5 ms·

Who in that company would be liable, should there ever be an incident where a child is tracked, abducted and harmed utilizing this gps device? Just the CEO, o

Who in that company would be liable, should there ever be an incident where a child is tracked, abducted and harmed utilizing this gps device? Just the CEO, or will board members also feel shared pain?

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Would or should. I imagine many lawyer-hours would find that "this peon employed to ensure the device is secure" is found to be entirely responsible.
- LinuxBender 8y ago
  Probably so. Gone are the good ol' days of Bushido and Seppuku. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku
  - tinus_hn 8y ago
    These are Japanese concepts, while the manufacturer is Chinese.
    - LinuxBender 8y ago
      Yes. I want to see that applied to all businesses, all cultures. If Earth elects me as Emperor, I will bring these practices back.
tomatotomato37 8y ago
If the corporate info in the terms of use are accurate (Shenzhen Langya Electronics Co., Ltd registered in the Republic of Ireland) then the company would already be bankrupted and assets transferred to a duplicate company in the time it takes a prosecutor lick the envelope Edit: This ToS is hilarious No Data Mining or Harmful Code. You agree that you will not (a) obtain or attempt to obtain any information from the Service; (b) intercept, examine or otherwise observe any proprietary communications protocol used by the Service, whether through the use of a network analyzer, packet sniffer or other device; or (c) use any type of bot, spider, virus, clock, timer, counter, worm, software lock, drop dead device, Trojan-horse routing, trap door, time bomb or any other codes, instructions or third-party software that is designed to provide a means of surreptitious or unauthorized access to, or distort, delete, damage or disassemble the Site or the Service.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
  > the company would already be bankrupted and assets transferred to a duplicate company in the time it takes a prosecutor lick the envelope I've always been told that judges are in fact humans who can see that for the no-op it is and are unlikely to be amused by such a stunt.
  - c3534l 8y ago
    This is a Chinese company we're talking about. I'm not sure how much influence an American judge is going to have.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
      "registered in the Republic of Ireland"
      - Namidairo 8y ago
        If I remember correctly, quite a few companies register in Ireland for use as a tax haven?
- some_random 8y ago
  Jokes on them, I just used a magnifying glass to distort their site! Seriously though, what the hell?
  - mcny 8y ago
    I'd like to remind of a few priority items if you're in the US: 1. We desperately need to fix incentives for prosecutors. We as a people need to decide what we are trying to optimize for because I'm pretty sure we are not trying to optimize for a near 100% conviction rate. Prosecutors and attorney generals are humans and they react to incentives. 2. We must repeal the CFAA. While an appeals court has apparently ruled that a terms of services (TOS) violation is not a criminal offense, because we have not fixed 1 (above), this will continue to be a problem. As impossible it might seem to repeal, I think it is much easier than to do 1. Some people might say that we need the CFAA in some form and that we just need to amend it. Say no to such calls for "moderation". You wouldn't pick the "middle road" between being alone and being dead. I want to be very much alive. The "middle way" of pleasing everyone doesn't always work. Repeal the CFAA (and don't replace it with anything).
randyrand 8y ago
That's a pretty silly scenario. If you want to abduct a child - just go to the park. What use would this device be?
- some_random 8y ago
  It's not actually. Someone wanting to abduct a specific child is, contrary to popular belief, multiple orders of magnitude more common than someone wanting to abduct an arbitrary child.
  - maroonblazer 8y ago
    Exactly. This past Halloween our neighborhood bulletin board lit up with people freaking out about young children trick-or-treating unsupervised. Someone even cited registered sex offender statistics. Trying to explain to them that it was more likely that a child would be kidnapped by a friend or family member - or to die in an auto or airplane accident - was seemingly impossible.
- LinuxBender 8y ago
  Without this device, they have to drive up, close and personal. They have to essentially stalk their victims. There is a greater chance of getting captured on CCTV or having eye witnesses that might get their license plate. With this device there are a few problems: 1) Parents will have a false sense of security. They may let their child wander off a litter farther, possibly out of view. 2) The abductors can passively determine which kids are likely to be farther away from their parents and determine the safest path to extract their victim. In terms of being silly: This could be a former (abusive) parent that is legally blocked from seeing their kid unsupervised. This is the most common scenario and many of the amber alerts are for this. In my opinion, if parents are going to rely on something like this, it needs to use military grade encryption and military grade implementation / process and be pentested by numerous independent researchers and come with a multi-million dollar guarantee that it can not be compromised. If that is too difficult with current tech, then this device should not exist. Rather, parents will need to stay with their children until their children are able to defend themselves.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

Would or should. I imagine many lawyer-hours would find that "this peon employed to ensure the device is secure" is found to be entirely responsible.

LinuxBender 8y ago
Probably so. Gone are the good ol' days of Bushido and Seppuku. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku
- tinus_hn 8y ago
  These are Japanese concepts, while the manufacturer is Chinese.
  - LinuxBender 8y ago
    Yes. I want to see that applied to all businesses, all cultures. If Earth elects me as Emperor, I will bring these practices back.

tomatotomato37 8y ago

If the corporate info in the terms of use are accurate (Shenzhen Langya Electronics Co., Ltd registered in the Republic of Ireland) then the company would already be bankrupted and assets transferred to a duplicate company in the time it takes a prosecutor lick the envelope Edit: This ToS is hilarious No Data Mining or Harmful Code. You agree that you will not (a) obtain or attempt to obtain any information from the Service; (b) intercept, examine or otherwise observe any proprietary communications protocol used by the Service, whether through the use of a network analyzer, packet sniffer or other device; or (c) use any type of bot, spider, virus, clock, timer, counter, worm, software lock, drop dead device, Trojan-horse routing, trap door, time bomb or any other codes, instructions or third-party software that is designed to provide a means of surreptitious or unauthorized access to, or distort, delete, damage or disassemble the Site or the Service.

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
> the company would already be bankrupted and assets transferred to a duplicate company in the time it takes a prosecutor lick the envelope I've always been told that judges are in fact humans who can see that for the no-op it is and are unlikely to be amused by such a stunt.
- c3534l 8y ago
  This is a Chinese company we're talking about. I'm not sure how much influence an American judge is going to have.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
    "registered in the Republic of Ireland"
    - Namidairo 8y ago
      If I remember correctly, quite a few companies register in Ireland for use as a tax haven?
some_random 8y ago
Jokes on them, I just used a magnifying glass to distort their site! Seriously though, what the hell?
- mcny 8y ago
  I'd like to remind of a few priority items if you're in the US: 1. We desperately need to fix incentives for prosecutors. We as a people need to decide what we are trying to optimize for because I'm pretty sure we are not trying to optimize for a near 100% conviction rate. Prosecutors and attorney generals are humans and they react to incentives. 2. We must repeal the CFAA. While an appeals court has apparently ruled that a terms of services (TOS) violation is not a criminal offense, because we have not fixed 1 (above), this will continue to be a problem. As impossible it might seem to repeal, I think it is much easier than to do 1. Some people might say that we need the CFAA in some form and that we just need to amend it. Say no to such calls for "moderation". You wouldn't pick the "middle road" between being alone and being dead. I want to be very much alive. The "middle way" of pleasing everyone doesn't always work. Repeal the CFAA (and don't replace it with anything).

randyrand 8y ago

That's a pretty silly scenario. If you want to abduct a child - just go to the park. What use would this device be?

some_random 8y ago
It's not actually. Someone wanting to abduct a specific child is, contrary to popular belief, multiple orders of magnitude more common than someone wanting to abduct an arbitrary child.
- maroonblazer 8y ago
  Exactly. This past Halloween our neighborhood bulletin board lit up with people freaking out about young children trick-or-treating unsupervised. Someone even cited registered sex offender statistics. Trying to explain to them that it was more likely that a child would be kidnapped by a friend or family member - or to die in an auto or airplane accident - was seemingly impossible.
LinuxBender 8y ago
Without this device, they have to drive up, close and personal. They have to essentially stalk their victims. There is a greater chance of getting captured on CCTV or having eye witnesses that might get their license plate. With this device there are a few problems: 1) Parents will have a false sense of security. They may let their child wander off a litter farther, possibly out of view. 2) The abductors can passively determine which kids are likely to be farther away from their parents and determine the safest path to extract their victim. In terms of being silly: This could be a former (abusive) parent that is legally blocked from seeing their kid unsupervised. This is the most common scenario and many of the amber alerts are for this. In my opinion, if parents are going to rely on something like this, it needs to use military grade encryption and military grade implementation / process and be pentested by numerous independent researchers and come with a multi-million dollar guarantee that it can not be compromised. If that is too difficult with current tech, then this device should not exist. Rather, parents will need to stay with their children until their children are able to defend themselves.