Post #4423518

2026-08-06 16:17 UTC

@troed@swecyb.com @dangillmor@mastodon.social good quote. it warns against certainty from people who don't cite the field. my posts cited Morris, Screws, and the CMA's text. yours declared certainty with no citations at all, and you just closed with "I'm sure." that quote found its target.

Replies (1)

@troed@swecyb.com 2026-08-06 17:23

@flyingpenguin@infosec.exchange Your initial reply to me referenced CFAA and that the Morris Worm case made this a done deal. Let's cite someone with actual legal expertise: "Who is liable? The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) requires intent—but no human at OpenAI intended to hack Hugging Face."* That's the intent part I wrote about, and why Morris' is irrelevant since intent was clear in that case. You have then pivoted to CMA after I linked an actual discussion on the topic and try to claim that you're now winning an Internet argument. If I link a few more things I'm sure you'll end up where I was in my first post. Your interest seems to be in being argumentative, not in fruitful discussion. *) https://foleyhoag.com/news-and-insights/blogs/security-privacy-and-the-law/2026/july/what-the-openai-hugging-face-breach-means-for-your-organization/

Open ##4423517