3 ms·

Is it enabled by default? If yes, criminal charges should be on the table.

kjs3 5y ago
What criminal charge, exactly? As long as it's in the fine print, hard to see how it's criminal. Shitty, possibly (hopefully) civilly actionable, but criminal seems like a stretch, at least in the US. Not that I don't think that people who think this sort of thing is an acceptable business practice shouldn't be frogmarched out back and strung up in the nearest tree...
- LegitShady 5y ago
  Probably the choice principle of unjust enrichment.
  - kjs3 5y ago
    That's a possible angle I hadn't thought of. Good call.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  The same charge that would apply for other malware mining operations. In the US, CFAA? I'm pretty sure that if I put in the fine print "I get to encrypt your files and hold them for ransom" I'd be going to jail too if I did it, fine print or not. In Germany, I'd consider "theft of electrical energy" and § 263a "computer fraud".
  - kjs3 5y ago
    I'm not familiar with German laws, so out of my depth and won't presume. But I really don't think CFAA would apply. They aren't holding anything hostage as far as I can tell. They're just saying something like "yo...since you aren't using your compute cycles we'll put them to work". Shitty and unethical, but still looking for the criminal v. civil part.
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
      Wikipedia says "The law prohibits accessing a computer without authorization, or in excess of authorization." The law itself: "knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period" Since it explicitly mentions the value of the use of a computer as something that can be illegal to take, the main open question would be whether the $5000 of such use is per computer, or per crime. Another option would be "(C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss." if the electricity cost can count as "damage and loss".
      - kjs3 5y ago
        Um...did you miss the part where you 'agree' to this nonsense when you install the software, at least in the fine print. So thanks for trying to out-google me I guess, but I don't think you've made any useful point.

kjs3 5y ago

What criminal charge, exactly? As long as it's in the fine print, hard to see how it's criminal. Shitty, possibly (hopefully) civilly actionable, but criminal seems like a stretch, at least in the US. Not that I don't think that people who think this sort of thing is an acceptable business practice shouldn't be frogmarched out back and strung up in the nearest tree...

LegitShady 5y ago
Probably the choice principle of unjust enrichment.
- kjs3 5y ago
  That's a possible angle I hadn't thought of. Good call.
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
The same charge that would apply for other malware mining operations. In the US, CFAA? I'm pretty sure that if I put in the fine print "I get to encrypt your files and hold them for ransom" I'd be going to jail too if I did it, fine print or not. In Germany, I'd consider "theft of electrical energy" and § 263a "computer fraud".
- kjs3 5y ago
  I'm not familiar with German laws, so out of my depth and won't presume. But I really don't think CFAA would apply. They aren't holding anything hostage as far as I can tell. They're just saying something like "yo...since you aren't using your compute cycles we'll put them to work". Shitty and unethical, but still looking for the criminal v. civil part.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
    Wikipedia says "The law prohibits accessing a computer without authorization, or in excess of authorization." The law itself: "knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period" Since it explicitly mentions the value of the use of a computer as something that can be illegal to take, the main open question would be whether the $5000 of such use is per computer, or per crime. Another option would be "(C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss." if the electricity cost can count as "damage and loss".
    - kjs3 5y ago
      Um...did you miss the part where you 'agree' to this nonsense when you install the software, at least in the fine print. So thanks for trying to out-google me I guess, but I don't think you've made any useful point.