Thread

1. cmiles8 · 1790617857 · focus · HN ↗

   This seems like as a good an opportunity as any to break out the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

   They want “regulation” but we already have it. Hacking is illegal. Start locking up those responsible for this mess and I assure you they’ll “have a handle on it” quite quickly.

   1. john_strinlai · 1790619302 · focus · HN ↗

      cfaa heavily relies on intent for prosecution (hence why researchers arent typically locked up). it would be difficult to argue that openai intended to hack other companies.

      there's probably better/more likely to succeed avenues to pursue rather than the cfaa

      1. ofjcihen · 1790623207 · focus · HN ↗

         Mens rea is often established through circumstantial evidence.

         Repeatedly doing something that results in a specific outcome, even if that outcome is not explicitly specified or requested as the preferred outcome, can still be evidence of intent.

         1. solidasparagus · 1790641658 · focus · HN ↗

            But I don't think OpenAI intended to hack HF and I doubt you'd be able to convince people they did. It's such a weird story to try to tell in a court of law where this was intentional. To what end?

            1. ofjcihen · 1790648888 · focus · HN ↗

               You could make the argument for a few reasons.

               But really, the point is that you don’t necessarily need someone to say “I meant to do this”. “Intent”, as with a lot of things in law, isn’t as straightforward as it is in everyday conversation.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.