4 ms·

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 re

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.

slowmovintarget 1y 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.
- eurleif 1y ago
  No, all criminal convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-5-5-5/ALDE_00013763/ 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.
  - slowmovintarget 1y ago
    Thank you.
  - hdgvhicv 1y ago
    Proof or a guilty plea, which is often extracted from not guilty parties due to the lopsided environment of the courts
- Majromax 1y 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.
  - slowmovintarget 1y ago
    Thank you.
s1mplicissimus 1y 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.
- johnnyanmac 1y 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_beings 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.
- Aachen 1y ago
  Manslaughter vs. murder. Same act, different intent, different stigma, different punishment
heavyset_go 1y 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.
- ranger_danger 1y 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.
- Aachen 1y 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

slowmovintarget 1y 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.

eurleif 1y ago
No, all criminal convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-5-5-5/ALDE_00013763/ 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.
- slowmovintarget 1y ago
  Thank you.
- hdgvhicv 1y ago
  Proof or a guilty plea, which is often extracted from not guilty parties due to the lopsided environment of the courts
Majromax 1y 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.
- slowmovintarget 1y ago
  Thank you.

s1mplicissimus 1y 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.

johnnyanmac 1y 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_beings 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.
Aachen 1y ago
Manslaughter vs. murder. Same act, different intent, different stigma, different punishment

heavyset_go 1y 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.

ranger_danger 1y 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.
Aachen 1y 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