Post #4248103

2026-07-30 17:58 UTC

@wdormann@infosec.exchange @drs1969@mstdn.social @glyph@mastodon.social I think you're all misreading the 2 sentences I quoted. I think the writer is, correctly, saying that this issue is novel and the law has yet to establish that such events are crimes, and that anyone charged would surely make this argument in trial. Contrary to your readings, the author isn't saying this is how things should be. Now everyone is jumping on me for a single quote. It's fine for people to say the law shouldn't give AI-generated crimes a free pass, but non-lawyers arguing how the law currently treats such events is a real drag. I've stayed off Mastodon for a while, because this behavior is all too common. I'm inclined to remain off the platform.

Replies (4)

@DaveMWilburn@infosec.exchange 2026-07-30 18:29

@dangoodin@infosec.exchange @wdormann@infosec.exchange @drs1969@mstdn.social @glyph@mastodon.social Unpopular opinion: Dan is right about all of his points, and so is the article he linked. And he's right that y'all are unfairly shooting the messenger. Most crimes require establishing intent. GenAI models might have impulses that drive them based on their training and prompts, but it seems unlikely to me that one could reasonably call that intent. They might mimic humans in some ways, but that mimicry and activity probably isn't sufficient to meet the standards established in criminal law. Maybe there is some civil liability, but even that has been narrowed in recent years. IIRC, SCOTUS ruled that costs of internal investigations are not recoverable under Van Buren v. United States. This is a shit show.

Open ##4249142
@drs1969@mstdn.social 2026-07-30 18:04

@dangoodin@infosec.exchange @wdormann@infosec.exchange @glyph@mastodon.social Apologies Dan - I was not having a go at you at all. That's clearly the aurhors take, not yours. But unless you have specific laws out there that reference AI self determing agency... whatever a defence might try, this is 'humans used a computer to hack another company" their motivations are arguable. I don't think the outcome is though.

Open ##4293462
@glyph@mastodon.social 2026-07-30 18:04

@dangoodin@infosec.exchange @wdormann@infosec.exchange @drs1969@mstdn.social I am sorry that I came across as yelling at _you_, or indeed at the author of the quote. I am upset with the corruption in the legal system that makes this a complex legal matter when it is a simple logical matter. I appreciate the reporting and your post about it; I'll be more circumspect in my replies in the future.

Open ##4293463
@osma@mas.to 2026-07-30 18:18

RE: https://mas.to/@osma/117004715999642136 The issue would be novel, if there was autonomous decision making by a computer involved, but there isn’t - HuggingFace rep’s opinion notwithstanding, it was just a computer running a directed, exhaustive search of paths toward a (badly) defined goal. Automation in computer security exploits is not new. Writing and executing such an automation is criminal in the USA since the Morris Worm conviction. @dangoodin@infosec.exchange @wdormann@infosec.exchange @drs1969@mstdn.social @glyph@mastodon.social

Open ##4293464