7 ms·

Could you delete that link? I clicked on it out of habit, but tptacek's comment has me paranoid that my IP is going to end up in an investigation. I'm guessin

Could you delete that link? I clicked on it out of habit, but tptacek's comment has me paranoid that my IP is going to end up in an investigation. I'm guessing other people would prefer to just not have the option to click on it.

Jeema3000 17y ago
Eh I think you're ok - if they're tracking visitors that closely, they'd know that you came to that link from here after it was already made public. Plus ycombinator.com gets a ton of traffic so I'm sure you're not the only one. :) But yea, probably not a bad idea to delete that link anyway...
- tptacek 17y ago
  You have no reason to think you're OK for clicking the link. Dazzlingly stupid things like this have happened to people before.
- clickguy1 17y ago
  I don't think it would help my case if they knew the referring site was called Hacker News.
ErrantX 17y ago
Nothing they would be able to do about it particularly. A large number of people probably clicked that link. Getting warrants (or the police) to track up all of the IP's isnt going to happen :) Also: im not sure what they could do. Certainly it breaks no laws I know of.
- seldo 17y ago
  It could be stretched to "unauthorized use of a computer system" which is the legal definition of hacking. It doesn't have to be difficult to qualify as criminal.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    No becaus all those laws require them to prove an intent. Which in this case wouldn't wash :-)
    - Retric 17y ago
      You don't need to prove intent to send someone to jail. For some types of crimes intent changes the punishment but that's about it.
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        Incorrect; for computer misuse laws you have to prove intent - it's the most important part of it. It's the reason most hackers or online criminals are convicted of other crimes. (I work in this area and have studied the US laws quite recently). EDIT: perhaps "show intent" is a better way of putting it.
        clickguy1 17y ago
        What kinds of other crimes do they use to convict people?
        ErrantX 17y ago
        Theft, fraud, criminal damage: whatever applies really. It's much the same principle as how they took down Al Capone for income tax evasion [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone#Conviction_and_Imprisonment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone#Conviction_and_Impris...
        Retric 17y ago
        Read up on: United States v. Shea, 493 F.3d 1110, (Ct. App. 9th Cir. 2007). Knowing that someone used your password to send information is enough. "The court of appeals acknowledged that analysis of the "transmission" element and its required proof was a novel issue for the court under the specific provisions of 18 USC § 1030(a) (5) (A). Yet, the court interpreted the word transmission under this provision by assimilating this term with the wire fraud crime, which also requires the element of transmission. Thus, the court used the Wire Fraud Act interpretation of the word transmission and held that "circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove that the transmission has occurred." Therefore, the analysis concentrated on the prosecution proof that transmissions were associated to defendant's passwords, despite the employee's claim that the network was not secured and that other employees could have accessed those passwords."
swombat 17y ago
I bet the report will say "it was hacked after a large number of people visited it, coming from a site called 'Hacker News'".

Jeema3000 17y ago

Eh I think you're ok - if they're tracking visitors that closely, they'd know that you came to that link from here after it was already made public. Plus ycombinator.com gets a ton of traffic so I'm sure you're not the only one. :) But yea, probably not a bad idea to delete that link anyway...

tptacek 17y ago
You have no reason to think you're OK for clicking the link. Dazzlingly stupid things like this have happened to people before.
clickguy1 17y ago
I don't think it would help my case if they knew the referring site was called Hacker News.

ErrantX 17y ago

Nothing they would be able to do about it particularly. A large number of people probably clicked that link. Getting warrants (or the police) to track up all of the IP's isnt going to happen :) Also: im not sure what they could do. Certainly it breaks no laws I know of.

seldo 17y ago
It could be stretched to "unauthorized use of a computer system" which is the legal definition of hacking. It doesn't have to be difficult to qualify as criminal.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  No becaus all those laws require them to prove an intent. Which in this case wouldn't wash :-)
  - Retric 17y ago
    You don't need to prove intent to send someone to jail. For some types of crimes intent changes the punishment but that's about it.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      Incorrect; for computer misuse laws you have to prove intent - it's the most important part of it. It's the reason most hackers or online criminals are convicted of other crimes. (I work in this area and have studied the US laws quite recently). EDIT: perhaps "show intent" is a better way of putting it.
      - clickguy1 17y ago
        What kinds of other crimes do they use to convict people?
        ErrantX 17y ago
        Theft, fraud, criminal damage: whatever applies really. It's much the same principle as how they took down Al Capone for income tax evasion [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone#Conviction_and_Imprisonment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone#Conviction_and_Impris...
      - Retric 17y ago
        Read up on: United States v. Shea, 493 F.3d 1110, (Ct. App. 9th Cir. 2007). Knowing that someone used your password to send information is enough. "The court of appeals acknowledged that analysis of the "transmission" element and its required proof was a novel issue for the court under the specific provisions of 18 USC § 1030(a) (5) (A). Yet, the court interpreted the word transmission under this provision by assimilating this term with the wire fraud crime, which also requires the element of transmission. Thus, the court used the Wire Fraud Act interpretation of the word transmission and held that "circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove that the transmission has occurred." Therefore, the analysis concentrated on the prosecution proof that transmissions were associated to defendant's passwords, despite the employee's claim that the network was not secured and that other employees could have accessed those passwords."

swombat 17y ago

I bet the report will say "it was hacked after a large number of people visited it, coming from a site called 'Hacker News'".