Hacker News
points by FuriouslyAdrift 17 hours ago | 0 comments
CFAA violation are under criminal law and do not require the injured party to consent or participate... just ask Aaron Swartz
[–] teravor 17 hours ago
doesn't it require intent? so how exactly are the feds going to proceed when the LLM takes the initiative and helpfully confesses to it in the logs?
[–] chaps 16 hours ago
2022 DOJ guidance is relevant here:

  The policy for the first time directs that good-faith security research should not be charged. Good faith security research means accessing a computer solely for purposes of good-faith testing, investigation, and/or correction of a security flaw or vulnerability, where such activity is carried out in a manner designed to avoid any harm to individuals or the public, and where the information derived from the activity is used primarily to promote the security or safety of the class of devices, machines, or online services to which the accessed computer belongs, or those who use such devices, machines, or online services. 
Having been threatened with CFAA charges for using wget to get FOIA files on S3 whose URLs were embedded in the page's source, it's refreshing that intent is at least a small factor. But as with criminal courts, charges alone can absolutely uproot someone's life.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/department-justice-a...

[–] Frieren 16 hours ago
LLMs are not judged, the company employees and leadership are. Nobody puts in prison a car for running over a pedestrian either.
[–] teravor 15 hours ago
that's exactly the point. a human didn't have the intent.
[–] sigmoid10 13 hours ago
With the current admin, this will never get pursued by the feds.