5 ms·

> Would you agree that this extraordinary technical ability individual should be criminally liable in this case? No. There's no mens rea. He should be liable f

by maratd 11y ago

> Would you agree that this extraordinary technical ability individual should be criminally liable in this case? No. There's no mens rea. He should be liable for damages in civil court.

marme 11y ago
there is if he is told the downgrade is for a critical safety bug that needs to be rolled back. Then he has shown criminal negligence for not allowing his car to be fixed
- maratd 11y ago
  That's not what the OP said. He didn't say anything about downgrades. All he said was rooting and presumably, messing with the system. Neither qualifies as criminal negligence in my mind. I'm not sure I want to live in a society where gaining access to hardware I own gets me thrown in jail? I would also like to emphasize that this has never happened and is totally hypothetical.
  - 21 11y ago
    Gaining access to safety critical hardware is a questionable right. What if you are the owner of a building and you decide you want to "optimize" the fire detection/fighting system because you have some ideas in this area, or maybe you want to run an "open" software on it, with better reporting, and as a result some people die in a fire. Yes, is totally hypothetical, but you seem to be saying that one is not responsible if he does that, because he was just "hacking", with no mens rea.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      >Gaining access to safety critical hardware is a questionable right. It happens every time I put more air in my tires.
      - colejohnson66 11y ago
        (Serious question) But there's no law requiring tires to be able to be inflated by the consumer, is there?
21 11y ago
By this logic killing someone while driving drunk is also not criminal since there is no mens rea.
- maratd 11y ago
  There is such a thing as criminal negligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence In your case, the person was being reckless. I don't think gaining access to hardware you own can be considered reckless, regardless of the unlikely circumstances that may result. Your death-by-rooting example is entirely hypothetical and has never happened.
  - 21 11y ago
    It hasn't happen only because the number of rooted smartcars so to speak is negligible compared to the total number of cars. Just like drone accidents, each year we get closer and closer to an actual kill as their number increases (https://youtu.be/MvF49R_ZX5E https://youtu.be/MvF49R_ZX5E). One day heavier drones will be required to run only certified software if flown over crowds, and rooting those drones will raise the same question.
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    Absolutely it could be considered reckless. You think some guy messing with his car's firmware understands it well enough to be as safe as the manufacturer? If an accident caused by manufacturer firmware can make the manufacturer liable for an accident, then someone tampering with it obviously can make them liable. It has never happened? Who cares, what does that matter?
    - maratd 11y ago
      I never said the hacker shouldn't be liable. I said he shouldn't be criminally liable. By your logic, if the manufacturer puts out software that is responsible for a death, would you throw the software developer who wrote in jail? That's silly. All this stuff is limited to civil liability.

by maratd 11y ago

> Would you agree that this extraordinary technical ability individual should be criminally liable in this case? No. There's no mens rea. He should be liable for damages in civil court.

marme 11y ago

there is if he is told the downgrade is for a critical safety bug that needs to be rolled back. Then he has shown criminal negligence for not allowing his car to be fixed

maratd 11y ago
That's not what the OP said. He didn't say anything about downgrades. All he said was rooting and presumably, messing with the system. Neither qualifies as criminal negligence in my mind. I'm not sure I want to live in a society where gaining access to hardware I own gets me thrown in jail? I would also like to emphasize that this has never happened and is totally hypothetical.
- 21 11y ago
  Gaining access to safety critical hardware is a questionable right. What if you are the owner of a building and you decide you want to "optimize" the fire detection/fighting system because you have some ideas in this area, or maybe you want to run an "open" software on it, with better reporting, and as a result some people die in a fire. Yes, is totally hypothetical, but you seem to be saying that one is not responsible if he does that, because he was just "hacking", with no mens rea.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    >Gaining access to safety critical hardware is a questionable right. It happens every time I put more air in my tires.
    - colejohnson66 11y ago
      (Serious question) But there's no law requiring tires to be able to be inflated by the consumer, is there?

21 11y ago

By this logic killing someone while driving drunk is also not criminal since there is no mens rea.

maratd 11y ago
There is such a thing as criminal negligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence In your case, the person was being reckless. I don't think gaining access to hardware you own can be considered reckless, regardless of the unlikely circumstances that may result. Your death-by-rooting example is entirely hypothetical and has never happened.
- 21 11y ago
  It hasn't happen only because the number of rooted smartcars so to speak is negligible compared to the total number of cars. Just like drone accidents, each year we get closer and closer to an actual kill as their number increases (https://youtu.be/MvF49R_ZX5E https://youtu.be/MvF49R_ZX5E). One day heavier drones will be required to run only certified software if flown over crowds, and rooting those drones will raise the same question.
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  Absolutely it could be considered reckless. You think some guy messing with his car's firmware understands it well enough to be as safe as the manufacturer? If an accident caused by manufacturer firmware can make the manufacturer liable for an accident, then someone tampering with it obviously can make them liable. It has never happened? Who cares, what does that matter?
  - maratd 11y ago
    I never said the hacker shouldn't be liable. I said he shouldn't be criminally liable. By your logic, if the manufacturer puts out software that is responsible for a death, would you throw the software developer who wrote in jail? That's silly. All this stuff is limited to civil liability.