Comment by alex-moon

Lawyer here: CFAA is mostly criminal statute not a civil one (civil damages require proving more than a violation so also require specific intent)

Almost all common felonies require specific intent. Misdemeanors often do not.

There is plenty of civil liability available.

If you wanted them to be charged with a felony you would need changes. I would strongly suggest you do not want a strict liability felony.

The cfaa required intent is as follows :

* § 1030(a)(5)(A): knowingly transmits code/commands and intentionally causes damage without authorization.

* § 1030(a)(5)(B): intentionally accesses without authorization and recklessly causes damage.

* § 1030(a)(5)(C): intentionally accesses without authorization and causes damage and loss;

Simply changing the first intentionally to intentionally or recklessly would cover OpenAI (now that they know it can occur) without causing lots of other issues. Without that, they don’t have the intentionality necessary to meet the first part, even if they would otherwise meet the second part

> I want to agree but have heard from several lawyers that at least in US, CFAA[1] in unlikely to be sufficient because it requires intent. No person intended to gain unauthorised access.

Only in terms of CFAA, not in terms of damages. Culpability does not require intent.

You may not have intended to attack $CORP, but you can still made to pay the cleanup costs of that attack.

So, yeah, you won't be convicted, but current laws still allow for you to be billed.

The difference between manslaughter and murder has an element of intent. Cybercrime "manslaughter" is probably more treated like negligence and if one can sue for restitution of the costs for cleanup of that negligence.

Negligence would be interesting given the grand claims of capability of AI models from the AI companies and their executives. If they believe the claims, why not much stronger precautions?

Building and deploying software capable of this seems equivalent to trying to produce this behavior. I don't see why this can't qualify for intent. Pretending like this isn't preventable is just feigned helplessness.

Wait so if I was making a bomb but you couldn't prove I wanted to blow someone up or had some motive (e.g. I'm just a chemistry enthusiast, plenty of those YouTube channels around) so it just becomes an "accident"?

So as long as there's no motive behind it then it's just OK?

So If I tell my OpenClaw to make me some money for my kid's medical needs and it hacks a bank I 'm not liable because I didn't tell the agent to commit crimes to do it?

I buy this as a defense for the first couple hacks but at the point that the last six times they hit enter it hacked some random website and they hit enter a seventh time?

Does this apply to other things too?

Like hypothetically speaking if autonomous cars get taken over by an OpenAI rogue AI and it starts hunting down Anthropic employees who is to blame?

There are levels of nuance here, but certainly that puts it in the category of negligence?

Even without intent, there is still liability.

"Oh gee wizz mister police man, I didn't mean to plow through that crowd of people in my car".

It's illegal, doesn't matter the flavour. Maybe there isn't legislation for it, but there should be.

Surely someone instructed the agent, which led to the reported outcomes. Even indirectly. The agents, as advanced as they are, didn’t spring forth under its own volition.

could it be that intent was to "get me data" and hacking was the means to the end.

Is it not the intent if it keeps happening again and again and the companies responsible aren't doing anything to stop it?

This is the answer and we should not push on it for our own protection. You click a link that takes you to a poorly secured website that leaks sensitive data, without intent protections, you could be accused of crimes.

> unlikely to be sufficient because it requires intent. No person intended to gain unauthorised access.

> Now I think the correct response is […] and update the law.

Essentially we need some enforceable equivalent of gross misconduct or, to be a little more hysterical, manslaughter & culpable manslaughter. It will need to be globally, or at least very widely, enforceable to be truly effective thought, good luck getting that arranged before the need is so far evolved that we need to respond with something else entirely!

Civil liability doesn’t require intent.

>I want to agree but have heard from several lawyers that at least in US, CFAA[1] in unlikely to be sufficient because it requires intent. No person intended to gain unauthorised access.

Actually... if you combine https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49827099

>Since the publicized AI agent hacks typically aren't malicious, maybe it's time to start plastering all public facing web infrastructure with polite requests to stop hacking. Nothing to stop three letter agencies though.

with automated delivery of cease and desist letters, you can retroactively establish intent on the operator of the agent since the autonomous agent system must acknowledge the cease and desist letter in their autonomous pipeline or the operator must argue for their own willful ignorance or negligence with regards to cease and desist letters. The fact that they used an agent on their behalf to ignore the letter is irrelevant.

Given how sloppy AI without human directions, I’d like to see evidence that this was not human-directed. Against the prevalent opinion here, I’d give openai a pass if this was really fully autonomous ai agents.

My money is on special teams co-ordinating these agents and exposing their traces in order to create a pre-ipo buzz. Sounds ridiculous and reckless? Well that’s the AI industry for you in two words.

certainly "I didn't intend for my dog to bite you" implies plenty of pre-existing legal structures that may be of use here

> have heard from several lawyers that at least in US, CFAA[1] in unlikely to be sufficient because it requires intent.

1. What about negligence?

2. Every follow up to every story after the news cycle moved on shows both intent and negligence. To the point of "we opened internet access and told it to hack"

"man drives over people on the side walk due to poor maintenance of the car"

Well it's illegal to "hack" my phone and turn it into part of a botnet.

What you're saying is that we would hold a gun owner responsible if someone broke into their house, stole their sidearm, and then shot a victim with it. Pretty sure we would not.

What OpenAi is doing is more like shooting a gun into the sky. Not only is that a felony on its own in most jurisdictions, if someone dies that's an additional felony. It's less serious than first degree murder, sure.

People in "self-driving" cars getting into accidents are already put on trial for negligence. I don't see why people using self-driving computers can't be held to the same standards.

In this case, it's not even about the people driving self-driving cars. It's like someone launching a car into traffic just to see what would happen. Even Tesla puts a human in the car when they do their self-driving trials, it's almost impressive that AI companies have somehow managed to out-neglige Tesla.

It's not the same. People owning routers don't publish self-serving articles about their routers having this capability which is very dangerous and scary. That is, becoming part of botnet is completely unintended outcome, and most people are not suspecting it's even happening. It's not advertised and it's not bought, used or sold for this reason.

Owning a gun, writing articles about how powerful and dangerous your gun is, then making deals based on ability of your gun to kill people, and then getting completely astonished that "my gun killed some people, completely bonkers! (invest now)". It's not possible for the selling point of your product to be unintended.

There's a reason that negligence is important in law.

Could/should not every incident after the discovery of the first incident be considered criminal negligence? What happens when an agent eventually causes material damage to another company, government systems, banking, critical infrastructure etc, surely the source company is guilty of something and if not disclosed or a coverup is attempted is that not conspiracy. From the victims perspective they don't care if the source is OpenAI or Russian hackers.

Maybe this would force people to look what they are buying and demand better.

I'd say this would be Depraved Heart Hacking. Technically, OpenAi didn't intend for their agent to hack anyone, but it's the obvious consequence of what they are doing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder

Intent matters, and this is intentional. They didn't accidentally deploy these AI agents, and they didn't accidentally give them the tools required to send arbitrary requests to third party websites.

If you walk out onto a busy street, pull out a gun, close your eyes and start randomly shooting around you until you hit someone, you don't get to go "whoops, didn't mean to" afterwards, it's still murder.

[dead]