4 ms·

Was wondering the same thing, the only thing I could find (and its vague) was: "Officials claimed that Rubin’s project, which allowed people to replace adverti

Was wondering the same thing, the only thing I could find (and its vague) was: "Officials claimed that Rubin’s project, which allowed people to replace advertisements on websites with Bitcoin mining capabilities, had the potential to breach computer security through unauthorized access and possibly violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act." http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/09/22/mit-students-head-court-bitcoin-hackathon-project/ http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/09/22/mit-stude...

nwh 12y ago
Under that definition a lot of things are too dangerous to own. That libc you're packing? You're heading for jail for that, you potential criminal.
- atmosx 12y ago
  Yeah, by that measure a computer able to compile source code into exec, should be considered weapon of mass destruction given the potential.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  the potential to breach computer security through unauthorized access never mind code, it covers everything from soldering irons to telephones
  - nwh 12y ago
    The purchasing of this product presents a high risk of potential thought-crime.
    - happyscrappy 12y ago
      Being hyperbolic helps the opposition.
      - RickHull 12y ago
        It's not hyperbole when it's accurate.
      - lotsofmangos 12y ago
        Not if you also laugh and point.
1ris 12y ago
Is playing autoplay videos "unauthorized access" too?
toby 12y ago
NJ has successfully sued companies that created bitcoin botnets in the past. This is clearly not the same thing, but I guess it's enough to make a court grant a subpoena. http://www.wired.com/2013/11/e-sports/ http://www.wired.com/2013/11/e-sports/
at-fates-hands 12y ago
The puzzling thing here is that I read the tool as something the user chose to install on his PC so that instead of seeing a bunch of ads, it would remove those ads and mine bitcoins using background processes. Not sure how they can say they gained "unauthorized access" if the users were willfully installing this on their PC's. I could certainly see a cyber thief using this to run a botnet to mine BTC, but the MIT guys already said it wasn't really ready for prime time. Again, not sure how this makes this software so dangerous.
- npizzolato 12y ago
  From what I understand, it's not a user who installs it on their own pc. A website owner installs it on their website, and then visitors to the website mine bitcoins for the owner. I'm not sure how visiting a website implies consent to use their computer to mine bitcoins, but ianal.
brokentone 12y ago
Pursuing legal action for the potential to commit a crime under a broad definition is a scary day indeed.
fleitz 12y ago
They should file a bar complaint against the AG because being an AG gives rise to the potential to abuse laws.

nwh 12y ago

Under that definition a lot of things are too dangerous to own. That libc you're packing? You're heading for jail for that, you potential criminal.

atmosx 12y ago
Yeah, by that measure a computer able to compile source code into exec, should be considered weapon of mass destruction given the potential.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
the potential to breach computer security through unauthorized access never mind code, it covers everything from soldering irons to telephones
- nwh 12y ago
  The purchasing of this product presents a high risk of potential thought-crime.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    Being hyperbolic helps the opposition.
    - RickHull 12y ago
      It's not hyperbole when it's accurate.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      Not if you also laugh and point.

1ris 12y ago

Is playing autoplay videos "unauthorized access" too?

toby 12y ago

NJ has successfully sued companies that created bitcoin botnets in the past. This is clearly not the same thing, but I guess it's enough to make a court grant a subpoena. http://www.wired.com/2013/11/e-sports/ http://www.wired.com/2013/11/e-sports/

at-fates-hands 12y ago

The puzzling thing here is that I read the tool as something the user chose to install on his PC so that instead of seeing a bunch of ads, it would remove those ads and mine bitcoins using background processes. Not sure how they can say they gained "unauthorized access" if the users were willfully installing this on their PC's. I could certainly see a cyber thief using this to run a botnet to mine BTC, but the MIT guys already said it wasn't really ready for prime time. Again, not sure how this makes this software so dangerous.

npizzolato 12y ago
From what I understand, it's not a user who installs it on their own pc. A website owner installs it on their website, and then visitors to the website mine bitcoins for the owner. I'm not sure how visiting a website implies consent to use their computer to mine bitcoins, but ianal.

brokentone 12y ago

Pursuing legal action for the potential to commit a crime under a broad definition is a scary day indeed.

fleitz 12y ago

They should file a bar complaint against the AG because being an AG gives rise to the potential to abuse laws.