zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. navaat+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-12-18 12:46:22
Putting aside the (very) funny aspect... If it worked somehow, would that fall under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ?
replies(2): >>muser8+Y3 >>akerst+Vo
◧
2. muser8+Y3[view] [source] 2023-12-18 13:12:30
>>navaat+(OP)
This could easily be viewed as 'Computer Fraud and Abuse' by Team Watsonville.

IMO, the provider of such services will need to be held to account for misbehavior and not be able to fall back on bug/black-box defenses, particularly for more damaging scenarios versus this amusing toy example. Scaling this to quickly and w/o culpability would be dystopian.

◧
3. akerst+Vo[view] [source] 2023-12-18 14:50:29
>>navaat+(OP)
How am I supposed to know I'm committing fraud versus just being very good at negotiating?
replies(1): >>advise+ww1
◧◩
4. advise+ww1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-12-18 20:13:48
>>akerst+Vo
If you really want to know, the government has lots of info on it:

* https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/442156/download

* https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-48000-computer-fraud

* https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47557

[go to top]