Hacker News Reader

Comment by sscaryterry | Hacker News Reader

The existing laws are more than adequate.

I gave an example of why they are not.

Could you explain what your legal strategy would be to overcome the intent requirement of the CFAA? If openAI didn’t intend to hack anything and agents can’t intend to do anything at all, and the CFAA doesn’t permit negligence to stand in for intent, seems to me like the existing law does not cover the situation everyone keeps saying it does.

Requiring intent is very specific to your jurisdiction, many, if not most other jurisdictions do not require intent.

In the UK, any form of unauthorised access may be prosecuted.

No, the UK’s equivalent law specifically requires human intent and mens rea:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/section/3 (1b.)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/section/1 (1c.)

I’m told that the UK is a relatively authoritarian country where citizens have no real rights, so perhaps it can be charged anyway, but the plain language of the statute would seem to bar it.

> Unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or with recklessness as to impairing,

Can you see the ", or with recklessness as to impairing".

Edit: You seem troubled. The UK is not like you describe at all. We do not have ICE running around. Instead, we have the opposite problem.

Seems like I hit a nerve. I don’t think I am troubled but I do think that Americans have more rights that are better protected than the British, ICE notwithstanding.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com