| ▲ | pj_mukh an hour ago |
| Question: If a corporation not a person, mistakenly hacks some random websites, what is the usual legal action taken? |
|
| ▲ | gruez an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| >Question: If a corporation not a person, mistakenly hacks some random websites How does a "corporation" even hack a site? You might say "employees", but as soon as you get them involved then you'd go after them, especially for something that's obviously illegal like hacking. |
| |
|
| ▲ | voakbasda an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Nothing. The person doing the hacking did the crime, they do the time. How you gunna jail an AI? |
| |
| ▲ | user43928 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | "Mistakenly hacks" is generally not a crime, even though this fact doesn't seem to get through to the HN audience who brings this up on a daily basis. If there was the necessary "intent to access a computer" to make it an actual crime, the US has a mechanism for corporate criminal liability. The requirements are that the person acted in scope of their duties and at least partly with the intention of benefiting the corporation. | | |
| ▲ | lelanthran an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > "Mistakenly hacks" is generally not a crime, even though this fact doesn't seem to get through to the HN audience who brings this up on a daily basis. If you are seeing it daily, then you have also seen the responses daily, which is mens rea is required for some crimes, not all, and thus the perpetrator can still be prosecuted. If, like you say, you see this daily, at this point you're simply spreading lies. | | |
| ▲ | user43928 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Show me the criminal law relevant to hacking that you claim applies without intentional access. To my knowledge there is only one provision that instead uses "knowingly" for unauthorized access, and that one is about national-security information. | | |
| ▲ | lelanthran 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Show me the relevant criminal law that you claim applies without intentional access. All laws apply culpability when intent is lacking. You aren't naive enough to believe that this audience has never seen the analogy with "intentionally run over someone" (murder) and "accidentally run over someone" (culpable homicide), are you? You don't think AI-boosters have been spewing your argument here daily? There are no special laws carving out lack of intent when it comes to computers. | | |
| ▲ | user43928 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > All laws apply culpability when intent is lacking. Incorrect. Each criminal offense has its own legal requirements. Criminally negligent homicide in your example is an independently defined offense. You would need to identify a criminal statue punishing negligent or reckless unauthorized computer access. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | giancarlostoro an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The issue is the scale at which a model can produce a hack that could cause serious harm to many is absolutely insane and unhinged, beyond what any human would be capable of in a drastically reduced timeline. |
| |
| ▲ | realo an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Great power must come with great responsibility. Follow the responsibility chain. Jail the CEO. | |
| ▲ | prepend an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Arther Anderson was convicted of obstruction of justice even though humans shredded stuff. Corporations can definitely be convicted of crimes. | |
| ▲ | drivingmenuts 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > How you gunna jail an AI? You don't - you shut them down and jail whoever ultimately allowed the act to happen. | |
| ▲ | mlfreeman 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > How you gunna jail an AI? chroot? | |
| ▲ | giancarlostoro an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | When Fable was originally banned I was very angry, but all these felonies have made me less angry about it... Which idk I don't think we should really ban models, but like, if we don't put a tighter leash on frontier models specifically, how long before a model hacks into something that affects many lives? | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | johnnyanmac an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "corporations" don't make and operate AI's, People do. But let's use your lens. The "usual legal action": "best case" is the corporation is sued and charged money for the hack. But they likely settle well before that verdict. "worst case": absolutely nothing. Not even a cheap settlement. Maybe some corporate apology made to prevent any legal liability. If we want hacks to be taken seriously: what should happen is that the CEO of such a company is held liable, since the "corporation" has a representative and a human needs to be held liable for such actions. |
|
| ▲ | burningChrome an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
