Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN • Hacker News Board

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#111

Post by wkat4242 » Sun, Aug 24, 2025, 3:35 AM UTC

poemxo wrote: post #59

Animats wrote: post #54

This encourages self-censorship, or what's called "anticipatory obedience". YouTube has become much worse about censorship. Pepe's Towing, LA's main towing company for major truck accidents, complains that YouTube took down some of their videos. Their videos are simply detailed coverage of the complex but effective process by which large vehicles that had accidents are lifted, rotated upright, placed on their wheels…

I wonder when people in the west will start flocking to Telegram groups (or equivalent) to get the real information the way they do elsewhere.

Here in Spain we use telegram a lot. I've heard in the US it's used only for piracy and drugs but we use it for everything. There's groups letting people know of Nvidia card availability. Groups for every community I'm part of (WhatsApp sucks at group chats), from makerspaces, lgbt events to tattoo artists, gigs etc. There's also a group exposing the faces of metro pickpockets because the police doesn't care. Stuff like that.

The good thing is that Telegram is not American so you don't get this prude censorship BS that you get on American apps (show half a nipple and get banned). Especially in the LGBT groups this can be a problem but also in the makerspace one (one of our members really loves making certain toys lol). Of course actual porn is not ok but that's fine, we don't use it for that.

I also like that their premium subscription is super affordable, only 2€ per month (it's cheaper if you don't pay through the Apple/Google ripoff stores) and it offers a lot of cool and useful features like automatic translation and transcription (which actually works unlike WhatsApp's)

I'm really quite happy with it and on top of everything bots are a fully supported first class citizen there so you don't have to screw around with hacky code like with WhatsApp. I have several bots for myself. So if there's a feature I want that it doesn't have I can simply add it!

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#112

Post by anileated » Sun, Aug 24, 2025, 3:38 AM UTC

hdgvhicv wrote: post #89

anileated wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property. Theft of private data deprives the owner of privacy. Theft of corporate secrets deprives the company of competitive advantage (and if not prosecuted, economy at large of incentives to innovate). IP theft deprives IP holder of ownership claim (and if not prosecuted, arts at large of incentives to create). Identity theft deprives…

Theft (from Old English þeofð, cognate to thief) is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it The word has become overloaded in recent decades to mean other things as well, but for over a thousand years theft has mean taking something from someone permanently

> Theft (from Old English þeofð, cognate to thief) is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

> for over a thousand years theft has mean taking something from someone permanently

Nothing in your comment is in contradiction to mine, or suggests that the word has been “overloaded”. That’s what theft is. Intellectual property is property, trade secrets are property.

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#113

Post by anileated » Sun, Aug 24, 2025, 3:42 AM UTC

Fluorescence wrote: post #90

anileated wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property. Theft of private data deprives the owner of privacy. Theft of corporate secrets deprives the company of competitive advantage (and if not prosecuted, economy at large of incentives to innovate). IP theft deprives IP holder of ownership claim (and if not prosecuted, arts at large of incentives to create). Identity theft deprives…

> There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property. Of course there is. It's origin is the crime of taking of tangible property owned by someone else without consent. It did not apply to intangible property because it predates any concept of legally protected intellectual property that can be duplicated without loss. Now, there was also the metaphorical use of theft for non-cri…

> It's pretty metaphorical to describe such things as property that can be stolen.

Stealing is a pretty wide term meaning deprivation of a good, asset, property, service, etc. If it means deprivation only of physical goods at some point in time, sure; this is 2025 outside now. Theft of physical goods is so first millenium.

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#114

Post by hdgvhicv » Sun, Aug 24, 2025, 8:07 AM UTC

anileated wrote: post #112

hdgvhicv wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theft (from Old English þeofð, cognate to thief) is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it The word has become overloaded in recent decades to mean other things as well, but for over a thousand years theft has mean taking something from someone permanently

> Theft (from Old English þeofð, cognate to thief) is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it > for over a thousand years theft has mean taking something from someone permanently Nothing in your comment is in contradiction to mine, or suggests that the word has been “overloaded”. That’s what theft is. Intel…

> with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

You denied that deprivation was ever part of the term

Your statement was

> There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property.

Where it’s literally there in dozens of definitions across the English language.

“Intellectual property” is a new legal construct, at most 500 years old, compared with physical ownership which dates back millennia. The term itself is a mere 200 years old, but mainly ignored in the US until just a few decades ago.

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#115

Post by an_guy » Sun, Aug 24, 2025, 9:12 AM UTC

iowemoretohim wrote: post #7

an_guy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of views from general population rather than being buried. Are you suggesting such incidents should not be reported on or captured?

The person got paid to grant exclusive rights to the videos to CNN, this wasn't just posting to social media to spread the word.

Ok and? CNN acquired the video and reported on it. They didn't hide or destroy it.

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#116

Post by anileated » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 4:54 AM UTC

hdgvhicv wrote: post #114

anileated wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Theft (from Old English þeofð, cognate to thief) is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it > for over a thousand years theft has mean taking something from someone permanently Nothing in your comment is in contradiction to mine, or suggests that the word has been “overloaded”. That’s what theft is. Intel…

> with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it You denied that deprivation was ever part of the term Your statement was > There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property. Where it’s literally there in dozens of definitions across the English language. “Intellectual property” is a new legal construct, at most 500 years old, compared with physical ownership which dates ba…

I wrote:

> There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property.

It is always depriving of something. Just not always of physical something. The rest of my comment goes on about depriving of non-physical things.

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#117

Post by fsckboy » Mon, Aug 25, 2025, 9:47 PM UTC

opello wrote: post #32

fsckboy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I thought legally intellectual property wasn't "real property." if you break into your boss's house and copy his latest recordings (your boss is Stevie Wonder) you are not simply guilty of violating his copyrights. "computer fraud and abuse act", or who knows how many other laws, are focused on various aspects of "you know you are sneaking about", or even if you don't, tuff noogies.

Sure but the difference in value is also obvious. Stevie Wonder has a business interest in controlling the release of his music, as do other parties like a production company and a publisher. And an early release may do harm to the value of such a recording. But I don't expect most organizations that put up security cameras have a business interest in monetizing the footage.

you've missed the point entirely. it's NOT about the intellectual property which is a civil matter, "artist v. you", it's about unauthorized access and use of computers which is a criminal matter, "the people v. you"

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#118

Post by hluska » Tue, Aug 26, 2025, 9:11 PM UTC

uoaei wrote: post #78

hluska wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s unclear. Mr. Mbengue plead no contest to a trespass charge. He was represented by an attorney with some prosecutorial experience so I think we can assume he received qualified legal advice based upon the facts of the matter. Under terms of his no contest plea, if he stays out of trouble for a year he can have his record expunged. It sure looks like a plea bargain, in which case we’ll likely never know the actu…

What's unclear, exactly? Whether video documentation obtained privately belongs to the person who owns the camera and storage media? Because I think it's about as clear as it gets.

I’m Canadian so I’m trying really hard to avoid saying anything that could be perceived as anti-American. I like Americans a lot as half my family hid out in the United States after getting kicked out of Canada, so I’ve struggled with a reply to this for a few days.

The part that is unclear is that this is a Black man named Mohamed who exfiltrated footage that could be used to plan an attack against an airplane. I trust you can draw that out on your own.

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#119

Post by throwaway48476 » Fri, Aug 29, 2025, 8:31 AM UTC

jmpman wrote: post #110

Animats wrote: post #54

This encourages self-censorship, or what's called "anticipatory obedience". YouTube has become much worse about censorship. Pepe's Towing, LA's main towing company for major truck accidents, complains that YouTube took down some of their videos. Their videos are simply detailed coverage of the complex but effective process by which large vehicles that had accidents are lifted, rotated upright, placed on their wheels…

During the George Floyd death, the only place I could find the entire unedited footage was on liveleak, including when Floyd got into and subsequently out of the police cruiser. Nowhere else could I find that, and wondered why such an important event, triggering such outrage - didn’t have all the video available for everyone to view. A cynical person would suggest that the entire unedited footage conflicted with what…

I watched the unedited video too. That's exactly what happened.

Re: Computer fraud laws used to prosecute leaking air crash footage to CNN

#120

Post by 287596235476 » Fri, Aug 29, 2025, 1:31 PM UTC

michaelsshaw wrote: post #42

MBCook wrote: post #40

Has anyone involved been within 10 feet of a computer in the last 15 years? The CFAA applies! It’s like postal or wire fraud. You’re going to do it somehow in just about any possible crime. They’ll get you. It wasn’t/shouldn’t have been a crime? They’ll get you anyway, if they want.

Did you read the actual statute? It hardly applies.

[flagged]