Post #4416607

2026-08-06 10:21 UTC

@flyingpenguin@infosec.exchange I of course know the ruling well - that was a rhetorical question. You seemingly don't know how intent is evaluated which was the whole point of my initial post. In short, no, the Morris Worm case is not relevant here. @dangillmor@mastodon.social

Replies (1)

@flyingpenguin@infosec.exchange 2026-08-06 10:40

@troed@swecyb.com @dangillmor@mastodon.social doesn't appear to be true. Of course you think you do? Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945). A Georgia sheriff beat Robert Hall to death in the courthouse square. Convicted. The Supreme Court, like you seem to want here, invented a specific-intent requirement, he was acquitted on retrial, and in 1958 Georgia elected him to the state senate. That intent doctrine gutted federal police-violence prosecutions for decades. So yes, I know how intent is evaluated. It's evaluated generously for the KKK and corrupt labs, and yet strictly for teenagers. Morris settled attribution because, just like OpenAI/Anthropic, it says the code's accesses are the liability of the launch person. Screws is what I said before. The intent defense has a documented history as a lever built for impunity, and reaching for it here repeats the pattern whether you know the history or not.

Open ##4416606