Post #4415877 · Elektrine

2026-08-06 11:34 UTC

@DaveMWilburn@infosec.exchange @Viss@mastodon.social @jfslowik@infosec.exchange semi-autonomous agent given goals, tools, and latitude. the law's answer for forty years has been more autonomy granted, more supervision owed. Tesla drove this in reverse, shipping autonomy and blaming the driver no matter what, and that worked right up until a jury said no for 243 million bucks. loophole cowboys shouldn't fool anyone. look at Section 15(b)(4)(E) of the Exchange Act, in force since 1964 with sharpened teeth after the 1988 Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act: a broker-dealer or supervisor is liable for violations committed by any person subject to their supervision, if they failed reasonably to supervise with a view to preventing the violation. note what's absent: intent that the trader commit the act. nobody prosecutes Morgan Stanley by proving management asked for rogue trades.

Replies (1)

@DaveMWilburn@infosec.exchange 2026-08-06 11:52

@flyingpenguin@infosec.exchange @Viss@mastodon.social @jfslowik@infosec.exchange In both of those examples, the statutes' threshold for liability is something other than criminal intent (e.g., negligence) or where the law explicitly requires a profession (e.g., financial advisors) to abide by certain standards, and at least one of those cases is civil rather than criminal. But that's not what the CFAA says. To the best of my knowledge, there's no statute that requires software firms, AI or otherwise, to adhere to certain standards of safety and that creates criminal or civil liability for negligence. And when it comes to holding these bastards accountable for their harmful activity, that's a problem.

Open ##4416466