Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

What a ridiculous claim. They call computer hardware and salaries damage.

I want a competent judge to make sure that these are not damages and I wish that Anna’s Archive continues to operate in sensible jurisdiction for the foreseeable future.

If I had the means I would donate to them.



They mean "damages" in a legal sense, not in a "broken" sense. Damages in tort law are the amount intended to make the claimant whole -- that is, to reimburse expenses incurred to protect legal rights, compensate for lost revenue, or to restore the status quo ante.


A store can't claim the security guard's salary as damages caused by theft.


https://annas-archive.gs/donate


Having the means normally means the extra finances to give away vs knowing the link to their donation form


Still kind of nice to have that link thrown out here for those with the means to support their work.


It an easily misunderstood idiom since the difference between the two meanings is just the definite vs indefinite article: 'the means' vs 'a means'.


Article says nobody is responding as defendant except one individual who has filed a motion to dismiss based on being misidentified. I don’t know the status of that motion though.


[flagged]


I'd be very curious about that analysis should it be publicized. Specifically: how many other people does that stylometric analysis match "with a high degree of probability"? And what measures were taken to rule out things like adversarial stylometry?

My point: stylometry alone doesn't strike me as particularly strong evidence - especially in this day and age wherein people influence each others' writing styles bidirectionally all the time.


>Stylometric analysis shows this to be the same person with a high degree of probability.

Sounds par for the course with all the kookery and bullshit that somehow passes for “expert” evidence in US courts.


Yeah they'll have him take a polygraph next.


> Stylometric analysis shows this to be the same person with a high degree of probability.

Sounds like this is a new technique unproven to the high standards really needed for legal evidence.

The "anything plausible sounding goes" approach is already a problem for other widely used types of "evidence".

Those need to be stamped out too, not have new unproven crap added, making the problem worse.


> An acquaintance of mine worked on this analysis for the plaintiffs.

On that note, does your acquaintance have published work that can be fact checked?

It sounds like they're an expert, so surely they must have public info about this technique, and its accuracy when they're utilising it.


>"high degree of probability"

what degree? what's the false positive rate? what's the false negative rate? what's the true negative rate? what other evidence have you got?

even better, why are you talking about this at all? isn't it best practice to shut up about legal cases?


Sounds just like the FBI's hair comparison analysis technique.


Regardless, that is what the motion to dismiss is based on.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: