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

When your classmates threaten you with felony charges

miles.land

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 350 posts

Re: When your classmates threaten you with felony charges

#321

Post by dundarious »

hnfong wrote: post #315
dundarious wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A cease and desist letter is a "threat" and is not illegal/blackmail/extortion.

It's not a cease and desist letter. It's an extortion attempt to put pressure the alleged hackers to sign a non-disclosure agreement. It's kind of a tricky gray area where similar demands might be legal, but I do think in this case it should be illegal.

Doesn't matter, I was just using it as an example to disprove the silly point that "threat=blackmail=illegal",

> If it's a threat, then that's literally blackmail.

Re: When your classmates threaten you with felony charges

#322

Post by fragmede »

opello wrote: post #295
singleshot_ wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any time you see that word you can be pretty sure that the matter under consideration is a fact question for the jury. The reason you hate that word is because you prefer hard and fast, bright line rules. That’s fine, I do too. Reasonable just means there’s no good way to have a bright line rule and we have to consider these questions one at a time, in context.

As someone also frustrated by this vernacular I really appreciate this perspective. Thanks!

Given that most cases never go to trial, and the possibility of long prison sentences and large fines are used as threats against individuals, the idea that a jury might find it "reasonable" is small solace to someone facing multiple charges of violating the CFAA, with corresponding jail time and fines. Weev was sentenced to 3.4 years of prison time and a fine of $73,000 for the crime of downloading a sequentially numbered unprotected data set. Though the sentence was later reduced, he still went to prison for a non-zero amount of time.

The prosecutor has a vested interest in making you look like a bad person. Even if there is no evil in your heart, they will dig into your history and find some dirt, then lie and twist your words to make you into some sort of evil hacker, so that the "reasonable" people on your jury, seeing the prosecutor's version of you, is going to think you deserve prison time.

Re: When your classmates threaten you with felony charges

#323

Post by abduhl »

feoren wrote: post #310
abduhl wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up what you’d call “lower middle class.” Your suspicions are incorrect. I’ve switched industries twice in my life to the tune of nearly a third a million in student loan debt. I know how difficult it is and how expensive it is, but the actual strength of some people’s personal convictions matches the strength of the convictions you pretend to have online. Just like you, the companies I worked at (and owned a p…

> I’ve switched industries twice in my life to the tune of nearly a third a million in student loan debt. And you're actually suggesting this as a solution to others? That they lose years of income and take on $300k in non-dischargeable debt because their employer acted like a dick, in the vain hope that with this new degree, their new employers won't? Sorry, but "just spend years and take on $300k in student loan de…

Let’s go through the comment thread here again:

1. Someone asked what protections an employee could expect to receive from an employment contract in a right to work state.

2. I responded that right to work is not related to employment contracts but to unions and listed a number of protections and benefits regularly covered by employment contracts.

3. You came in saying that, anecdotally, the benefits are either non-existent in your industry or only available to top executives and ending with a sort of anti-“corporate overlord” conspiracy about how every term in an employment contract is a negative to an employee because the employer writes the contract.

4. I told you that contracts are bilateral and therefore you should negotiate, start your own business, or quit.

5. You responded with the first actual personal attack by stating that even suggesting that someone negotiate, start a business, or quit meant that I came from a life of luxury and privilege and how my supposed privilege blinds me to the cost of quitting an industry before again going on an rant based on your specific situation (that you refuse to leave) and generalizing your refusal to negotiate, start your own business, or leave to “nobody” negotiating, starting their own company, or leaving.

6. I responded to your personal attack by noting that I don’t come from privilege, that I have changed industries, that it is possible to finance it via student loans, and that I have been in similar situations as you and taken a different path. I noted that some people’s actions match their espoused beliefs while noting that you don’t appear to be one of those peoples. I then made a snarky comment about how you seem to be the type to deem something hard before even trying it and to cry privilege while you stay at your cushy white collar job.

7. You responded shifting your argument from “nobody” does this to “nobody smart” (obviously, because you’re smart and you haven’t done it) does this (a strange argument on a website like HN given its relationship with startups…) and crying about personal attacks. Oh, and apparently you really love your job after all despite all the prior ranting about how much you hate your job. And apparently you don’t want to get into a who-has-privilege argument with me after all now that you know my background sort of undercuts your entire argument.

Re: When your classmates threaten you with felony charges

#324

Post by bawolff »

bluepod4 wrote: post #318
bawolff wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So why didn’t they start with communication first before trying to hack the system? Good security researchers do that. (Not all of the time, obviously.) I don't think that is true. I think it would be very unusual for an independent (not a pentester) security researcher to communicate anything before they have any findings. > It seems like the researchers just wanted to have some fun on a Friday night (like he said…

You do get some of what I said it seems like especially because you didn’t acknowledge my first paragraph that explained why they weren’t acting like classmates themselves (which was a major theme/point in the article/blog post lol. It’s in the title). I don’t feel a need to fully address all of your comments (because the first one was just your opinion similar to my own opinion). We can each look up stats for this.…

> especially because you didn’t acknowledge my first paragraph that explained why they weren’t acting like classmates themselves (which was a major theme/point in the article/blog post lol. It’s in the title).

Because it seemed very irrelavent to if they were good faith researchers. I dont know if i agree - critiquing classmates designs is a quintessential classmate activity - but regardless i don't understand how this connects to the rest of your point. Say they weren't acting as classmates. How does that change anything about if they were acting as good faith security researchers, which is the point under contention.

> All I did was form an opinion based on his summary of the events for this specific HN post

Just because its an opinion doesn't make you not responsible for it.

I don't know what was in these people's hearts and minds. They could be secretly evil for all i know. However i think its morally wrong to call someone immoral without positive evidence they were acting wrongly or had bad intentions. Yet you seem comfortable calling them immoral basically on the sole basis that the work took place on a friday and a misreading of a document that they referenced but not even in the part of the document they were referencing? You allege they have an ulterior motive but you don't even put forth what that motive might be. Like respectfully, i think that's kind of a shitty thing to do. These are real people and deserve to be judged based on the facts and what can be drawn from the facts.

Re: When your classmates threaten you with felony charges

#326

Post by nobodyandproud »

dahfizz wrote: post #242
supermatt wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> accesses a computer without authorization They were authorized, as per the permissions that fizz gave users of the app on firebase. A group of users noticed that it was overly permissive and reported it to them. > Leaving your door unlocked does not give burglars permission to burgle you. This is more like giving your stuff away and then reporting it as theft.

It's nothing like that. Fizz did not want these people making admin accounts on their server. That's the bottom line. They failed to prevent it (forgot to lock their door), but in no way did they actively "give their stuff away". No judge would see it that way.

> That's the bottom line. They failed to prevent it (forgot to lock their door) but in no way did they actively "give their stuff away"

A better analogy is that the bank forgot to lock their frontdoor, failed to install a security system, and failed to secure their vault.

That our laws have zero accountability for these “banks”, even for good faith tap on the shoulder, is the ongoing failure of information security and our legal system.

Re: When your classmates threaten you with felony charges

#327

Post by feoren »

abduhl wrote: post #323
feoren wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’ve switched industries twice in my life to the tune of nearly a third a million in student loan debt. And you're actually suggesting this as a solution to others? That they lose years of income and take on $300k in non-dischargeable debt because their employer acted like a dick, in the vain hope that with this new degree, their new employers won't? Sorry, but "just spend years and take on $300k in student loan de…

Let’s go through the comment thread here again: 1. Someone asked what protections an employee could expect to receive from an employment contract in a right to work state. 2. I responded that right to work is not related to employment contracts but to unions and listed a number of protections and benefits regularly covered by employment contracts. 3. You came in saying that, anecdotally, the benefits are either non-e…

I will concede that "I suspect you have lived a very privileged life" was overly focused on you, and should have been something like "Nobody should seriously consider these options unless they are living a very privileged life". Your actual personal history is not relevant my argument at all and I shouldn't have brought it up. I maintain that most employees have basically zero leverage to negotiate their worker-hostile contracts, and that it is not a good idea to saddle yourself with $300k of non-dischargeable student loan debt in order to try to avoid a practice that is pervasive in the U.S.

> anti-“corporate overlord” conspiracy

It's not exactly done in secret. Would you call a feudal serf a conspiracy theorist if he was ranting about how the Dukes and Kings hold all the power? I'm lucky that I have more leverage than an Amazon warehouse employee but it's awfully hard to compare their working conditions to Jeff Bezos's situation and not call him a "corporate overlord".

> Oh, and apparently you really love your job after all despite all the prior ranting about how much you hate your job.

This is just getting boring. Yes, I both love and hate my job. So?

Re: When your classmates threaten you with felony charges

#328

Post by singleshot_ »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #317
singleshot_ wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange things happen every day but in my experience the jury decides on the damages, not the plaintiff.

We're talking about what rule the law should intend to be used, not who applies the rule.

You were talking about both but you were mistaken about the rule as well. Your focus on causation suggests you’re struggling with the idea that a second order event stemming from a breach could be compensatory damages, but of course it would fall within consequential damages if causation was found to be sufficiently attenuated.

Re: When your classmates threaten you with felony charges

#329

Post by AnthonyMouse »

singleshot_ wrote: post #328
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about what rule the law should intend to be used, not who applies the rule.

You were talking about both but you were mistaken about the rule as well. Your focus on causation suggests you’re struggling with the idea that a second order event stemming from a breach could be compensatory damages, but of course it would fall within consequential damages if causation was found to be sufficiently attenuated.

You're just misreading the post. The "victim" doesn't calculate the damages, but a rule that makes the damages depend on actions the corporation voluntarily chooses to take allows them to vindictively maximize the penalties on someone who merely embarrassed them. Which is a perverse incentive that should be removed.

Re: When your classmates threaten you with felony charges

#330

Post by bluepod4 »

bawolff wrote: post #324
bluepod4 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do get some of what I said it seems like especially because you didn’t acknowledge my first paragraph that explained why they weren’t acting like classmates themselves (which was a major theme/point in the article/blog post lol. It’s in the title). I don’t feel a need to fully address all of your comments (because the first one was just your opinion similar to my own opinion). We can each look up stats for this.…

> especially because you didn’t acknowledge my first paragraph that explained why they weren’t acting like classmates themselves (which was a major theme/point in the article/blog post lol. It’s in the title). Because it seemed very irrelavent to if they were good faith researchers. I dont know if i agree - critiquing classmates designs is a quintessential classmate activity - but regardless i don't understand how th…

> Because it seemed very irrelavent to if they were good faith researchers.

It’s not irrelevant if the author mentioned “classmates” several times to justify his viewpoint/emotions about the situation.

However, I was making 2 points in my original comment. The first was a critique about the author’s viewpoint that classmates did this to him. The second was about the intention of the author related to “good faith research”. Here’s why I did this. If you re-read the beginning of the author’s conclusion, he said this:

> Now let’s take a quick step back. (1) Getting a legal threat for our good-faith security research was incredibly stressful. (2) And the fact that it came from our classmates added insult to injury.

I added the numbers in () myself but you see there are 2 distinct ideas that the author is concluding here. Get it?

> Yet you seem comfortable calling them immoral

I never called anyone immoral or even implied it. If I thought so, then I would have just said it clearly.

I literally said that I didn’t know whether “research” was the main intention. I even said something to the affect of “whether it’s good or bad faith”.

I never placed any negative judgment on anyone. I even said “and there’s nothing wrong with having fun on a Friday night”. You seem to be misreading between the lines.

It’s interesting that you’re fixated on this but you haven’t commented on any of the other comments on this post that did call Fizz’s employees immoral. Someone even literally wrote a curse word (that starts with the letter “S”) to describe them.

If you remember, the original comment that I replied to said “Devil’s advocate”. That meant that this subthread was supposed to explore a viewpoint that others weren’t commenting as much.

If you had an issue with the original person who wrote the “Devil’s advocate” comment then you should reply to them. I only said that I “sort of” get his comment. I didn’t say I agree with everything he wrote.

Post reply on HN