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

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

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 121 posts

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

#51

Post by ghurtado »

gameman144 wrote: post #39
burnished wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is in no way close to theft because theft involves depriving the victim of some good or asset.

Does it? There are loads of types of theft that don't remove the good or asset from the owner: Identity theft, IP theft, theft of private digital assets (e.g. photos, writings, music)

"lots of theft is not theft. Like for instance, all these things that are not theft"

... Lots of murder doesn't have a victim...

.... Lots of arson doesn't involve a fire...

... Lots of trespass involves not taking a single step from your work desk ..

... War is peace, peace is war...

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

#52

Post by [deleted] »

hluska wrote: post #46
opello wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it seems like that law requires malicious intent. I wonder how that would be proven here?

Section A of 18.2-152.4 reads: “A. It is unlawful for any person, with malicious intent, or through intentionally deceptive means and without authority, to:” And Mr. Mbengue plead no contest to this charge, so he did not admit guilt but agreed to be punished as if he was guilty. He had an attorney with prosecutorial experience retained for his criminal proceeding so we can assume he entered that plea upon receiving q…

[deleted]

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

#53

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ghurtado wrote: post #48
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state This is going out of one’s way to abuse the employer’s trust. Moreover, it’s stealing their stuff. If I take cash out of a till, my employer should have the option of pressing charges. Where I agree with you is that this isn’t computer fraud and abuse. It’s closer to theft. The law used to pr…

> it’s stealing their stuff. Then I'm sure your have a great explanation as to why they were charged with trespass and not theft.

> I'm sure your have a great explanation as to why they were charged with trespass and not theft

Literally said I think they’re charging this wrong.

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

#54

Post by Animats »

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 or on a large dolly as necessary, and towed away. Their people wear body cams, like cops, their cranes have cameras, and sometimes they use a DJI drone. (They bring out the drone when someone drives off an embankment and they need to plan a difficult lift.) The main purpose of all the video is to settle arguments with insurance companies over the cost of recovery. But they started a YouTube channel for PR purposes.

Almost all this video is taken on public property on LA county roads and freeways, with the cooperation of the cops, CALTRANS, local fire departments, and other organizations that clean up other people's messes. These are very public activities, with traffic streaming by and sometimes news helicopters hovering overhead. Totally First Amendment protected. Not a violation of YouTube's stated policies.

So what's the YouTube censorship about? Preventing corporate embarrassment. Their older videos have clear pictures of truck doors with ownership info. Container markings. License plates. Pictures of damaged goods. Now. out of fear of being cancelled by YouTube, they're blurring everything identifiable. Recently someone rolled over a semitrailer full of melons, and they blurred out not just the trucking company info, but the labels on the melons. Which the people from Pepe's say is silly, but they don't want to fight with YouTube.

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

#55

Post by ajross »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #20
ajross wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that an even stronger argument that the leak shouldn't be criminal?

No, for the same that stealing an item isn’t okay because there is more in the back.

Impact and harm is absolutely part of the criteria by which we judge crimes and penalties. Not sure where you're going with that.

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

#56

Post by ipaddr »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #5
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?

bro, no one is suggesting we should keep plane crashes secret, but yeah I do find it a little distasteful to turn on the TV and see the moment hundreds of people were killed.

90% of what is shown on a news channel is negative. Everything is driven by fear in that industry.

You can't turn on a news channel and expect to feel good.

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

#57

Post by qingcharles »

Many states have super vague computer abuse statutes. Illinois' law specifically states it is a crime to violate the ToS of a network (e.g. a web site).

Also, if the defendant here is literally innocent (i.e. the statutory wording does not apply to his actions) and his lawyer still advised him to plead no contest, then he might have grounds for the conviction to be overturned. I remember that Subway Jared had some of his charges reversed because he was technically innocent of them, but his lawyer stated that he didn't check any of the evidence before recommending a guilty plea.

And, in a further ridiculous twist of justice, if the defendant pleads to something that isn't even a crime (e.g. the state simply made the statute up, or adjusted the wording so it wasn't what the law said), then you can't get that reversed if you knowingly plead to it. I remember cases where defendants pled guilty to non-crimes, but you're cooked at that point because you agreed to it.

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

#58

Post by margalabargala »

ipaddr wrote: post #41
gameman144 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it? There are loads of types of theft that don't remove the good or asset from the owner: Identity theft, IP theft, theft of private digital assets (e.g. photos, writings, music)

Those are labels. Identity theft is more identity fraud. Theft of digital assets is copyright infringement.

Identity theft is someone else stealing money from the bank, and the bank telling you that's your problem now.

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

#59

Post by poemxo »

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.

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

#60

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ajross wrote: post #55
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, for the same that stealing an item isn’t okay because there is more in the back.

Impact and harm is absolutely part of the criteria by which we judge crimes and penalties. Not sure where you're going with that.

Of course harm matters. Stealing a priceless original is worse, and punished harder, than stealing a commodity out of a corner store. That doesn’t mean the latter is fine.
Post reply on HN