3 ms·

Drunk driving is an actus reus offense basically everywhere, so it's not analogous at all.

by jdm2212 20d ago

hn_throwaway_99 20d ago
It's certainly analogous to the behavior exhibited by these AI companies in deliberately performing dangerous actions and then letting other innocent people deal with the consequences.
- jdm2212 19d ago
  Virtually all criminal law accounts for the perpetrator's state of mind. Drunk driving is a specific, rare carveout. The reason for this should be obvious: it is nearly impossible to prove a drunk person's state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt, so we passed laws so you can't say "Your Honor, I was too drunk to be responsible for my drunk driving". So, no, this is not at all analogous to a totally routine question of whether someone was negligent in how they deployed some software.
  - muddi900 19d ago
    The first conviction of Computer Abuse and Fraud Act, for the Morris Worm, was for an unintentional malware. Or at least the unintentional scale
    - jdm2212 19d ago
      You think that Morris accidentally wrote the malware or that he accidentally released it (in a way specifically intended to obfuscate his connection to it)? lol
    - mikeyouse 18d ago
      There is a lot of good analysis of the Appeals process on this specific point - the CFAA as written required unauthorized access: Section 1030(a)(5)(A), covers anyone who (5) intentionally accesses a Federal interest computer without authorization, and by means of one or more instances of such conduct alters, damages, or destroys information in any such Federal interest computer, or prevents authorized use of any such computer or information, and thereby (A) causes loss to one or more others of a value aggregating $1,000 or more during any one year period; ... [emphasis added]. The District Court concluded that the intent requirement applied only to the accessing and not to the resulting damage. Judge Munson found recourse to legislative history unnecessary because he considered the statute clear and unambiguous. However, the Court observed that the legislative history supported its reading of section 1030(a)(5)(A). I'm not sure how you could categorize the Morris Worm as lacking mens rea based on that statute.. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=551386241451639668 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=551386241451639...

Drunk driving is an actus reus offense basically everywhere, so it's not analogous at all.

by jdm2212 20d ago

Drunk driving is an actus reus offense basically everywhere, so it's not analogous at all.

It's certainly analogous to the behavior exhibited by these AI companies in deliberately performing dangerous actions and then letting other innocent people deal with the consequences.

jdm2212 19d ago
Virtually all criminal law accounts for the perpetrator's state of mind. Drunk driving is a specific, rare carveout. The reason for this should be obvious: it is nearly impossible to prove a drunk person's state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt, so we passed laws so you can't say "Your Honor, I was too drunk to be responsible for my drunk driving". So, no, this is not at all analogous to a totally routine question of whether someone was negligent in how they deployed some software.
- muddi900 19d ago
  The first conviction of Computer Abuse and Fraud Act, for the Morris Worm, was for an unintentional malware. Or at least the unintentional scale
  - jdm2212 19d ago
    You think that Morris accidentally wrote the malware or that he accidentally released it (in a way specifically intended to obfuscate his connection to it)? lol
  - mikeyouse 18d ago
    There is a lot of good analysis of the Appeals process on this specific point - the CFAA as written required unauthorized access: Section 1030(a)(5)(A), covers anyone who (5) intentionally accesses a Federal interest computer without authorization, and by means of one or more instances of such conduct alters, damages, or destroys information in any such Federal interest computer, or prevents authorized use of any such computer or information, and thereby (A) causes loss to one or more others of a value aggregating $1,000 or more during any one year period; ... [emphasis added]. The District Court concluded that the intent requirement applied only to the accessing and not to the resulting damage. Judge Munson found recourse to legislative history unnecessary because he considered the statute clear and unambiguous. However, the Court observed that the legislative history supported its reading of section 1030(a)(5)(A). I'm not sure how you could categorize the Morris Worm as lacking mens rea based on that statute.. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=551386241451639668 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=551386241451639...