Hacker News Reader

Comment by eli | Hacker News Reader

The EFF has the actual documents in the case posted https://www.eff.org/cases/rubin-v-new-jersey-tidbit

Based on a quick skim, this is the closest NJ comes to making a case: https://www.eff.org/document/nj-attorney-general-response-ef...

View on HN

It sounds like the NJ AG is saying, "Someone in NJ may have downloaded and run the code written by Tidbit and said code may have done things which are not allowed in NJ, hence Tidbit must provide said code to the NJ AG."

But it doesn't sound like the AG has much evidence (or simply isn't providing such evidence) that anyone in NJ ever actually downloaded or ran the code.

Is this a normal ask for Attorneys General to make in any circumstance regarding software?

There is evidence that the code was present on websites, but, the code was never functional, that is, it never mined bitcoins. Therefore it never breached any laws.

As such, one has to wonder either whether the cyber fraud unit of the state department has basic understanding of programming or whether the state department is willfully taking this action to send some sort of message.

Is intent to break a law good enough? If I buy a gun and try to shoot someone, it's still a crime even if the gun never worked. If someone signed up to receive the code and put it on their website with the intent of mining bitcoins on user's computers (which the NJAG is saying is illegal, I have no idea), is that not also a crime?

Exactly, they have zero evidence it was ran outside the competition. And if they downloaded it and ran it themselves, then they've given express consent, or if someone else ran it on someone else's machine after modifying it significantly to be work and be malicious, they're the ones culpable, not the students.

Since hypothetical person may have hypothetically used Windows as well, the NJ AG should be subpoenaing Microsoft for a complete copy of the source code for Windows 8.1

Reply on news.ycombinator.com