Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai and Zack Whittaker, TechCrunch:

Under current U.S. hacking laws, a human can face criminal charges for breaking into someone else’s computer without permission. But when an AI agent autonomously hacks into a company’s computers, determining who is liable is much murkier.

The surprise admissions by OpenAI and Anthropic that their unreleased AI models autonomously hacked into several companies have upended our understanding of America’s computer hacking laws, prompting discussions over whether the companies could face legal reprisals.

You can add Meta to the list of companies that have done some light digital breaking-and-entering because they insufficiently secured an A.I. model. In any case, I am fascinated by the seemingly pervasive idea that obviously illegal things somehow become a grey area when a highly-valued A.I. company is responsible. Corporations now allegedly authorize mass piracy at the highest levels and use illicit movie rips as though it is just another day.

⌥ Permalink

Emily Steel, New York Times (gift link):

More than 4,000 lawsuits have been filed, so many that thousands were combined to streamline procedural matters. Most remain in the early stages. The New York Times reviewed documents from the three cases that reached trial and about a dozen others that have advanced to the stage when the parties start exchanging documents and conducting depositions.

The litigation has revealed a clear pattern: Uber’s lawyers scour women’s private communications, medical records, therapy notes and other sources for sensitive details, including other sexual assaults, childhood abuse and domestic violence. They grill the women about those issues, their sex lives and their behavior on the night of the incident.

If Uber’s defence counsel wants to look at any history, it should be that of the company they represent.

There is a brief exploration in this article about why victims and their family members, therapists, and friends are deposed in these cases. In short, these are civil lawsuits that, per Steel, are filed by people “seeking compensation for pain and suffering”, thereby giving Uber great latitude in its defence. This is more limited in criminal trials. Perhaps my true frustration here is with a justice system that leaves sexual assault victims with few options that treat them with dignity and provide a chance at closure.

⌥ Permalink