Okay, deep breath, let's get this over with. In the grand act of digital self-sabotage, we've littered this site with cookies. Yep, we did that. Why? So your highness can have a 'premium' experience or whatever. These traitorous cookies hide in your browser, eagerly waiting to welcome you back like a guilty dog that's just chewed your favorite shoe. And, if that's not enough, they also tattle on which parts of our sad little corner of the web you obsess over. Feels dirty, doesn't it?
AI Security Researchers Beware: CFAA Ambiguity Could Land You in Hot Water
Existing US laws tackling those illegally breaking computer systems don’t accommodate modern large language models (LLMs) and can open researchers up to prosecution for what ought to be sanctioned security testing, say a trio of Harvard scholars. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) doesn’t…
Hot Take:
Who knew that asking an AI a question could land you in more trouble than a toddler with a Sharpie and a white wall? The CFAA and its ancient scrolls definitely need an upgrade to catch up with the times. Who’s up for some legal time travel?
Key Points:
- US laws, specifically the CFAA, are outdated and don’t adequately cover modern AI systems like LLMs.
- Prompt injection attacks on AI models fall into a legal gray area, leaving researchers vulnerable to prosecution.
- The 2021 Supreme Court decision in Van Buren v United States narrowed the scope of the CFAA.
- AI systems don’t fit neatly into traditional computer access paradigms, complicating legal interpretations.
- Without legal clarity, responsible security researchers might be deterred, leaving AI vulnerabilities exposed.
Already a member? Log in here