logoalt Hacker News

shaknatoday at 2:11 PM2 repliesview on HN

> There are no negligent or stochastic hacking laws

I'm sure that Andrew Auernheimer would be pleased to hear that. [0] For accessing a publicly accessible endpoint, that was completely undefended and didn't actually require "hacking", he was convicted of "exceeding authorised access".

You _don't_ have to show intent under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, for the first count.

> knowingly accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access [1]

"Knowingly", not "intentionally", as in the other counts.

You only have to show that:

a) They trained a system to access without authorization (hacking)

b) The system that was trained exceeded authorized access

As responsibility falls to the operator with automated systems, the company becomes liable.

[0] https://techcrunch.com/2013/01/21/ipad-hack-statement-of-res...

[1] https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/cioprod/documents/Co...


Replies

user43928today at 7:42 PM

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think Sam Altman 'knowingly accessed' anything.

Are you sure that is applicable here?

And for the first count with 'knowingly accessed', he would need to have accessed classified national-defense or atomic-energy information, otherwise we are back to 'intentionally accessed'.

show 1 reply
mullingitovertoday at 7:56 PM

> I'm sure that Andrew Auernheimer would be pleased to hear that. [0] For accessing a publicly accessible endpoint, that was completely undefended and didn't actually require "hacking", he was convicted of "exceeding authorised access".

Frankly he got off too easy, but we haven't explicitly outlawed "being a malicious dipshit" so he got convicted on the closest available charge.

> Chat logs obtained by the prosecution do not paint the pair in a flattering light. They discussed, but apparently did not carry out, a variety of schemes to use the harvested data for nefarious purposes such as spamming, phishing, or short-selling AT&T’s stock.[1]

1000% agree though that the operators of these systems are culpable. If their agents wind up being malicious dipshits, the agents are still just programs that they are operating. At best they're negligent.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/internet-troll-w...