3 ms·
There is some talk of prosecution of these hackers. Does anyone else disagree with that?? Personally, I feel that a publisher of technology is responsible for
by conductr 10y ago
There is some talk of prosecution of these hackers. Does anyone else disagree with that??
Personally, I feel that a publisher of technology is responsible for ensuring there are no "holes". If someone finds a hole and pokes around and uses it for any reason, it should not be criminal.
If I found a way to methodically purchase all the pieces to win McDonald's monopoly game, would that be criminal fraud? Or would it be negligence by McDonald's? My view is the latter.
- 24gttghh 10y agoBy that logic, one could argue shoplifting is permissible if the store doesn't have video cameras on every inch of the establishment.
- conductr 10y agoI see your point. And I know I am basically arguing against active laws. However, I feel it should work different here. You're building a tool that basically says 1) send clicks 2) get paid. That's your tool, nobody made you build it, if you wanted to be safe - find your own clicks. In my view, it's your responsibility to ensure any clicks you pay for are valid. If they are invalid, it amounts to your partner broke the service TOS/AUP. In which case, I see a case for civil damages sure but not criminal. To counter with another analogy. Robbing a casino, criminal. Counting cards, severely frowned upon but not criminally illegal. When you create a system that users can game to their advantage, you are responsible for enforcing your rules - it doesn't (or shouldn't) make it a crime when your rules are broken.
- paulcole 10y ago> Personally, I feel that a publisher of technology is responsible for ensuring there are no "holes". Isn't this the definition of victim blaming?