Probably some of that, but it's also pretty hard to prosecute someone for a specific act absent evidence that they intended that act to occur. There's a whole family of "negligent X" crimes, but those tend to target specific outcomes ("that person is injured/dead because you were negligent"), and I don't think there are any negligent hacking statutes on the books.

Doing a hack manually is clearly prosecutable. Writing and invoking a script to do the same hack automatically is clearly prosecutable. Specifically directing an AI agent to perform an action that the person giving the command knows to be criminal is probably prosecutable under innocent-instrumentality doctrine. Telling the agent "get me a copy of the latest Toy Story" leading to the agent hacking Pixar and downloading pre-release video, less so.

I think the closest analogy in these cases would be either vicious-dog prosecutions ("you knew your dog was dangerous, you frequently brag in public about how vicious your dog is, you failed to contain it properly, it injured someone") or corporate-officer responsibility ("As CEO, you may not have issued the order to store the food in the rat-infested warehouse, but you had a duty to ensure that didn't happen, and you knowingly allowed it to happen.")

Certainly can't prosecute the model for hacking Acme when it was told to pen-test EvilCorp, and under current law, I don't think we can prosecute the creator or the person who gave the "Get me EvilCorp's R&D files by any means necessary" order for the actual hacking of Acme. And I think the vicarious-liability laws on the books are deliberately pretty narrow, to avoid them being used for all sorts of BS prosecutions. Might be able to get a vicious-dog conviction for sandboxing the known-dangerous agent by removing the default route and hoping it doesn't notice.

We'll probably need new laws for this. For now, if anything, it'll probably be civil litigation along the lines of negligent supervision -- given that the big AI companies are currently privately held, civil penalties might actually even hit almost the right people. Once they're public, it'll be pension funds and 401k's bearing the penalties for their corporate malfeasance, at least criminal law catches up with the concept of non-conscious agents that are capable of forming functional intentions, possessing "knowledge" of which targets are permitted and which not, and selecting actions against out-of-scope targets anyway.

One of those logging trucks with the giant claw?

You're not holding it properly.

Probably some combination of "they don't want to clutter the UI with options and data most users don't care about" and "they don't want you to see the amount of system resources consumed by telemetry, advertising, 'on-device AI,' and other shit you didn't ask for."

That said, I don't really see this particular change as "pushing AI" on anyone -- just an evolution in the types of hardware and workloads commonly encountered, with a corresponding evolution in tooling.

Unfortunately for the Raccoon Mafia's XP score, it looks like this is a relatively small town utility counting individual customers as separate outages.

I had seven power outages in my living room the other day when I tried to run the air conditioner and the iron at the same time.

We're sorry, but we are unable to answer any questions about the searches you asked about. All data and metadata pertaining to those searches has been deleted in keeping with our terms of service, and now exists only in hardcopy form in Officer Manley's stalker binder. We wish we could be more helpful.

They're reportedly already doing that. The 404 Podcast recently interviewed an ex-Flock employee, who said that some municipal PD had completely bypassed the normal city-council funds approval process and signed the city up for a Flock contract using forfeiture funds.

Guillotines for everyone involved, and laws that all forfeiture funds go directly into a public ledger with absolute transparency on what they're used for. Or just get rid of civil forfeiture as an adjunct to criminal prosecution entirely.

Yes, utterly amazing the amount of gold in Flock cameras. Gold contacts on the circuit boards, gold in the sensors, gold everywhere. They need it to make sure the cameras can hold up long-term when exposed to heat, cold, humidity, etc. Probably $30-$50 worth of gold per camera. Only a company completely bankrolled by the modern surveillance-state economy could afford to make such high quality circuit boards and sensors, then just put hundreds of thousands of them on bridges and flimsy poles all over the country.

Not so sure about that, my Tesla went through a phase were it would randomly drift over and hug the centerline, then eventually cross over it, wobble around a bit, and lurch suddenly toward the edge -- with the on-screen visualization showing exactly what it was doing. Seems to have been silently fixed a few software updates ago, right around the same time it stopped spamming errors about the left headlight E-Fuse and front radar in the service log. Whatever it was on, I don't want any, but could probably make some good money selling it.

If this is as widespread as it seems, perhaps the manufacturers should fix the OS to do something about it. Banning "anything that links known SDK x, y or z" is just whack-a-mole.

One simple approach that comes to mind with minimal thought (aside from the obvious "why the fsck does a Pac-Man game need network access at all?") is having the app manifest contain a list of domains to which the app intends to connect, and block anything else at the OS level -- perhaps blocking everything by default, then permitting IPs when the app uses the system resolver to resolve a whitelisted name. Then scale the degree of (human and automated) scrutiny applied to the app with the size and breadth of the whitelist. You can still make a web browser app or something that gets unrestricted access, but it gets a lot of eyes on it. Maybe have to provide source for review. For most apps, "you get five connect() calls per minute unless your manifest declares a good reason for more" might be helpful as well.

Perfect? No, but it increases the complexity and expense of automated spamming/DoS/scraping attacks without proportionally increasing the cost of legitimate behavior (even undesirable legitimate behavior like ads), and funnels potential malfeasance through smaller and more observable chokepoints. Get caught serving a million subdomains to route spam traffic via your one whitelisted domain? Congrats, your dev certificate is now revoked and none of your apps work anymore, and anyone who paid for them gets automatic refunds.

Yeah, no one elected you as much of anything, so kindly take your cameras and fuck off.

While I agree that the original comment was made with no evidence citation and is likely bullshit, there's certainly plenty of precedent across the national and political spectrum for politicians doing the exact things that they've advocated imprisoning others for.

Unfortunately, if he ISN'T convicted, it will likely be due to the ineptitude and buffoonery of the present administration, not for lack of trying.

This is, after all, the DOJ that failed to convict the guy who threw a sandwich at a uniformed law enforcement officer, on camera, then said "yeah, I threw it."

What if he had just written 1209766 on a post-it note inside of his phone case, completely without context? What if he then refused to provide the pin, the agent saw that note and decided to try it and it nuked the device? I have a feeling that now that the door is open we're going to see all sorts of interesting cases testing the limits of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.