Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Jersey slaps MIT Bitcoin hackers with subpoena

venturebeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: New Jersey slaps MIT Bitcoin hackers with subpoena

#31

Post by bmelton »

lukifer wrote: post #24
jpwright wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article explains the case pretty well: > ...the language in the subpoena reads much like the state’s computer fraud act, which carries some stiff penalties. Last year, New Jersey alleged that E-Sports Entertainment (ESEA) hijacked their [subscribers'] computing power to mine Bitcoins... the state believes Tidbit may similarly violate consumers’ rights. According to the EFF: > the New Jersey Division of Consumer A…

It reads "much like" the computer fraud act, but that doesn't mean a case was brought forward. Can a subpoena really be issued without a corresponding case?

Where the state wants to, it can press charges on its own. It's up to the prosecutors, generally. This is why there are cases like "so and so vs. New Jersey". In cases like murder and such, the state is the only viable prosecutor, which is why the prosecutor works for the state.

That said, I don't know the procedure for determining whether or not an actual crime has been committed, and without there being an actual case in hand, I have no idea if the subpoenas are valid.

Re: New Jersey slaps MIT Bitcoin hackers with subpoena

#32

Post by comrh »

gopher1 wrote: post #3

If these New Jersey prosecutors fail with this one, I'm sure they can slap some felony computer fraud charges on them for violating X website's ToS agreement. Prosecutors need to lose their immunity, then we might get some sanity back in the justice system.

> "felony computer fraud charges"

Just for violating a ToS? I thought those were mostly legalese and overly broad.

Re: New Jersey slaps MIT Bitcoin hackers with subpoena

#33

Post by sczkid »

quackerhacker wrote: post #14
diminoten wrote: post #8

Hysteria aside, what happens when a court subpoena demands someone hand over something they don't have? Does the person just say, "I don't have it." and that's that? What if they lie about not having it?

The prosecutor's would have to... 1. prove they have the evidence. or 2. prove they destroyed or concealed it. Greatest quote I've ever heard: "it's not what they know, it's what they can prove in court"

Law Abiding Citizen is a pretty thought-provoking (and pessimistic) take on the US justice system.

Re: New Jersey slaps MIT Bitcoin hackers with subpoena

#34

Post by DannyBee »

lukifer wrote: post #24
jpwright wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article explains the case pretty well: > ...the language in the subpoena reads much like the state’s computer fraud act, which carries some stiff penalties. Last year, New Jersey alleged that E-Sports Entertainment (ESEA) hijacked their [subscribers'] computing power to mine Bitcoins... the state believes Tidbit may similarly violate consumers’ rights. According to the EFF: > the New Jersey Division of Consumer A…

It reads "much like" the computer fraud act, but that doesn't mean a case was brought forward. Can a subpoena really be issued without a corresponding case?

When subpoenas can be issued, by who, and when, varies from state to state (and in the federal world, agency to agency). There are definitely administrative subpoenas, investigatory subpoenas, etc, depending on who and where.

Back in 2000 (best data i can find on short notice), at least 12 states permitted prosecutors to serve investigative subpoenas on targets, witnesses, and record keepers before they charge a person with a crime

Re: New Jersey slaps MIT Bitcoin hackers with subpoena

#36

Post by daenz »

diminoten wrote: post #28
quackerhacker wrote: post #11

This is the first I've heard of Tidbit and I have to say that it is absolutely ingenious!!! If they do open source the code, I strongly hope that webmasters would actually replace obtrusive ads with the mining protocol and not just add it in addition to ad revenue.

CPU bitcoin mining doesn't really do much. The idea is nice, but it would take way too long to be competitive as a form of revenue generation if all it had access to was the CPU.

i'm willing to wager it's possible to write a WebGL shader to mine bitcoins.

Re: New Jersey slaps MIT Bitcoin hackers with subpoena

#37

Post by flatline »

> Tidbit uses the Stratum protocol, which would enable websites to get paid based on total work contributed to the mining pool rather than total Bitcoins mined

No, that's what P2Pool, or really any pool, does. Stratum, as the link states, is just a long-poll protocol to reduce stale shares when a new block is found.

But speaking of pools, it seems like the best bang for their buck would be a scrypt profit-switching multipool, that mines the most profitable scrypt coin and exchanges for btc or dollars or whatever. This would potentially create a huge pool so p2pool is better in that respect, but it's just not profitable to mine BTC like this at all.

Re: New Jersey slaps MIT Bitcoin hackers with subpoena

#38

Post by rayiner »

gopher1 wrote: post #5
rayiner wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What prosecutors?

New Jersey Attorney General John Hoffman and Deputy Attorney General Glenn Graham... since you asked.

Note the caption: Rubin v. New Jersey. Rubin is the plaintiff. The AG is acting in its capacity as the government's lawyer, not in its capacity as a prosecutor. There is no prosecutor, because there is no criminal complaint. What's at issue is a civil subpoena (a request for information and materials) issued by a state consumer protection agency.

Re: New Jersey slaps MIT Bitcoin hackers with subpoena

#40

Post by [deleted] »

lukifer wrote: post #24
jpwright wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article explains the case pretty well: > ...the language in the subpoena reads much like the state’s computer fraud act, which carries some stiff penalties. Last year, New Jersey alleged that E-Sports Entertainment (ESEA) hijacked their [subscribers'] computing power to mine Bitcoins... the state believes Tidbit may similarly violate consumers’ rights. According to the EFF: > the New Jersey Division of Consumer A…

It reads "much like" the computer fraud act, but that doesn't mean a case was brought forward. Can a subpoena really be issued without a corresponding case?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN