one thing. Actually creating a new module to make something fail is something else. It's like if the plumber designed, built, and installed a device specifically to make your plumbing leak or clog or something at a specific point in the future, instead of just installing a normal and expected device incorrectly. The law does tend to take intentions into account for crimes and punishment. Killing somebody by a freak accident is different from making a plan in advance to kill somebody and executing it. This does make it feel rather odd that it's legal to DRM things though.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "It's like if the plumber designed, built, and installed a device specifically to make your plumbing leak or clog or something at a specific point in the future, instead of just installing a normal and expected device incorrectly." Intent is what matters. The distinction you're describing just affects whether it's deniable.
  - ufmace 7y ago
    Well yeah. Doing something that makes it easy to prove that your intent was malicious does tend to change things a bit.
jessant 7y ago
Any amount of jail time for non-violent crimes seems excessive.
everybodyknows 7y ago
How about adding your judgement, based on the specific evidence, of the likely cause? One of: 1. Ignorance/Incompetence -- wasn't paying attention? 2. Gross negligence -- doing it wrong was somehow quicker and cheaper. 3. Fraud -- calculated to fail. p.s. Dealing with similar case of malfeasance myself just now (electrical). Looks to be about #1 20%, #2 80%.
slowmovintarget 7y ago
6 months for fraud doesn't seem unreasonable.

yrro 7y ago

Just sued for the cost of putting the job right.

conistonwater 7y ago

I understand it depends on whether the FBI can show malice, planning and intent, and the size of the damage ($42k in the Siemens case). So in your plumber case it's probably impossible unless it's like a pattern of fraud rather than just one mistreated client. If a plumber actually tried to make a fraudulent business model out of such behaviour, then I could totally believe they might get jail time. Furthermore, if you sue the plumber yourself, that's a civil case and so jail time is not possible at all (the Siemens case was handled by the FBI). I personally do not think that 6 months' jail for stealing $42k from somebody is so severe, to be honest, it's a lot of money.

ggggtez 7y ago
Right. If you stole a car (often valued at less than $40k), you could have gotten 1-9 years in the USA (depending on the value of the car).

ppseafield 7y ago

Did the previous plumber install a timer on a pipe, ensuring it would leak every 6 weeks?

NullPrefix 7y ago
The "timer" was based on hair amount in water flow.

drc500free 7y ago

Unlike code, law considers intent.

jlarocco 7y ago

If he's purposely making mistakes to get work in the future then I don't think 6-months in jail is that bad. It's just plain fraud isn't it? Not to mention an expensive inconvenience for all of his customers who have to deal with his shoddy work. On the other hand, it's entirely possible the plumber made an honest mistake.

sporkologist 7y ago
Yes the plumber obviously went to upside-down plumbing school where he learned the profit-maximizing techniques of installing everything upside-down.
- taberiand 7y ago
  Nah he's probably just Australian
- pc86 7y ago
  Or he made a mistake. Is your argument that the programmer in the FA was tired after a long day and accidentally concocted a scheme to defraud his client of $40,000?
taxidump 7y ago
This sounds similar to planned obsolescence, so the moral is if you design it that way, as a manufacturer, you are ok. Definitely a grey area here. Edit: After some thought, I feel a precedent. My car has parts that don't become obsolete, they flat break requiring never ending service. Surely I can sue for fraud as the auto company has the ability to use another means. (Devils advocate)
- manfredo 7y ago
  Deliberately introducing errors in one's work to defraud an employer is not remotely close to planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is not the deliberate introduction of malfunctions, it is the engineering tradeoff between longevity and other characteristics. For example, Apple noticed that most customers replaced their phones within 2-3 years. A lithium ion battery's lifetime is determined by its charging and discharge characteristics. Its life is extended if it is charged more slowly and neither charged or discharged fully. But this increases charge time and reduced usable battery capacity - both of which are key selling features for smartphones. So Apple optimized the iPhone's battery management to deliver good charging and usable capacity, with the tradeoff that it would degrade significantly beyond 2-3 years of use. This contractor's activities would have been analogous to Apple introducing code that checks the current timestamp with the timestamp from when the phone was sold and degrading performance when that difference exceeded a threshold.

narag 7y ago

You're assuming the guy did that just to you. If he does the same in every installation, I'd say that six months is not enough.

ropiwqefjnpoa 7y ago

No he shouldn't. We need to stop sending people to jail for all but the most heinous of crimes. He should be ordered to pay you back twice for what it cost to install and repair.

loco5niner 7y ago
Twice seems a very low.
rumanator 7y ago
It sounds like you're confusing criminal liability with civil liability.
- nerdponx 7y ago
  Does it matter? Practically, what seems more just to you: jail time, or remuneration with additional penalties?
  - ropiwqefjnpoa 7y ago
    That would be interesting, the victim gets to decide the penalty (up to a limit of course). The perp would have to plead their case to the victim directly, not just the judge. No jury necessary unless requested.
- ropiwqefjnpoa 7y ago
  No, I just don't think jails solve the problems besides costing taxpayer money. Maybe more things should be considered civil.

bjornsing 7y ago

That age-old saying comes to mind: “Never attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained by incompetence.”

lioeters 7y ago
Also known as: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." However, I tend to disagree with this approach when the final result is that the "incompetent" one stands to profitably gain from their alleged incompetence or ignorance.

ufmace 7y ago

It seems the specifically designed logic to fail at a certain date is the reason. If stuff breaks because of a screwup, or at least something that people can be convinced is a routine screwup, that's one thing. Actually creating a new module to make something fail is something else. It's like if the plumber designed, built, and installed a device specifically to make your plumbing leak or clog or something at a specific point in the future, instead of just installing a normal and expected device incorrectly. The law does tend to take intentions into account for crimes and punishment. Killing somebody by a freak accident is different from making a plan in advance to kill somebody and executing it. This does make it feel rather odd that it's legal to DRM things though.

perl4ever 7y ago
"It's like if the plumber designed, built, and installed a device specifically to make your plumbing leak or clog or something at a specific point in the future, instead of just installing a normal and expected device incorrectly." Intent is what matters. The distinction you're describing just affects whether it's deniable.
- ufmace 7y ago
  Well yeah. Doing something that makes it easy to prove that your intent was malicious does tend to change things a bit.

jessant 7y ago

Any amount of jail time for non-violent crimes seems excessive.

everybodyknows 7y ago

How about adding your judgement, based on the specific evidence, of the likely cause? One of: 1. Ignorance/Incompetence -- wasn't paying attention? 2. Gross negligence -- doing it wrong was somehow quicker and cheaper. 3. Fraud -- calculated to fail. p.s. Dealing with similar case of malfeasance myself just now (electrical). Looks to be about #1 20%, #2 80%.

slowmovintarget 7y ago

6 months for fraud doesn't seem unreasonable.