4 ms·

CFAA is hilariously overly broad. Charging it as a sex crime seems a bit off, least of all because of all of the treatment of sex offenders in the US. There se

CFAA is hilariously overly broad. Charging it as a sex crime seems a bit off, least of all because of all of the treatment of sex offenders in the US. There seems to be a qualitative difference between turning on a publicly-exposed vibrating buttplug and forcibly inserting something into the rectum of an unwilling participant. Like, is it really reasonable to say that somebody should lose the right to vote and bear arms because they issued a POST request to an unsecured web server in their neighborhood that happened to be a sex toy? EDIT: I don't want to sound like I'm blaming victims here, but using toys that are properly locked down is the responsibility of the participants--much like making sure they're sterile.

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
Intent is usually necessary for a crime to have occurred, in the case of the accidental POST. I think the sex offender registry has a lot of...how to put this..."societal-technical" debt, a reasonable solution to a serious problem that causes all sorts of harm on its own. I think that's a topic better suited for an entirely separate conversation.
kelnos 9y ago
> I don't want to sound like I'm blaming victims here, but using toys that are properly locked down is the responsibility of the participants--much like making sure they're sterile. Despite your "I don't want to sound..." prefix, that is literally the definition of victim-blaming. Just because I leave the door to my house unlocked, it doesn't mean people have the right to enter it without my permission, and it's not my "fault" if they do. Engaging in sexual contact requires consent. I expect it's legally debatable if remotely turning on a vibrator that's already inserted into someone counts as "sexual contact" (I would say it is, or if not, should be), but if it is, it requires consent. I think intent and foreknowledge does matter here: if someone just found a random web server and sent some requests to it without knowing what it is or what it does, I'd say that's unwise, but not criminal. But if it's obvious from the name advertised by the device and/or the names of the endpoints accessed, or requires knowledge of a protocol specific to a connected sex toy, I'd say that should be enough to establish nefarious sexual intent.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  There is nothing wrong with blaming the victim as long as one does not absolve the perpetrators from any guilt. People need to take back some shred of personal responsibility if I get piss drunk and pass out on a bench and wake up without any of my stuff sure the assholes who stole my phone and wallet are still criminals but i also was a moron for getting piss drunk and passing out in public. If you get robbed because you didn’t locked the door then it’s just as much your fault. We don’t live in a vacuum we know exactly how to avoid various situations which is why we don’t leave a laptop visible in the backseat of a car when we park it in public, why we secure our bikes, lock our doors and don’t use 123456 as a password.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    I agree with you, but I don't think to the degree you'd like. Yes, people need to take responsibility for taking risks (intentionally or otherwise) when those risks result in bad consequences. I think the concept of "fault" is really just not useful here. Sure, if I forget to lock my door, and I get robbed, I share some of the fault ("just as much", though -- hell no), but... so what? The result is the same as if I did lock the door and they broke in anyway. I certainly screwed up, but that doesn't somehow make it more moral/legal/ethical for the thief to come in and steal. > We don’t live in a vacuum we know exactly how to avoid various situations which is why we don’t leave a laptop visible in the backseat of a car when we park it in public, why we secure our bikes, lock our doors and don’t use 123456 as a password. The problem is that this is a super cynical view of society. We are actively making society worse by thinking this. I've been in countries where people park their scooters on the sidewalk and leave their helmets unsecured on the seat for hours. No one steals, because that just isn't done. And what's so magically different? If I go and park my car in a safe suburb in the US, I can leave my laptop visible in the backseat without consequence. If I do that in certain parts of a city, well, there goes my window and my laptop. Do we really want to teach people that they have to be paranoid about everything? Do we really want it to be accepted and ok that your belongings aren't safe inside a locked car? That's a pretty shitty society, if so. I hesitate to use this example since it's a sensitive topic, but you can easily extend this to the tired "well if she had been dressed mode modestly, maybe she wouldn't have gotten raped". Obviously getting a bike stolen because you didn't lock it is nowhere near as bad. But you're muddling cause and effect here. "The bike got stolen because it was unsecured." No, the bike got stolen because there are assholes who steal bikes. "That woman got raped because she wore suggestive clothing." No, she got raped because there are piece of shit assholes who rape women.

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago

Intent is usually necessary for a crime to have occurred, in the case of the accidental POST. I think the sex offender registry has a lot of...how to put this..."societal-technical" debt, a reasonable solution to a serious problem that causes all sorts of harm on its own. I think that's a topic better suited for an entirely separate conversation.

kelnos 9y ago

> I don't want to sound like I'm blaming victims here, but using toys that are properly locked down is the responsibility of the participants--much like making sure they're sterile. Despite your "I don't want to sound..." prefix, that is literally the definition of victim-blaming. Just because I leave the door to my house unlocked, it doesn't mean people have the right to enter it without my permission, and it's not my "fault" if they do. Engaging in sexual contact requires consent. I expect it's legally debatable if remotely turning on a vibrator that's already inserted into someone counts as "sexual contact" (I would say it is, or if not, should be), but if it is, it requires consent. I think intent and foreknowledge does matter here: if someone just found a random web server and sent some requests to it without knowing what it is or what it does, I'd say that's unwise, but not criminal. But if it's obvious from the name advertised by the device and/or the names of the endpoints accessed, or requires knowledge of a protocol specific to a connected sex toy, I'd say that should be enough to establish nefarious sexual intent.

dogma1138 9y ago
There is nothing wrong with blaming the victim as long as one does not absolve the perpetrators from any guilt. People need to take back some shred of personal responsibility if I get piss drunk and pass out on a bench and wake up without any of my stuff sure the assholes who stole my phone and wallet are still criminals but i also was a moron for getting piss drunk and passing out in public. If you get robbed because you didn’t locked the door then it’s just as much your fault. We don’t live in a vacuum we know exactly how to avoid various situations which is why we don’t leave a laptop visible in the backseat of a car when we park it in public, why we secure our bikes, lock our doors and don’t use 123456 as a password.
- kelnos 9y ago
  I agree with you, but I don't think to the degree you'd like. Yes, people need to take responsibility for taking risks (intentionally or otherwise) when those risks result in bad consequences. I think the concept of "fault" is really just not useful here. Sure, if I forget to lock my door, and I get robbed, I share some of the fault ("just as much", though -- hell no), but... so what? The result is the same as if I did lock the door and they broke in anyway. I certainly screwed up, but that doesn't somehow make it more moral/legal/ethical for the thief to come in and steal. > We don’t live in a vacuum we know exactly how to avoid various situations which is why we don’t leave a laptop visible in the backseat of a car when we park it in public, why we secure our bikes, lock our doors and don’t use 123456 as a password. The problem is that this is a super cynical view of society. We are actively making society worse by thinking this. I've been in countries where people park their scooters on the sidewalk and leave their helmets unsecured on the seat for hours. No one steals, because that just isn't done. And what's so magically different? If I go and park my car in a safe suburb in the US, I can leave my laptop visible in the backseat without consequence. If I do that in certain parts of a city, well, there goes my window and my laptop. Do we really want to teach people that they have to be paranoid about everything? Do we really want it to be accepted and ok that your belongings aren't safe inside a locked car? That's a pretty shitty society, if so. I hesitate to use this example since it's a sensitive topic, but you can easily extend this to the tired "well if she had been dressed mode modestly, maybe she wouldn't have gotten raped". Obviously getting a bike stolen because you didn't lock it is nowhere near as bad. But you're muddling cause and effect here. "The bike got stolen because it was unsecured." No, the bike got stolen because there are assholes who steal bikes. "That woman got raped because she wore suggestive clothing." No, she got raped because there are piece of shit assholes who rape women.