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

71–80 of 121 posts

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

#71

Post by otterley »

opello wrote: post #43
otterley wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a common misconception that “property” relates to physical objects (chattel) or land (real property). But that’s an incorrect and limited understanding. More generally, it’s about the right to control something and exclude others from using it. Copyright, for example, is what’s known as “intellectual property.” Its rights protect intangible things, namely, artistic expressions.

I think I did understand that, specifically contrasting real property and intellectual property, but maybe wrongfully implied that theft could only apply to real property. However, is there any argument for security camera footage like this instance to be considered a trade secret? Isn't that the only type of intellectual property it might be? It seems like if the business wasn't planning to derive economic value fro…

I am an attorney but this is not legal advice.

The elements of trade secret misappropriation are: 1/the existence of a trade secret, 2/ acquisition of that secret through improper means, and 3/ use or disclosure of the trade secret without consent.

I’m honestly uncertain as to whether security camera footage of an airport’s traffic area fits the definition of a trade secret. For example, 18 USC 1831 defines a trade secret as “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by the public.”

Given that anyone in the immediate vicinity could record the incident - for example, anyone who happens to be in a nearby aircraft - it sounds absurd that to try to classify this information as a secret. These aren’t recordings of the airport’s or FAA’s own activities, and neither the airport nor the FAA derives any business value from any footage they might possess related to the incident. Both of these are public entities anyway.

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

#72

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ajross wrote: post #70
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a spectrum between "not fine" and criminal prosecution!

> a spectrum between "not fine" and criminal prosecution!

And I’d say someone who premeditates a company wide shutdown, triggers it, and then doesn’t offer to help after its damage becomes clearly apparent crosses the line of criminal responsibility.

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

#73

Post by exe34 »

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)

these are deliberate attempts to shift the overton window.

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

#74

Post by opello »

otterley wrote: post #71
opello wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I did understand that, specifically contrasting real property and intellectual property, but maybe wrongfully implied that theft could only apply to real property. However, is there any argument for security camera footage like this instance to be considered a trade secret? Isn't that the only type of intellectual property it might be? It seems like if the business wasn't planning to derive economic value fro…

I am an attorney but this is not legal advice. The elements of trade secret misappropriation are: 1/the existence of a trade secret, 2/ acquisition of that secret through improper means, and 3/ use or disclosure of the trade secret without consent. I’m honestly uncertain as to whether security camera footage of an airport’s traffic area fits the definition of a trade secret. For example, 18 USC 1831 defines a trade s…

I will do my best to try to reconcile "honestly uncertain" and "sounds absurd." :)

I'm sure it would be a feat of legal imagination to construct such an argument. It would probably be an interesting, if not also incredibly frustrating, read.

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

#75

Post by closewith »

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.

Outside the US, WhatsApp already fills that role, but like Telegram, "real information" is an optimistic descriptor.

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

#76

Post by Daviey »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #19
johnhess wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the law" is the fulcrum this turns on. 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. you may well deserve to lose that job though. here, wronging your employer is considered a criminal act.

> 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…

Different but comparable example. Some jobs, if you mess up you just get fired. Other jobs you could end up in prison, for doing the same/similar thing.

A prison officer has a sexual relationship with a prisoner, should they simply be fired or also have a jury heard criminal court process then a record?

.. Not that it should be relevant, but now factor in the prison officer is female, newly qualified and the training college wrote to the prison to warn that the prison officer is not suitable to be a prison officer because they are not robust enough. The prisoner is also highly manipulative and has a documented history of romance with vulnerable females.

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

#77

Post by IshKebab »

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)

Identity theft in particular is a poor term because it shifts the blame from the verifier (the one who actually got things wrong) to the victim.

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

#78

Post by uoaei »

hluska wrote: post #44
uoaei wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"stuff" being technically, legally, IP

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.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

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)

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by anileated »

burnished wrote: post #34
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 is in no way close to theft because theft involves depriving the victim of some good or asset.

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 the identity holder of whatever access to their identity provided to them. This can be continued infinitely.

These scenarios are not the same, and using “theft” for all of them is not precise. However, it is 2025 and in developed countries this sort of crime happens more often than basic theft of physical property, and the detriment from it is often much, much more severe than from basic theft of physical property. (I am sure I don’t need to explain how depriving IP owner of ownership claim can cost the original creator much more than depriving them of some single physical asset, both literally financially and in terms of psychological damage.) It’s therefore important to have a short, mainstream, easy to understand and non-legalese term for these scenarios.

Without any suitable mainstream term the word “theft” is a good enough intuitive approximation—if anything, it’s a bit too mild of a term.

Post reply on HN