Reply #39: some points

[paulsby]

wikipedia (realizing this is not a model penal code or a legal reference) essentially gets it right.

in the first paragraph "those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds"
if you misrepresent yourself to try to ferret out violations of the law (like not reporting 13 yr old teen pregnancy in the instant case), that is certainly not fraud.

if you misrepresent (for example) your name, to get free services, that would be fraud (and theft generally speaking).

the critical part about the second paragraph is the "unjustly" iow how you get the services.

the person in this case wasn't trying to obtain a service that costs money for free via deception (that could be fraud). they were doing something similar to what chris hanson et al do in misprepresenting who they are to try to catch the OTHER party in a criminal or unscrupulous act.

that gets a high degree of protection in the law, as it should.

people have done this with shady chiro's, dr's and lawyers, for instance. not to get free stuff, but to expose corruption.

and harming people by exposing THEIR miscounduct is not the kind of damage that is referred to under the fraud statutes.

and thank god this stuff is not fraud.

i am pro-choice. i am also 100% for exposing of corruption, whether it is amongst agencies i agree with or i disagree with.

truth IS the best disinfectant.

your first example (getting information about product plans) is fraud for COMMERCIAL purposes. that is an ENTIRELY different thing, and is definitely going to be viewed as fraud (stealing trade secrets, private business practices, etc.).

TOTALLY different from the instant case.