Hacker News Reader

Comment by acomjean | Hacker News Reader

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...

View on HN

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.

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

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.

Is playing autoplay videos "unauthorized access" too?

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com