The Unabomber died in prison yesterday at age 81, thus completing his
first life sentence. He only has seven more to go.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 21:04:43 -0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
<kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>The Unabomber died in prison yesterday at age 81, thus completing his
>first life sentence. He only has seven more to go.

I suspect he won't serve them. The Department of Corrections doesn't
put a lot of effort into finding reincarnations.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On 6/11/23 5:04 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> The Unabomber died in prison yesterday at age 81, thus completing his
> first life sentence. He only has seven more to go.

If he were a cat, he could eventually get out.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 21:04:43 +0000, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> The Unabomber died in prison yesterday at age 81, thus completing his
> first life sentence. He only has seven more to go.

He got the last laugh, going out at precisely the time when his
anti-technology rant has become institutionalized in the
journalistic freak-out over AI.

Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> The Unabomber died in prison yesterday at age 81, thus completing
>> his first life sentence. He only has seven more to go.

> He got the last laugh, going out at precisely the time when his
> anti-technology rant has become institutionalized in the
> journalistic freak-out over AI.

Five days earlier, Robert Hanssen died, ending the first of his
fifteen life sentences. Those two rogues spent most of their
sentences in the same super-max federal prison. A book about that FBI
turncoat was titled _The Spy Next Door_. Which was almost literally
true for me, as he and I lived in the same town. I never met him,
but I had unknowingly walked past his house and past his dead drop
multiple times.

Also in that prison was (and still is) Zacarias Moussaoui, the "20th
hijacker," who apparently slept late on 9/11 and missed his flight.
He got off easy, with only one life sentence. I never met him either,
but I have met and chatted with his lawyer.

Getting back to AI, I wouldn't dignify the current chatbots with that
term. They're just slightly refurbished versions of the classic
"dissociated press" program of a half century ago. I laughed out
loud when I heard about the lawyer who trusted ChatGPT to do his job.
That "AI" didn't wipe out all humans, but it did wipe out the law
career of that one human.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 6/13/23 10:57 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Getting back to AI, I wouldn't dignify the current chatbots with that
> term. They're just slightly refurbished versions of the classic
> "dissociated press" program of a half century ago. I laughed out
> loud when I heard about the lawyer who trusted ChatGPT to do his job.
> That "AI" didn't wipe out all humans, but it did wipe out the law
> career of that one human.

If he's suffered trauma from that, he could go to Eliza for psychotherapy.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Getting back to AI, I wouldn't dignify the current chatbots with that
>term. They're just slightly refurbished versions of the classic
>"dissociated press" program of a half century ago. I laughed out
>loud when I heard about the lawyer who trusted ChatGPT to do his job.
>That "AI" didn't wipe out all humans, but it did wipe out the law
>career of that one human.

More likely two humans. Their law firm may well also get dinged (over
"supervision") but probably not enough to sink it.

IE, the original (State certified) lawyer was the one that used
ChatGPT to generate the original gibberish to the Federal court which
resulted in Avianca firing back "we can't find 5 of the cases and the
remaining two doesn't say what they claim they do".

The Judge clearly smelled something bad and ordered the other side to
"provide certified copies of all cases you are referencing" - a very
uncommon request which should be considered a major hint but wasn't.

At least one of the invalid references were to the Federal Reporter
which publishes all federal cases, it's just not possible to NOT find
a valid reference for that. Another reference mentions page 100,000+
something, clearly not physically possible, others were basically
gibberish.

Anyone SANE would instead have gone WTF have I done and immediately
fold but no, he asked ChatGPT if it was SURE... and then to provide
him with the cases, which it manufactured for him (it rarely say no),
and then he sent that in despite realizing they clearly wasn't the
full actual cases the Judge had requested because they were WAY too
short, the excuse was that he "thought" they were excerpts but that
was NOT what the Judge had asked for.

We know this because he submitted screenshots, which including the
text around the chat window clearly stating nothing it said could be
relied upon... Ouch.

Which leads us to attorney number two, the co-worker that took the
first ones work and sent them into the Federal court, due to the first
not being admitted to the Federal court and thus couldn't legally do
the work once Avianca (trivially) moved it from State to Federal court
system where it always was going to end up under the Montreal
Convention.

He didn't use ChatGPT *but* as the person sending them he's
RESPONSIBLE for anything he send in and he clearly didn't even read it
(there were red flags everywhere even on a cursory read-through!). But
he's also on hook for fradulent use of certification/attestion! and
outrightly lying to the Judge (when requesting an extension earlier he
claimed it was for him being on vacation, but it was really the other
lawyer that was on vacation).

I expect they're BOTH toast, albeit for different reasons. And really
not even by ChatGPT, I consider that more as an amplifier of stupidity
here.

For a non-expert it's really hard to know who gets it worse, both did
pretty much everything in their power to dig themself a deep hole.

And I wonder if there will be criminal reprecussions, it was a civil
case but we're basically talking "court fraud" (both) and "lying to a
judge in writing" (only the second).

I suspect there will be sanctions and referral to their Bar
Association(s) (that can disbarr them) but I'm not going to be
surprised if the Judge also referred to "investigation". And when a
Federal Judge do that it do get investigated and often lead to
criminal prosecution. Some of the things looks like they could lead to
jail time.

Honestly, it's one of those "you couldn't put this in a book because
no one would believe it".

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> writes:

> The Unabomber died in prison yesterday at age 81, thus completing his
> first life sentence. He only has seven more to go.
Interesting. I didn't about him. I just read his manifesto and
wow... Many things he wrote it in have are happening.

On 6/16/23 11:10 PM, cr0c0d1le wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
>> The Unabomber died in prison yesterday at age 81, thus completing his
>> first life sentence. He only has seven more to go.
> Interesting. I didn't about him. I just read his manifesto and
> wow... Many things he wrote it in have are happening.

At least you can read it. In New Zealand, the Chief Censor has declared
reading mass murderer Brenton Tarrant's manifesto a crime punishable by
years in prison. The Chief Censor evidently regards it as so persuasive
that people must be prevented from knowing what's in it.

I've posted an analysis of it, quoting parts:

http://www.mcgath.com/murdermanifesto.html

If I ever travel to New Zealand, I might get arrested as soon as I step
off the plane.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> writes:

> On 6/16/23 11:10 PM, cr0c0d1le wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>
>>> The Unabomber died in prison yesterday at age 81, thus completing his
>>> first life sentence. He only has seven more to go.
>> Interesting. I didn't about him. I just read his manifesto and
>> wow... Many things he wrote it in have are happening.
>
> At least you can read it. In New Zealand, the Chief Censor has
> declared reading mass murderer Brenton Tarrant's manifesto a crime
> punishable by years in prison. The Chief Censor evidently regards it
> as so persuasive that people must be prevented from knowing what's in
> it.
>
> I've posted an analysis of it, quoting parts:
>
> http://www.mcgath.com/murdermanifesto.html
>
> If I ever travel to New Zealand, I might get arrested as soon as I
> step off the plane.
First off, great analysis.

Now, if I understand correctly, you go to jail for reading the
_analysis_ itself if you are in New Zealand? If so, it's insane.

On 6/17/23 8:36 AM, cr0c0d1le wrote:
> Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> writes:
>

>> At least you can read it. In New Zealand, the Chief Censor has
>> declared reading mass murderer Brenton Tarrant's manifesto a crime
>> punishable by years in prison. The Chief Censor evidently regards it
>> as so persuasive that people must be prevented from knowing what's in
>> it.
>>
>> I've posted an analysis of it, quoting parts:
>>
>> http://www.mcgath.com/murdermanifesto.html
>>
>> If I ever travel to New Zealand, I might get arrested as soon as I
>> step off the plane.
> First off, great analysis.
>
> Now, if I understand correctly, you go to jail for reading the
> _analysis_ itself if you are in New Zealand? If so, it's insane.
>

Not the analysis as such, but the quotes from the manifesto and,
perhaps, the link to it (though the link I gave no longer works).
--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

cr0c0d1le <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> The Unabomber died in prison yesterday at age 81, thus completing
>> his first life sentence. He only has seven more to go.

> Interesting. I didn't about him. I just read his manifesto and
> wow... Many things he wrote it in have are happening.

I never read it, and never will. That's because lots of people
want lots of people to read what they wrote, and if I were to read
something just because its author *killed* innocent people with the
intent to get lots of people to read what they wrote -- I'm not
willing to do that, as it would encourage more people to do the same.

But I agree with Gary that nobody should be forbidden from reading
it, or from reading anything else.

As an aside, there is, or once was, a web page that quotes from the
Unabomber Manifesto and from Al Gore's _Earth in the Balance_ and
challenges people to guess which is which.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> That "AI" didn't wipe out all humans, but it did wipe out the law
>> career of that one human.

> More likely two humans. Their law firm may well also get dinged
> (over "supervision") but probably not enough to sink it.

> ... But he's also on hook for fradulent use of certification/
> attestion! ...

Thanks for the additional details. Due to what happened to me when I
signed something without reading it 45 years ago, I make sure never to
sign anything without reading and understanding it. This causes me a
surprising amount of friction. Especially when I end up not signing
it. For instance the medical insurance "contract" that says something
like, "This is not the contract, if you want to see the contract make
an appointment to view it in a location a thousand miles away."

In lots of cases, even when such signing causes serious harm, there
are no consequences. For instance the so-called "robo-signing" of
foreclosure documentation in which the person swears that they've
thoroughly researched the mortgage and is pledging their life,
fortune, and sacred honor that the homeowner owes money to the bank.
It turned out that one person was signing a hundred such attestations
per hour, for weeks at a time. And that lots of those houses were
owned free and clear. I'd like to know why *that* person wasn't given
eight life sentences.

Or how about judges who sign warrants for midnight SWAT-team raids as
if they were party favors. These raids end up getting innocent people
killed. Cops and homeowners shoot it out, each thinking the other
team are the bad guys. Nobody benefits except free-lance armed home
invaders, who now rely on being mistaken for cops by meek victims.

> And I wonder if there will be criminal reprecussions, it was a civil
> case but we're basically talking "court fraud" (both) and "lying to
> a judge in writing" (only the second).

There should be, but I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't.

I've been active in the computer field for more than half a century.
As a result of which, I never fully trust anything generated by a
computer. Present-day computers are incapable of lying, which of
course means they're equally incapable of telling the truth. They
merely generate text (or numbers, or images, or sounds) which means
nothing to them.

ObSF: The "Children of" trilogy, _Children of Time_, _Children
of Ruin_, and _Children of Memory_, by Adrian Tchaikovsky (who is
British, not Russian). The back story is that a computer virus
wiped out almost every person living on or off Earth. It wasn't
until after the next ice age that there was a partial recovery
by the descendants of the few survivors, all of whom were on Earth,
living as primitives.

> Honestly, it's one of those "you couldn't put this in a book because
> no one would believe it".

I believed in that computer virus, since these days computer security
is designed by idiots.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Keith F. Lynch <kfl@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> wrote:
>> Honestly, it's one of those "you couldn't put this in a book because
>> no one would believe it".
>
> I believed in that computer virus, since these days computer security
> is designed by idiots.

You think it was designed...that's cute.
Snark aside, that's a possibility. One of many and not, in my experience,
anywhere near the top of the list. Incomplete and in no particular order:
1. They had one or more security specialists and they were idiots.
2. They had no specialists and security was just another design consideration.
3. They had no specialists and security wasn't even a design consideration.
4. Sales and marketing pushed back against security and won. They usually do.
5. The implementers cut corners to meet deadlines.
6. The implementers cut corners to reduce hardware requirements/improve
performance.
7. Technology progressed. Computers got faster, weaknesses were discovered in
algorithms, etc.
8. The operating environment changed. Choices that were reasonable for a set
of systems in an isolated, locked data center are unreasonable for a set
of systems that are distributed around the internet.
9. Interactions between different hardware and software components, each
from a different source, that are vulnerable in combination.

(And, of course, any number at the same time.)

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com