3 ms·

> Intention matter a lot in US law. Maybe (and historically, not with CFAA) - but they're still going to extradite you to a trial here to find out which is mor

> Intention matter a lot in US law. Maybe (and historically, not with CFAA) - but they're still going to extradite you to a trial here to find out which is more than enough to ruin your life. The government is already looking for a great excuse to criminalize open source models.

euroderf 26d ago
> The government is already looking for a great excuse to criminalize open source models. Sounds interesting+scary. Do you have some source for this ?
- alightsoul 26d ago
  Anthropic and Openai, but especially anthropic, are lobbying the us government to make it happen
ALLTaken 26d ago
The government or OpenAI and Anthrophic? Because if you mean the Government, I think they frankly just care whoever is paying them to make an executive order or worse a law paid by corporations to not only block, but ideally also ANHILIATE ANY POTENTIAL COMPETITION. It's the ultimatum against the small guys. Sold as "Anti-China", when in reality it's only purpose is total dependency to corporations by law.
- solenoid0937 26d ago
  The support of OSS models on HN just days after finding out about the message board incident is so bizarre to me. Do you guys really not comprehend the impact of giving every script kiddie an Astra-equivalent model to play with, this time without any guardrails whatsoever? Cause I'm starting to think you aren't really thinking through the impact of power plants, hospitals, etc all being hacked en masse. People will die. Or making it easy for anyone to make a virus (it's not hard, mechanically). Even more people will die. Taking this to the extreme: You don't just give every kid a "do anything" super intelligent button. Open source models have a limited lifespan whether you like it or not, for the safety of all of us as a whole.
  - Aspos 26d ago
    Is this "think of the children, think of the hospitals" argument? Really?
    - solenoid0937 26d ago
      Meaningless phrase used to dismiss arguments, please engage with the actual argument. I don't think you understand how bad it will be if anyone has a button that can hack anything, our infrastructure is not ready for this. Actual people will die. Do you just not get this? Bioweapons as well. Do you not understand how easy it is to craft a virus at home? You can literally order everything you need online. Again, actual people will die. You are arguing the equivalent of letting everyone own missile launchers or RPGs because "open source good."
      - Aspos 26d ago
        If and I mean IF it will be a (A) "hack anything" button, it as well will be a (B) "find a vuln in my site" button too. And a (C) "harden my site" too. And limiting such buttons to a few corporations does not make any sense because script-kiddies will still have access to (A).
        solenoid0937 26d ago
        Did you know (C) is possible without causing mass chaos that results in many people dying? In ways that don't give every script kiddie access to (A, B)? It turns out you can give defenders the opportunity to front-run, at least on the most critical and widely used infrastructure. Same with bio risks.
        Aspos 26d ago
        No, that's an illusion, that's the thing. You can't physically have (C) without the (A). Large corporations will spend billions trying to convince the population it is somehow possible, but the reality is different.
- ALLTaken 26d ago
  Nothing unites the public behind restrictions like a good dose of fear. The "for the children" angle is a master key for regulation—always sold as protection from the big bad wolf. "Trust us, we're here to protect you." Sure we are. /s It's only a matter of time before open-source gets banned in the US under that same paternalistic security blanket. /s
jdm2212 26d ago
Who was prosecuted under CFAA for something they did not intend to do?
- easterncalculus 26d ago
  Robert Morris, Lori Drew, probably a few others, depending on what you mean by their intent.
  - jdm2212 25d ago
    Intent is literally a requirement for conviction under CFAA. It's the first line of the law: "Whoever having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access..." Robert Morris very intentionally wrote a computer virus, released it into the wild to infect computers he didn't have permission to use, and tried to cover his tracks by making it look like it came from MIT instead of Cornell. The only accidental part was that the virus was too successful, and that he got caught. Lori Drew intentionally violated MySpace's TOS (in the course of cyberbullying a child until she killed herself), and was acquitted because TOS violations don't rise to the level of a crime.

euroderf 26d ago

> The government is already looking for a great excuse to criminalize open source models. Sounds interesting+scary. Do you have some source for this ?

alightsoul 26d ago
Anthropic and Openai, but especially anthropic, are lobbying the us government to make it happen

ALLTaken 26d ago

The government or OpenAI and Anthrophic? Because if you mean the Government, I think they frankly just care whoever is paying them to make an executive order or worse a law paid by corporations to not only block, but ideally also ANHILIATE ANY POTENTIAL COMPETITION. It's the ultimatum against the small guys. Sold as "Anti-China", when in reality it's only purpose is total dependency to corporations by law.

solenoid0937 26d ago
The support of OSS models on HN just days after finding out about the message board incident is so bizarre to me. Do you guys really not comprehend the impact of giving every script kiddie an Astra-equivalent model to play with, this time without any guardrails whatsoever? Cause I'm starting to think you aren't really thinking through the impact of power plants, hospitals, etc all being hacked en masse. People will die. Or making it easy for anyone to make a virus (it's not hard, mechanically). Even more people will die. Taking this to the extreme: You don't just give every kid a "do anything" super intelligent button. Open source models have a limited lifespan whether you like it or not, for the safety of all of us as a whole.
- Aspos 26d ago
  Is this "think of the children, think of the hospitals" argument? Really?
  - solenoid0937 26d ago
    Meaningless phrase used to dismiss arguments, please engage with the actual argument. I don't think you understand how bad it will be if anyone has a button that can hack anything, our infrastructure is not ready for this. Actual people will die. Do you just not get this? Bioweapons as well. Do you not understand how easy it is to craft a virus at home? You can literally order everything you need online. Again, actual people will die. You are arguing the equivalent of letting everyone own missile launchers or RPGs because "open source good."
    - Aspos 26d ago
      If and I mean IF it will be a (A) "hack anything" button, it as well will be a (B) "find a vuln in my site" button too. And a (C) "harden my site" too. And limiting such buttons to a few corporations does not make any sense because script-kiddies will still have access to (A).
      - solenoid0937 26d ago
        Did you know (C) is possible without causing mass chaos that results in many people dying? In ways that don't give every script kiddie access to (A, B)? It turns out you can give defenders the opportunity to front-run, at least on the most critical and widely used infrastructure. Same with bio risks.
        Aspos 26d ago
        No, that's an illusion, that's the thing. You can't physically have (C) without the (A). Large corporations will spend billions trying to convince the population it is somehow possible, but the reality is different.
ALLTaken 26d ago
Nothing unites the public behind restrictions like a good dose of fear. The "for the children" angle is a master key for regulation—always sold as protection from the big bad wolf. "Trust us, we're here to protect you." Sure we are. /s It's only a matter of time before open-source gets banned in the US under that same paternalistic security blanket. /s

jdm2212 26d ago

Who was prosecuted under CFAA for something they did not intend to do?

easterncalculus 26d ago
Robert Morris, Lori Drew, probably a few others, depending on what you mean by their intent.
- jdm2212 25d ago
  Intent is literally a requirement for conviction under CFAA. It's the first line of the law: "Whoever having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access..." Robert Morris very intentionally wrote a computer virus, released it into the wild to infect computers he didn't have permission to use, and tried to cover his tracks by making it look like it came from MIT instead of Cornell. The only accidental part was that the virus was too successful, and that he got caught. Lori Drew intentionally violated MySpace's TOS (in the course of cyberbullying a child until she killed herself), and was acquitted because TOS violations don't rise to the level of a crime.