Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

Post by rsanek » Tue, Sep 15, 2026, 10:46 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #20

int32_64 wrote: post #6

Aaron Swartz was facing up to 35 years for wire fraud and hacking for swiping some JSTOR documents, and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics.

It's not at all relevant to this thread, but no he wasn't. At their worst, prosecutors were threatening to push for 7 years; the guideline sentence for Swartz's offense, were he to take it to trial and lose, would likely have been under the level allowing for straight probation (go to a sentencing calculator and plug the values in); writing after his death, his own lawyer stated that had he gone to trial and lost he…

Post by hypercube33 » Tue, Sep 15, 2026, 11:20 AM UTC

illwrks wrote: post #109

DoctorOetker wrote: post #98

I'm surprised nobody makes a connection with animal ownership / responsibility. If your dog maims someone else, you are responsible for the dog's actions, unless it was self-defense. On the other hand, if people start arguing that if LLM's are like animals, some will start arguing they're like Godzilla..., or at least a panther, but there's probably laws against keeping arbitrarily dangerous / powerful animals as pet…

While I agree, that isn’t true of all pets. It doesn’t apply to cats for example. I’ve pasted an extract from a UK guide on legal responsibilities of cat ownership below, which to me sounds similar to AI. If the inbuilt behaviour is ‘it’s nature’ then perhaps there is less legal repercussions if the tool does something outside of its known guardrail/guidelines to meet its goal. “Cat owners are generally not responsib…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 15, 2026, 12:57 PM UTC

hypercube33 wrote: post #113

illwrks wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree, that isn’t true of all pets. It doesn’t apply to cats for example. I’ve pasted an extract from a UK guide on legal responsibilities of cat ownership below, which to me sounds similar to AI. If the inbuilt behaviour is ‘it’s nature’ then perhaps there is less legal repercussions if the tool does something outside of its known guardrail/guidelines to meet its goal. “Cat owners are generally not responsib…

That's a highly weird law. Someone let the cat outside or feeds/keeps it there thus should accept the way cats are as their responsibility.

Post by happymellon » Tue, Sep 15, 2026, 1:14 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #9

int32_64 wrote: post #6

Aaron Swartz was facing up to 35 years for wire fraud and hacking for swiping some JSTOR documents, and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics.

>and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics. For good reason. Courts have so far ruled AI training is fair use, and it doesn't look likely to be overturned by the supreme court. Theres also the matter of some labs pirating books to get training data, which is illegal (they lost in civil court), but it's unclear whether that can be criminally prosecuted.

Post by gruez » Tue, Sep 15, 2026, 1:22 PM UTC

happymellon wrote: post #117

gruez wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics. For good reason. Courts have so far ruled AI training is fair use, and it doesn't look likely to be overturned by the supreme court. Theres also the matter of some labs pirating books to get training data, which is illegal (they lost in civil court), but it's unclear whether that can be criminally prosecuted.

> For good reason A reason. Not the same as a good reason. The fact that you even point out that they committed illegal acts that would normally get prosecuted, and yet didn't, shows that IP enforcement is very loose depending on who did it.