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

91–100 of 121 posts

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

#91

Post by xocnad »

hluska wrote: post #69
opello wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Do you have an example of where copying data like this (something with almost no commercial value, but done without authorization, whose harm is basically the disclosure of the facts of the camera's location/positioning) was charged as theft? Because it seems like in a legal sense, copying isn't theft, but the consequences of the copy becoming generally available (say a commercial interest in the data, i…

I worked in surveillance cameras for a long time and started my own company in the field. So, I wouldn’t be so quick to diminish the value of location/bearing. Armed with those details, a sufficiently motivated person with an easy to obtain skill set could avoid a camera. With airports, leaking a location for a major component of active perimeter and taxiway monitoring is a serious issue. A month before the crash, so…

Sure but where is the commercial value?

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

#92

Post by blooalien »

ceejayoz wrote: post #84
blooalien wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... "only two thirds of Americans can name all three branches of government, or that fewer than one in four can name any right secured by the first amendment other than freedom of speech." Mere decades ago, not knowing this kinda stuff would get you failed in grade-school Civics class, and again in junior high, and yet again in high-school (at least where I grew up, here in the "Great NorthWest" Rocky Mountains are…

It's still required knowledge. People have always crammed for the tests, then promptly forgotten it.

> ... "then promptly forgotten it."

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it's mistakes. :shrug:

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

#93

Post by mindslight »

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…

Talk about anticipatory obedience, read the rest of this thread. oof.

This is about a government created footage from a surveillance camera. Copyright, or any other notion of imaginary property, most certainly does not apply. There are no financial damages. The video is not classified. It's essentially a public record, and FOIA likely does apply (as noted by one tiny comment). At best this is an internal policy violation that might possibly result in a termination for cause (although government employees tend to have more protections).

And yet people are still falling over themselves to reason that going against the desires of your employer must of course be illegal somehow. Not just written up per employer's policies, not just fired, not a civil suit if you've caused actual damage - but an escalation to criminal charges with the possibility of jail time, merely for not following an employer's whims. The degree to which we've already allowed top-down authoritarianism to infest our thinking is sickening.

And I think overbroad laws like the murderous CFAA have a lot to do with this. Rather than defining narrowly-scoped trespasses and a clear boundary where the rights of an individual end, they've entrenched draconian legal regimes that arbitrarily create harsh penalties. So the only way to avoid running afoul of them is to avoid upsetting anybody who might have the power to use them on you. Society has generalized this as top-down authoritarianism that flows along economic power relations, and it's sad.

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

#94

Post by curt15 »

Hilift wrote: post #83

The person who leaked the video worked in a police dispatch center. Those personnel aren't supposed to leak information. Would it be ok for an EMS tech to leak videos? How about a surgeon? The incident occurred in public view with many existing videos and eyewitnesses and other telemetry information. It wasn't like this guy was swinging for the fences to get the Zapruder tape to us.

Was the information proprietary or classified?

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

#95

Post by ndriscoll »

Daviey wrote: post #76
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…

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…

Why would it lead to more than them getting fired? What would be the crime? If the idea is that they've coerced/raped a prisoner, presumably that prisoner is making that allegation, and it's the rape allegation that gets investigated/tried, as with any other serious allegation of a crime. If it's consensual, that sounds like they're just not trustworthy to do their job and should be let go.

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

#96

Post by ndriscoll »

IshKebab wrote: post #77
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)

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.

Actually it attempts to shift liability from the victim (the bank, who was defrauded) to an unrelated party who may or may not be affiliated with the bank at all.

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

#97

Post by Daviey »

ndriscoll wrote: post #95
Daviey wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why would it lead to more than them getting fired? What would be the crime? If the idea is that they've coerced/raped a prisoner, presumably that prisoner is making that allegation, and it's the rape allegation that gets investigated/tried, as with any other serious allegation of a crime. If it's consensual, that sounds like they're just not trustworthy to do their job and should be let go.

No, the prisoner did not make an allegation.

But this is the point I am making, if I have a relationship with someone at work, particularly when one person is subordinate or position of authority, then we'd simply be fired... but a prison officer will face a criminal prosecution of Misconduct in Public Office, and possibly face prison time themselves. Seems somewhat unfair for a low paying job.

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

#98

Post by BoredPositron »

tomp wrote: post #88
spicyusername wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In almost every context when someone says something like "real information" it almost always means "information I like or agree with".

Clearly “real information” here means “not blurred”. Stop spreading FUD.

Real information. Telegram. Pick one.

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

#99

Post by therealpygon »

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…

Right. A business is using the logos of other businesses to advertise their business…those vehicles are directly the subject of the video. That’s not allowed; it doesn’t make it not the case simply by the location filmed. Put it this way, I make a video and say my restaurant is great because restaurant B gets low health scores, then I plaster restaurant B’s logo all over my video to advertise my own business. Why would the fact that I stood on a public sidewalk make a difference?

(Note: I’m only talking about your described example.)

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

#100

Post by MBCook »

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.

That didn’t stop them from charging them, did it?
Post reply on HN