This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'd be interested to hear how you think the CFAA would apply here and to whom.
It's unlikely the abandoned personal laptop of the presidents fuck-up son qualifies as a 'protected computer'. Nor does any of the data disclosed appear to be restricted, etc.
He was hacked in the sense that if he'd taken his VCR to be repaired, abandoned it and the repair shop was able to remove and repair the cassette. On the tape was was the presidents fuck-up son, getting high, banging prostitutes, and talking about questionable business deals. They copy the tape and give a copy to Inside Edition, which runs the story.
That's not 'hacked' that's just being a skeevy adict fuck-up. Calling it hacked is a canard.
The State of Delaware can likely make many things a crime, criminalizing giveing abandoned property to the press especially so with a clear public interest in the story hopefully would be a protected 1st amendment activity.
I'm not sure there's good faith argument that it's hacked material. I consider all the alphabet agency people who called it Russian disinformation bad faith actors.
They got weev on CFAA conspiracy arguing that the publicly accessible, no authentication AT&T server that returned an email address when sent an ICC-ID (SIM card UUID) was a protected computer and sending it requests with ICC-IDs to harvest email addresses was accessing a protected computer without authorization in furtherance of a criminal activity. Overturned and freed based on improper venue, underlying substantial issue unaddressed.
I thought those charges were bullshit, but it was internet connected at least.
I don't think there have been any claims that this was 'hacking' because the laptop was internet connected.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There absolutely is. It may not be relevant as to whether the information should be distributed. But there is a decent claim that it is hacked material in the sense that the person who did so, did not have ownership of the files and accessed them in an unauthorized manner. It's not a slam dunk by any means but if the data ownership remains with Hunter even while the shop gets to own the computer (which is legally murky) then by accessing it and distributing it in an unauthorized manner he has breached the law. He can be a skeevy addict fuck up and also technically have had the information obtained by computer fraud.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't be distributed if it is in the public interest but that doesn't change how they were acquired.
"on the other hand, a good case could be made that the repairman “exceeded the scope of his authorization” to examine the files on the computer for a purpose other than repairing the device. What might complicate this is if Hunter Biden, the computer owner, gave the repairman some limiting instructions — express or implied, like “just fix the power supply” or “find out why the screen is not working…” In those cases, you could argue that, even though the repairman was in lawful possession of the computer (and presumably the data contained in it), they exceeded the scope of their authorization to access the computer when they looked at things that were not necessary to perform the task assigned. The Delaware Computer Crime statute additionally makes it a crime to make an “unauthorized copy” of data"
The repair person may be ok, but it isn't legally a slam dunk either. I would say it is both hacked material AND acceptable to distribute given the public interest. So there is very definitely a good faith interpretation that it is hacked material. Which doesn't mean that is why most places were acting in good faith of course.
As for the CFAA, the NACDL (who think it's too broad and want it reduced in scope) say:
"Since every computer connected to the Internet is used in interstate commerce or communication, it is a conceivable interpretation that every computer connected to the Internet is a “protected computer” covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1030." and that the definition was then expanded further twice since then.
He clearly had lawful possession, it was left in his care. Isn't the shop owner relying on his boilerplate forms that abandoned devices become the property of the shop, to transfer ownership of the device?
Having seen and used similar service agreements copying and transferring data is frequently authorized.
When the geek squad finds child porn, is that hacking? How about if they rat out the perv to the FBI in exchange for cash. https://www.kron4.com/news/national/documents-fbi-paid-best-buys-geek-squad-for-child-porn-info/
Have we seen evidence that this device was connected to the internet at the time of the alleged hacking?
Calling it hacking is a canard to distract and suppress the content.
Absolutley. But that doesn't mean it wasn't.
And in fact the CSAM issue isn't cut and dried either, this is part of why it is legally grey:
"In fact, the government has relied on this concept to essentially enlist computer repair personnel as informants, using them to scan computers for things like CSAM (kiddie porn), or other things that the government might use as evidence. In a highly publicized case several years ago, the FBI was paying Best Buy “Geek Squad” personnel a bounty (and listing them as confidential informants) to search for files the FBI was interested in on computers brought in for repair, and to provide that information to law enforcement. While the bulk of these cases involve contraband like child pornography which is illegal to possess, and for which certain individuals have a legal duty to report, the question of whether the repair person, in lawful (but temporary) possession of the computer for one purpose (to repair it), may then examine the files on the computer for the purpose not of fixing the computer, but of reporting crime. "
Whether the abandonment gives you ownership of the data is not clear. It doesn't transfer copyright, so the images captured are still legally owned by Hunter, but the rest is unclear. Did he file the appropriate report with the Delaware State Escheator? The law specifies "abandoned tangible property" and to complicate things the Mac Shop had a contract which specifies equipment would become abandoned after 90 days:
"Both the Mac Shop contract and the Delaware Code do not resolve the question as to what exactly Biden might have abandoned in his failure to pick up his laptop and hard drive. The physical devices are one thing, but what about the underlying data? The Mac Shop’s contract is limited to “equipment” and does not extend to intangible or intellectual property. With respect to any data on which Biden has a copyright claim, for example, it does not seem reasonable that Biden granted anything more than a limited use license to access data for the purpose of recovering it. "
To be clear most of the people you are talking about are using the hacking issue as a figleaf for partisan purposes. Completely agreed. The thing with a figleaf though, is usually there is something actually there, and that appears to be the case here. Just because they are saying it is cut and dried one way doesn't mean it is actually cut and dried the other. There are a lot of nuances here.
Combined with the overbroad "hacking" laws, it is quite possible the repair guy committed a crime when he accessed and shared it. It is pretty possible that people who report CSAM on devices they are asked to repair are in fact accessing the data in an unauthorized way and could in theory fall foul of various computer fraud and hacking laws.
If you ask an expert whether repair guy was engaged in hacking the answer is:
"Personally, I think that when you ask someone to repair your computer, you are asking them to repair your computer — not authorizing them to copy anything they find and give it to others. On the other hand, when you hire a cleaning person to clean your house, you run the risk that they will call the cops to report the dead body in the living room or the cocaine stash in the medicine cabinet. That’s the thing about privacy. So did the repairman “hack” Hunter Biden’s computer? Magic 8 ball says, “Maybe.” "
It's possible he was fine when passing it to the FBI, but not when copying it for the purposes of giving it to Giuliani. It's possible he was fine for both. It gets even sillier. If he accessed emails that were held on the laptop that's one thing. If he used the credentials to log into the box live all of a sudden:
"That’s just the box — the computer itself. What about the email on the computer? Just because we like to make things complicated, the law treats stored email differently than it treats other files. Sometimes. Under the Stored Communications Act it is generally illegal to access “stored” communications without authorization. The law treats different kinds of stored communications differently, including those that are stored incident to transmission, those that are in temporary storage, and those that are in more permanent storage. The point was to approximate the IRL world of “interception” of communications in transmission (e.g., wiretaps), reading mail, and reading mail that’s been sitting on the recipient’s kitchen table for a few weeks. (like Jerry Seinfeld’s piece on when clothes become laundry — when does an Ikea catalogue stop being “mail?”) The problem is, the SCA focuses on accessing stored email that is stored by a communications provider, not email that I store on my computer itself. When I store my own email on my own computer, it becomes just another file."
The statement that there is no good faith argument that it is hacked material is I think false. That doesn't mean most people ARE using those argument in good faith.
The Mac Shops boilerplate refers to equipment left after 90 days, but also included a hold harmless for any damage or loss of property. Further it clearly says they will 'backup' data.
Being a canard makes it bad faith.
The accurate description would be, Mac repairman uncovers evidence of corrupt practices and drug use by Biden scion and is ignored by the FBI until going to the press.
Wasn't the hacking claim referring to alleged Russian hackers that then allegedly placed the material on the laptop to be discovered? Also a bad faith canard.
It says secure and backup no? If I can make it out properly. And sure that is why I say the public interest might outweigh how it was obtained. But the claim was there was no good faith way that it could be seen as hacked material and I think I have proved that to be false. It can be both obtained in an illegal manner and have been worth leaking. I think Snowden committed crimes but was correct in what he did as well for example.
Again, most people claiming it probably aren't being good faith, that's how politics plays out in my experience. But here at least we should be able to explore the nuances of the situation, without having to default to the fact of never giving ground, that it was either hacked material and therefore should be ignored, or that it showed corruption and therefore wasn't hacked. It's pretty possible it was obtained illegally and that this shouldn't matter from the point of view of public interest from publication.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you have a mechanic repair your car and you don't pay for the repair after X months, there should be no issue with the mechanic sizing the car in lieu of the unpaid bill. I see no issue with a computer repairer doing the same. If it happens that the most valuable use of an unclaimed computer is to sell it to a political campaign, that seems like a fine outcome.
One should pay their bills or suffer the consequences.
He can seize the computer, the issue seems to be the law doesn't allow you to seize the data as its ownership is not transferred. If he wiped the computer and resold it then that seems to be within the law as long as you jump through a few hoops (in Delaware anyway).
If you left your house keys in your car, it doesn't seem necessary for the mechanic to be able to sell those so that someone can gain access to your home. Likewise if you left your bank card in there, if he used it to buy other things that is probably fraud.
The ownership of the copies of the data written on that device is transferred. That doesn't include copyright, but that's irrelevant in this case. If a photographer abandons a briefcase of valuable art prints in your business, you can't sell copies of their photos, but you can certainly sell the photos themselves.
That appears to be unclear because the Delaware law refers to "tangible property" is data a tangible property? I would say not, but I am not a lawyer.
Material instantiations of data are tangible. Books are tangible, photographs are tangible, DVDs are tangible, hard disk platters and NVRAM, and their physical configurations are tangible as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure house keys, but if you leave bullion in the trunk or a patent application or a business plan, or something that's valuable in itself that the mechanic uses I'd have a hard time voting to convict the mechanic for his use of them with my playground fairness sensibilities.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link