Hacker News Reader

Comment by tgb | Hacker News Reader

What law did they supposedly break?

Was wondering the same thing, the only thing I could find (and its vague) was:

"Officials claimed that Rubin’s project, which allowed people to replace advertisements on websites with Bitcoin mining capabilities, had the potential to breach computer security through unauthorized access and possibly violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act."

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/09/22/mit-stude...

Under that definition a lot of things are too dangerous to own. That libc you're packing? You're heading for jail for that, you potential criminal.

Yeah, by that measure a computer able to compile source code into exec, should be considered weapon of mass destruction given the potential.

the potential to breach computer security through unauthorized access

never mind code, it covers everything from soldering irons to telephones

The purchasing of this product presents a high risk of potential thought-crime.

Being hyperbolic helps the opposition.

It's not hyperbole when it's accurate.

Not if you also laugh and point.

Is playing autoplay videos "unauthorized access" too?

NJ has successfully sued companies that created bitcoin botnets in the past. This is clearly not the same thing, but I guess it's enough to make a court grant a subpoena.

http://www.wired.com/2013/11/e-sports/

The puzzling thing here is that I read the tool as something the user chose to install on his PC so that instead of seeing a bunch of ads, it would remove those ads and mine bitcoins using background processes.

Not sure how they can say they gained "unauthorized access" if the users were willfully installing this on their PC's. I could certainly see a cyber thief using this to run a botnet to mine BTC, but the MIT guys already said it wasn't really ready for prime time. Again, not sure how this makes this software so dangerous.

From what I understand, it's not a user who installs it on their own pc. A website owner installs it on their website, and then visitors to the website mine bitcoins for the owner. I'm not sure how visiting a website implies consent to use their computer to mine bitcoins, but ianal.

Pursuing legal action for the potential to commit a crime under a broad definition is a scary day indeed.

They should file a bar complaint against the AG because being an AG gives rise to the potential to abuse laws.

> The state’s attorney general claims Rubin and his classmates violated New Jersey computer crime laws and demanded they hand over source code for their creation and any documentation related to the tool.

That's too vague, unfortunately.

> any documentation related to the tool.

Documentation from a hackathon? If anything they should print out their source code on paper and hand it over.

Apparently running unauthorized JavaScript is now computer fraud.

They pissed off the wrong people. It might not be written down, but the law is there.

I'm sure they will write it down as they go along.

That isn't generally what is known as 'law'.

Too bad all the comments here are just angry and contribute no understanding.

The reason that this could be illegal is because it is using someone's computer in an unauthorized way to mine bitcoins.

I'm not even sure it would be illegal even if you just started using Javascript miners on every page as a condition for viewing the page - with or without notice. I don't think many people would consider it illegal to display an advertisement in a page "without authorization", or run an animated advertisement.

That said, running these things without user consent isn't even the business model - they are specifically talking about allowing users to choose whether they'd like to do bitcoin mining or view ads, and they haven't released the product yet, so, basically the reason it "could be illegal" is because someone could take it and use it contrary to the intent of its creators in such a way that their actions have dubious legality. Should we also arrest all mask manufacturers because someone could wear one when robbing a bank?

Right, and the hammer in my house could be used as a method to gain unauthorized entry to someones house.

The problem here is the word 'unauthorized'. What if the website has an EULA that says something like "By visiting foo.bar.com your computer will be used to mine Bitcoins, if you do not accept this agreement please close this website". Now by most legal definitions I understand it is no longer unauthorized, the TOS authorized such uses.

Next, why should mining Bitcoins be directly illegal in such a manner? Are stupid, slow, annoying flash ads that play music and videos illegal? They are 'programs' that use my computers resources for the end result of generating revenue for the website.

> "The reason that this could be illegal is because it is..."

Stop being dishonest. It isn't and never has.

Wow, thanks for the downvotes. FYI, I'm totally pro-bitcoin and anti-government, just like you, so trying to punish me for having a conflicting opinion is dumb.

I'm simply trying to enlighten people as to what the prosecution's stand is on the issue, not that I agree with them. Just trying to contribute a bit more than "ehrmehgerd evilll!!!11"

"all the comments here", "just angry", "no understanding".

That's why you're being downvoted. Plenty of people present non-majority views without being slammed for it. They happen to do it without being condescending.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com