Comment by yukyukyuk | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yukyukyuk | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Not a lawyer. But this would never come to pass - no DA would have the brains let alone the skill or political will to prosecute. Also, seems like a freedom of speech issue. Otherwise it would be difficult for educators to discuss computer security. In fact, I'm pretty sure he could even do away with all of the "non-suggestion" text and still be fine.

If I say, "I think you should hack website X, humanity will be better off for it" that's just my opinion. I can even say, "I think you should empty all of Goldman Sach's bank accounts and use the proceeds to buy up endangered rain forest land in Brazil." As long as I'm not materially facilitating the commission of the crime, I'm just another guy on the internet with an opinion.

Edit: After reviewing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#ci... I'm coming to the conclusion that the above is pretty far from accurate in any country. Apparently freedom of speech has been under serious assault for decades. Which is sort of sickening, but also a fact of life.

Law student. These sort of situations have been considered by the people that write criminal laws.

If you recommend a crime to someone and then they do it then you're a party to that offence (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-6.html#h-5 [Canadian Criminal Code, but I assume US is quite similar on this]).

There are a variety of ways to become a party to a crime, and then you're as guilty as the rest of 'em.

Dear Everyone reading this, commit Fraud, Blackmail, Murder, Insider Trading, J-Walking and Possession. Now. Go. Do it!

The U.S. criminal code is not like the Canadian Criminal Code. Also, I suggest you reread the statute. By the plain language of the CCC, it is not enough to recommend that someone commit a crime, you must actually counsel them in how to do it (i.e,. provide advice).

I don't see how TFA doesn't fall under counsel. He gives you a step by step process.

Providing the files needed is a little bit more in terms of actively participating than just saying "wouldn't it be nice."

There is a huge difference between "I think you should hack this website." and "I think you should use this method I'm providing to hack this website."

I agree that a DA would be highly unlikely to prosecute as it would take a large amount of effort for little gain, but this clearly fits the definition of conspiracy. There is no requirement that conspirators know each other, and posting the files required seems like an overt step.

In the U.S., by definition the conspirators must agree to commit a crime. Thus, they must know each other--not in a personal sense, but they must actually know that there are other participants and agree to act in concert with those other participants.

Exactly. This is an open offer, and there is no agreement until someone actually accepts the open offer.

Actual lawyer.

He's generally right, in the U.S. at least. Suggesting that someone commit an illegal act does not rise to the level of conspiracy. You have to actually do something meaningful to support the criminal effort to be charged with conspiracy.

In certain circumstances, incitement can be a crime, but the threshold for that crime is very high.

He did provide the tools and instructions, to be fair. I'm not sure if that counts as 'something meaningful', but it's something more than just suggesting, anyway.

He's provided some tools and instructions but he seems to have been fairly careful not to provide everything you'd need - there would still need to be a not inconsiderable application of skill and effort from someone.

Essentially he's not loading the gun, putting it in someone's hand and pointing it just waiting for them to squeeze the trigger. My reading is it's closer to him saying where you might find someone you want to shoot and pointing out the gun store.

> but the threshold for that crime is very high

What exactly does that mean? What is the line between "incitement" and "suggesting a crime"?

Whatever a jury thinks

... and an appeals court upholds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com