7 ms·

1.) so you quote both the Serious Crime Act 2007 and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. both of these are UK laws, and don't apply to giraffe, as he's from the Midwe

1.) so you quote both the Serious Crime Act 2007 and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. both of these are UK laws, and don't apply to giraffe, as he's from the Midwest USA. he wasn't bug hunting? he was showing users they are exposed to the internet so they could fix it! 2.) yes, i don't blame him, what was meant to be a harmless exercise in google scanning, has lead to people throwing death threats at him, and threatening law suits. he didn't encourage any reckless actions, i see Felix as quite a rational guy. i have read the chromecast hack, and the printer one, have you? i doubt he will, and if he does a simple defence could be made to fight for his case in court. 3.) i don't know if you are talking about me or felix? i doubt felix has a firm grasp on computer hacking law, but like i said he didn't tell them to do that, in fact he's stayed at arms length. the actions giraffe took don't fall foul of the UK law, idk about american. i'm pretty much done with this exchange, and who ever has been down-voting my comments.

DanBC 8y ago
> so you quote both the Serious Crime Act 2007 and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. both of these are UK laws, and don't apply to giraffe, as he's from the Midwest USA. The reason they may not apply is the lop-sided extradition arrangements that the UK has with the US. But, since this is likely a crime in both countries with a potential sentence of longer than one year in prison he faces possible extradition to the UK if anyone can be bothered with that process. UK based hackers who attacked US computers have been (or have come close to being) extradited to the US. It's much harder to take US based hackers attacking UK systems to the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_treaty_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_trea... > The treaty has been claimed to be one-sided[3] because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three), and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice versa.[4] Although the US embassy does say this: https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/the-u-s-uk-extradition-treaty/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-us-uk-extradition-relationship/ https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/the... > Why is it so much easier to extradite someone from the UK to the U.S. than in the other direction > It isn’t. The United States has not denied a single extradition request from the UK under the treaty; the UK has denied 10 requests from the U.S. since the treaty took effect. > Moreover, extradition requests from the U.S. to the UK have taken as long as 13 years to work their way through the UK and European courts. For extradition requests from the UK to the U.S. the subjects are in most cases extradited within several months. > A panel of UK extradition experts, led by well-respected retired judge Sir Scott Baker, found that the treaty is fair and balanced. Its report, issued in October 2011, provides considerable data and analysis to support the panel’s conclusions. > The Baker panel report notes that the U.S. has a population about five times the size of the UK, but there have been fewer than twice the number of people extradited to the U.S. than to the UK. The number of U.S. requests is therefore not disproportionate.
watwut 8y ago
1.) That is not what bug hunting is. Also, law does not care about it and that is not how real world world bug fixing works at all. 2.) Just one note: being rational does not exclude irresponsible. Because what is in rational for Félix self-interest is not in interest of hacker giraffe nor in interest wannabe pre-teenage hackers in his audience. It might as well be rational for him to be irresponsible as his audience like it. 3.) No, he does not have form grasp of laws. Again that would be against his self interest, as he could not be funny clueless after. I quoted him at full above. Frankly, sleezy and talking from both sides of mounth. Encouraging it while keeping plausible deniality. End result: he is safe while audience is having fun while they all think how cool consequences less it was. 4.) American law is batshit crazy with penalties, expansive and absurdly expensive even if you are actually innocent.

DanBC 8y ago

> so you quote both the Serious Crime Act 2007 and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. both of these are UK laws, and don't apply to giraffe, as he's from the Midwest USA. The reason they may not apply is the lop-sided extradition arrangements that the UK has with the US. But, since this is likely a crime in both countries with a potential sentence of longer than one year in prison he faces possible extradition to the UK if anyone can be bothered with that process. UK based hackers who attacked US computers have been (or have come close to being) extradited to the US. It's much harder to take US based hackers attacking UK systems to the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_treaty_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK%E2%80%93US_extradition_trea... > The treaty has been claimed to be one-sided[3] because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three), and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice versa.[4] Although the US embassy does say this: https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/the-u-s-uk-extradition-treaty/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-us-uk-extradition-relationship/ https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/the... > Why is it so much easier to extradite someone from the UK to the U.S. than in the other direction > It isn’t. The United States has not denied a single extradition request from the UK under the treaty; the UK has denied 10 requests from the U.S. since the treaty took effect. > Moreover, extradition requests from the U.S. to the UK have taken as long as 13 years to work their way through the UK and European courts. For extradition requests from the UK to the U.S. the subjects are in most cases extradited within several months. > A panel of UK extradition experts, led by well-respected retired judge Sir Scott Baker, found that the treaty is fair and balanced. Its report, issued in October 2011, provides considerable data and analysis to support the panel’s conclusions. > The Baker panel report notes that the U.S. has a population about five times the size of the UK, but there have been fewer than twice the number of people extradited to the U.S. than to the UK. The number of U.S. requests is therefore not disproportionate.

watwut 8y ago

1.) That is not what bug hunting is. Also, law does not care about it and that is not how real world world bug fixing works at all. 2.) Just one note: being rational does not exclude irresponsible. Because what is in rational for Félix self-interest is not in interest of hacker giraffe nor in interest wannabe pre-teenage hackers in his audience. It might as well be rational for him to be irresponsible as his audience like it. 3.) No, he does not have form grasp of laws. Again that would be against his self interest, as he could not be funny clueless after. I quoted him at full above. Frankly, sleezy and talking from both sides of mounth. Encouraging it while keeping plausible deniality. End result: he is safe while audience is having fun while they all think how cool consequences less it was. 4.) American law is batshit crazy with penalties, expansive and absurdly expensive even if you are actually innocent.