← Back to context

Comment by tantalor

3 days ago

This feels a lot like aiding & abetting a crime.

> Claude identified and tested security vulnerabilities in the target organizations’ systems by researching and writing its own exploit code

> use Claude to harvest credentials (usernames and passwords)

Are they saying they have no legal exposure here? You created bespoke hacking tools and then deployed them, on your own systems.

Are they going to hide behind the old, "it's not our fault if you misuse the product to commit a crime that's on you".

At the very minimum, this is a product liability nightmare.

6 comments

tantalor

Reply
kace91  3 days ago

Well, the product has not been built with this specific capability in mind anymore than a car has been created to run over protestors or a hammer to break a face.

kenjackson  3 days ago

"it's not our fault if you misuse the product to commit a crime that's on you"

I feel like if guns can get by with this line then Claude certainly can. Where gun manufacturers can be held liable is if they break the law then that can carry forward. So if Claude broke a law then there might be some additional liability associated with this. But providing a tool seems unlikely to be sufficient to be liable in this case.

  • blibble  3 days ago

    if anthropic were selling the product and then had no further control your analogy with guns would be accurate

    here they are the ones loading the gun and pulling the trigger

    simply because someone asked them to do it nicely