4 ms·
This analogy is stupid. There is a difference between these things breaking under normal use and being activly attacked. You're not on the hook as a contractor
by hueving 10y ago
This analogy is stupid. There is a difference between these things breaking under normal use and being activly attacked.
You're not on the hook as a contractor for a house if it's vulnerable to missile attacks.
- acomar 10y agoI bet you'd be on the hook for installing a door without locks though.
- nradov 10y agoThe active attacks are the equivalent of "weather" on the Internet. It's nothing like protecting against violent crimes. If I bought a new house and the roof leaked after only 5 years of regular weather I would certainly expect the contractor to fix it, and file a construction defect lawsuit if they didn't.
- jdmichal 10y agoYou are if you advertise the house as invulnerable to missile attacks. (D-Link advertised its routers as secure.)
- cptskippy 10y agoI would argue that a device connected to the internet being actively scanned for exploits is normal use. Even if you have a disclaimer that your product should never be connected to the internet, you could still be on the hook. Blitz went out of business because it could no longer afford liability insurance. Blitz made those ubiquitous red plastic gas containers you see on every landscaping trailer. They were constantly being sued because their gas can could explode if you poured gasoline directly from it onto a fire. They even put warnings and disclaimers directly on the cans against pouring gasoline on a fire.
- msbarnett 10y ago> Blitz went out of business because it could no longer afford liability insurance. Blitz made those ubiquitous red plastic gas containers you see on every landscaping trailer. They were constantly being sued because their gas can could explode if you poured gasoline directly from it onto a fire. They even put warnings and disclaimers directly on the cans against pouring gasoline on a fire. This is a very one-sided read of the situation. The typical Blitz can lawsuit went something like this: A 3-year old toddler knocked over a blitz can in a basement[1]. Vapours from the can reached the water-heater, which then flashed-back into the can, causing the can to explode, severely burning the child. This would not have happened had the can's nozzle been built with an industry-standard 10 cent flame arrestor, which federal regulators STRONGLY advise all gas can manufacturers to include, but which Blitz had for years refused to take the simple precaution of adding to their product. It's the "ignoring simple, industry-standard safety precautions" that will get your ass nailed to the wall by a liability judge. Engineers who had worked for the company testified at trial that they were ordered to destroy documentation showing that Blitz was aware of the problem, had done internal testing, and had designed flame-arrestors for their nozzles, and that management killed the project after a change-of-ownership. [1] http://www.recordonline.com/article/20030919/News/309199995 http://www.recordonline.com/article/20030919/News/309199995
- cptskippy 10y agoSo would ignoring industry-standard security best practices be the equivalent in this case?
- gpderetta 10y agoNo, but you might be on the hook if it is vulnerable to heartquakes.