3 ms·

> Intention matter a lot in US law. They hacked a competition company. The intention was implicit when there is economic gain to be had. > People are not cha

by Frieren 1mo ago

> Intention matter a lot in US law. They hacked a competition company. The intention was implicit when there is economic gain to be had. > People are not charged with hacking when their unsecured box is taken over by a botnet and does bad stuff. Because it is a lose for that people. If the botnet left money in their pockets the situation would be totally different as there will be an incentive for them to let the botnet hack them.

rcxdude 1mo ago
> The intention was implicit when there is economic gain to be had. Not how it works. Intent requires at least that you were deliberately doing the criminal act (sometimes also that you knew it was criminal, or at least that you had some reason to believe that it was wrong).
- Frieren 1mo ago
  > Intent requires at least that you were deliberately doing the criminal act So, they did something that benefits them by mistake. I would like to see a person would be judged in that situation. I can imagine that the bar to put someone in prison is way lower than to give a fine to a mega-corporation.
  - rcxdude 1mo ago
    You can imagine what you like. I can imagine a million examples of people being judged not guilty because intent could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There are of course many injustices in the 'justice' system, but I would prefer to discuss the concrete details instead of just vibes. Here's one case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/246/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/246/ where someone who took some metal they believed to be abandoned was aquitted on that basis, though this particular case made it to the supreme court because the lower courts tried to rule that the fact that he didn't intend to steal them didn't matter. Also, I don't think there's a strong argument that hacking huggingface did benefit them. If you could prove it was a deliberate ploy to market their models, then perhaps you could argue they expected to benefit. Otherwise, you could argue that it's negatively affected their reputation.

by Frieren 1mo ago

rcxdude 1mo ago

> The intention was implicit when there is economic gain to be had. Not how it works. Intent requires at least that you were deliberately doing the criminal act (sometimes also that you knew it was criminal, or at least that you had some reason to believe that it was wrong).

Frieren 1mo ago
> Intent requires at least that you were deliberately doing the criminal act So, they did something that benefits them by mistake. I would like to see a person would be judged in that situation. I can imagine that the bar to put someone in prison is way lower than to give a fine to a mega-corporation.
- rcxdude 1mo ago
  You can imagine what you like. I can imagine a million examples of people being judged not guilty because intent could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There are of course many injustices in the 'justice' system, but I would prefer to discuss the concrete details instead of just vibes. Here's one case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/246/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/246/ where someone who took some metal they believed to be abandoned was aquitted on that basis, though this particular case made it to the supreme court because the lower courts tried to rule that the fact that he didn't intend to steal them didn't matter. Also, I don't think there's a strong argument that hacking huggingface did benefit them. If you could prove it was a deliberate ploy to market their models, then perhaps you could argue they expected to benefit. Otherwise, you could argue that it's negatively affected their reputation.