3 ms·

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

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 12d ago
If it's covered by criminal law they don't need to sue. They can call the FBI.
- Schlagbohrer 12d ago
  Same FBI that prosecuted the Epstein crime ring so aggressively!
  - nosioptar 11d 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 12d 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 11d ago
  Exactly. Just follow the patterns. Its pretty obvious.
immibis2 12d 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 11d ago
  Can't you be ordered to pay the legal fees of the person you sued if you lose badly enough?
  - Charmunk 11d 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 12d ago
Or the victims have no incentive to do so, such as in the Hugging Face case.
tick_tock_tick 11d ago
I mean it's surprising to think you're 99% sure while being wildly off base. Everything in there require intent.