The creator of the NFT accused OpenSea of content censorship. The sale of the NFT unleashed a discussion on the legality behind selling cybersecurity breaches.
Hacker House CEO and Co-founder Matthew Hickey tried to sell a cybersecurity breach (exploit) as an NFT through the crypto-collectibles marketplace OpenSea. Just a day after its launch, the platform removed the project without prior advice.
The first token, dubbed zero-day, a Hickey creation for his NFT project, Zero Day Collection, received advertisement via Twitter as “a highly collectible hacker artwork.” Although it seemed harmless and intended to take part in the 1999 video game Quake 3, the token raised questions about the ethics of selling this type of NFT due to the harmful use that buyers could bring to it.
Censorship or Illegality: Hickey Branded the Removal of his NFT as Censorship of a Content Creator
OpenSea removed the auction for Hickey’s NFT, claiming that the collectible could trigger problems in the video game’s services. OpenSea stated that the sale of this NFT had been unique and that it would not be on re-sale within the platform.
Hickey branded the removal of his NFT as censorship of a content creator and suggested not using OpenSea, via the following tweet:
“Even if the security breach is for a 1999 game, and therefore seems harmless, being able to sell these types of breaches through an NFT started a debate on whether that action was legal or not.”
This type of exploit aiming at another software could facilitate the theft of private data or cryptocurrencies, as could have happened with the Coldcard wallet.
The Lawyers Spoke on the Matter
Coindesk recently contacted Stephen Palley and Preston Byrne, two attorneys at the Anderson Kill law firm, to expose the debate on the sale of this type of NFT.
Palley stated that using a cybersecurity breach NFT to enter someone’s computer system in the United States would violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Selling the NFT is more of a decision that compromises ethics.
If the breach appeared in public without pay, it would receive protection and coverage from an amendment that exposes freedom of religion and expression without government intervention.
For his part, Preston Byrne said that playing with cybersecurity breaches can be dangerous, especially regarding data leaks. Although the process cannot go through verification, he explains that a movement like this can be problematic if this type of NFT was on sale to commit a crime. Byrne added that:
“In a decentralized market context, the likelihood of US adversaries buying such a tool should also be under consideration.”
More than scared, Hickey is worried about seeing how NFT sales progress. Hickey considers all of this as an investigation that can turn the wheel to the distribution and sale models of breaches and security investigations in general.
By: Jenson Nuñez
