6 ms·

Are you suggesting that someone should do time for running a script that happen to stumble on one of your bugs?

• da_chicken 9y ago
  If the activity caused actual damages and was outside the scope of normal usage? Yes. You're still culpable if your actions break your neighbor's window, even if it was accidentally while you were opening it.
  • __jal 9y ago
    Unless I'm missing something, you're proposing criminal penalties for tort liabilities. Yes, if my crappy software costs you money by knocking your site offline by accident, I should make you whole. I think it has to be something substantially more impactful, clearly intentionally malicious, or in some other way much worse than aggressive timeouts before we start thinking criminal penalties.
    • ouid 9y ago
      either I read it wrong the first time as well, or he edited it, but reading it now it clearly says "while opening it" which is a criminal act, in context.
    • da_chicken 9y ago
      No, when I responded it read "be held liable." I must've commented while it was being edited.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • sp332 9y ago
    I think you could be sued for damages, but that's not the same as a criminal case.
  • granitosaurus 9y ago
    lol, that's ridiculous. Then you could charge anybody for anything really.
  • alasdair_ 9y ago
    Say a business publishes a phone number and they typically get X calls per day. After doing something that pisses a lot of people off, they start getting 1000X calls per day on the same number, almost all complaints. This cases actual damages (no "normal" customers can get through) and is also clearly outside the scope of "normal" usage. Do you think the same rules apply?
    • da_chicken 9y ago
      Yeah, that's not how the comment read when I responded. It said "be held liable," not "do time." I must've responded while he was editing it, and I didn't catch the change.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]