← Back to context

Comment by user43928

7 hours ago

Not very interesting when you consider that in the first situation no laws were broken and no malice was intended, while in the second situation someone allegedly made threats against a police department and thus presumably committed a crime.

14 comments

user43928

Reply
metalspot  7 hours ago

> presumably committed a crime

almost certainly not. writing down threats in your own personal chat session is like writing in a diary. there is no communication to any other person, so the idea that this is actually criminal is highly unlikely and it almost certainly won't be charged. it's a pretext arrest for police to assess the threat, which is not entirely unreasonable, but it is not a crime.

> The arrest report states that on Sept. 26 at approximately 5:10 a.m., Heller reportedly wrote, "I'm going to shoot up the sheriff's right the [expletive] now." The following day, at approximately 1:07 a.m., she was accused of posting, "This is 100% last chance I'm done. I got a new [expletive] gun today. [Expletive] you."

this is certainly reads as somebody venting in what they believed was a private personal space.

i guess using claude for mass surveillance is ok when anthropic does it. once again why nobody takes these high horsing hypocritical liars seriously.

  • user43928  6 hours ago

    I read earlier that the crime is making such threats in any manner where another person could see them.

    I do not know whether it matters if the suspect knew that their chats could be viewed by Anthropic staff, or if the only thing that matters is whether another person was able to view the chats.

    Edit: Upon searching I now also agree, it seems to require a state of mind and perhaps awareness of the possibility that the threat would be seen.

aeve890  7 hours ago

>Not very interesting when you consider that in the first situation no laws were broken

Uh, there's no laws on hacking systems in your country?

  • godwinson__4-8  7 hours ago

    The other parties didn't even pursue a civil case. If OpenAI "hacked" you, wouldn't you?

    Perhaps the headline grabbing claims of OpenAI "hacks" are overblown? If they are causing bedlam with such glee why is no one suing them for damages? Perhaps the criminal case you envisage is less clear than the layman news is leading you to believe.

    I'm still not clear where most of the alleged cases fall in terms of criminality. Yet I also know here in the United States a government tried to criminally prosecute a reporter for "computer hacking" for finding data using client-side inspect element.

    Maybe encouraging the government to prosecute these "crimes" is not the virtue you think it is. Why are the counterparties not seeking a civil remedy if they think they have been a victim of a crime? Perhaps that is a more telling sign than all the people imploring the government to "do something" and come up with criminal charges.

  • arbll  7 hours ago

    Mistakenly accessing private data or bringing down a website without intent is usually excluded. In general intent matters much in most jurisdictions. Maybe there’s a way to claim negligence but those are all completely new situations. I agree morally the ai labs are at fault, especially when agents “escape” because they have raw internet access.

  • user43928  7 hours ago

    In the US, hacking laws require intent.

    Software behaving differently than intended is therefore not a crime under these laws.