3 ms·
Yeah, I found that I was doing this myself. I think it's because I was always posing myself the what-ifs of "well, you could just be accidentally sending someth
by Latty 10y ago
Yeah, I found that I was doing this myself. I think it's because I was always posing myself the what-ifs of "well, you could just be accidentally sending something that would trigger it...", but the law can deal with intent where most software and programing problems simply can't. Where it is clear the intent was to cause harm, we should absolutely treat these things with as much seriousness as any other attempt to harm another person.
- wolfgke 10y ago> but the law can deal with intent How do you come to this conclusion?
- koverstreet 10y agoCome on, don't be dragging the discussion down like this. If you've got something to say about mens rea, then say it.
- wolfgke 10y agoThe law can deal with "what some judge/jury conjectures that the intent might be", but it cannot deal with intent. But this weaker statement sounds like it might be implemented in software, too.
- deanishe 10y agoDid you read the articles? The suspect tweeted "I know he has epilepsy" and "I hope he dies." But sure, a judge and jury could only possibly conjecture about intent…
- wolfgke 10y agoI read the article. The only thing that we know is (under the weak assumption that it was indeed written by him) he claimed this was his intent.
- Latty 10y agoSo from this and your comments I take it you took it to mean they can know intent, when it's clear they can't. They can however investigate and get a pretty good idea. Software is limited to mostly instant decisions by automated process - a far cry from a court case and an investigation by professionals.