5 ms·

We need a legal structure to make companies liable for the actions of the agents they've made.

by timdiggerm 13d ago

deleted 13d ago
[deleted]
ahoka 13d ago
I'm pretty sure it's already illegal to hack others.
kevincox 13d ago
I'm 99% sure the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act covers this. The problem is that it seems that none of the victims want to, or are brave enough, to sue a company with absurd amounts of funding.
- masfuerte 13d ago
  If it's covered by criminal law they don't need to sue. They can call the FBI.
  - Schlagbohrer 13d ago
    Same FBI that prosecuted the Epstein crime ring so aggressively!
    - nosioptar 13d ago
      They're gonna get to the Epstein stuff right after they get the guy that called Kash Patel names. https://newrepublic.com/post/215320/texts-kash-patel-order-staff-mean-social-media-posts-ifindretards https://newrepublic.com/post/215320/texts-kash-patel-order-s...
- coffeefirst 13d ago
  Uh huh. It can’t be a coincidence that all the targets have been tech services that are likely to engage with them after the fact. Had this gone after a bank or a government agency someone would be going to jail.
  - trinsic2 13d ago
    Exactly. Just follow the patterns. Its pretty obvious.
- immibis2 13d ago
  It shouldn't actually take that much bravery. If your case isn't completely frivolous, isn't your maximum loss limited to the court filing fees and a lawyer payment that you know in advance and can decide when to stop paying? It's not the same as getting sued.
  - nosioptar 13d ago
    Can't you be ordered to pay the legal fees of the person you sued if you lose badly enough?
    - Charmunk 12d ago
      Yes, but this only really happens if your lawsuit is bad faith or frivolous. If they have a valid reason for the suit but just lose, this won't happen.
- sparkling 13d ago
  Or the victims have no incentive to do so, such as in the Hugging Face case.
- tick_tock_tick 12d ago
  I mean it's surprising to think you're 99% sure while being wildly off base. Everything in there require intent.
riskable 13d ago
We already have it. Good luck convincing the current DOJ to do anything useful at all though! It is currently intentionally stacked with incompetent cronies who have been told that their job is to attack the President's enemies and ignore the misdeeds of his allies. It will remain like that until he's gone (and not replaced with another Republican wannabe dictator).
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 13d ago
  "To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law"
- Schlagbohrer 13d ago
  [flagged]
- bjt 13d ago
  The grandparent comment said "liable". That's civil court, not criminal, and doesn't need the DOJ to be involved. HuggingFace and/or RubyGems could sue OpenAI. States also have their own laws against unauthorized computer use (hacking). A state Attorney General could bring a suit under those laws, regardless of who is in the white house.
  - psjs 12d ago
    HF falls under French jurisdiction, right? Couldn’t a case be made over there?
    - ldng 12d ago
      Makes you wonder why exactly Nvidia bought them, right ?
- trinsic2 13d ago
  It will remain this way in slightly differnt shades of colors until there is a systemic change. IM sorry this isn't a one party problem. There are people across the isle that are allowing this to continue. Im not in support of any party btw. Im only in support of humanity doing humane things.
netdevphoenix 13d ago
Agent technology labs are likely exempted of this due to the significance ascribed to their work.

We need a legal structure to make companies liable for the actions of the agents they've made.

deleted 13d ago

[deleted]

ahoka 13d ago

I'm pretty sure it's already illegal to hack others.

kevincox 13d ago

I'm 99% sure the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act covers this. The problem is that it seems that none of the victims want to, or are brave enough, to sue a company with absurd amounts of funding.

masfuerte 13d ago
If it's covered by criminal law they don't need to sue. They can call the FBI.
- Schlagbohrer 13d ago
  Same FBI that prosecuted the Epstein crime ring so aggressively!
  - nosioptar 13d ago
    They're gonna get to the Epstein stuff right after they get the guy that called Kash Patel names. https://newrepublic.com/post/215320/texts-kash-patel-order-staff-mean-social-media-posts-ifindretards https://newrepublic.com/post/215320/texts-kash-patel-order-s...
coffeefirst 13d ago
Uh huh. It can’t be a coincidence that all the targets have been tech services that are likely to engage with them after the fact. Had this gone after a bank or a government agency someone would be going to jail.
- trinsic2 13d ago
  Exactly. Just follow the patterns. Its pretty obvious.
immibis2 13d ago
It shouldn't actually take that much bravery. If your case isn't completely frivolous, isn't your maximum loss limited to the court filing fees and a lawyer payment that you know in advance and can decide when to stop paying? It's not the same as getting sued.
- nosioptar 13d ago
  Can't you be ordered to pay the legal fees of the person you sued if you lose badly enough?
  - Charmunk 12d ago
    Yes, but this only really happens if your lawsuit is bad faith or frivolous. If they have a valid reason for the suit but just lose, this won't happen.
sparkling 13d ago
Or the victims have no incentive to do so, such as in the Hugging Face case.
tick_tock_tick 12d ago
I mean it's surprising to think you're 99% sure while being wildly off base. Everything in there require intent.

riskable 13d ago

We already have it. Good luck convincing the current DOJ to do anything useful at all though! It is currently intentionally stacked with incompetent cronies who have been told that their job is to attack the President's enemies and ignore the misdeeds of his allies. It will remain like that until he's gone (and not replaced with another Republican wannabe dictator).

2OEH8eoCRo0 13d ago
"To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law"
Schlagbohrer 13d ago
[flagged]
bjt 13d ago
The grandparent comment said "liable". That's civil court, not criminal, and doesn't need the DOJ to be involved. HuggingFace and/or RubyGems could sue OpenAI. States also have their own laws against unauthorized computer use (hacking). A state Attorney General could bring a suit under those laws, regardless of who is in the white house.
- psjs 12d ago
  HF falls under French jurisdiction, right? Couldn’t a case be made over there?
  - ldng 12d ago
    Makes you wonder why exactly Nvidia bought them, right ?
trinsic2 13d ago
It will remain this way in slightly differnt shades of colors until there is a systemic change. IM sorry this isn't a one party problem. There are people across the isle that are allowing this to continue. Im not in support of any party btw. Im only in support of humanity doing humane things.

netdevphoenix 13d ago

Agent technology labs are likely exempted of this due to the significance ascribed to their work.