5 ms·
Liable is a bit strong word here, liability without fault is mainly rejected concept in modern world.
by bluesign 8y ago
Liable is a bit strong word here, liability without fault is mainly rejected concept in modern world.
- rahimnathwani 8y agoIf so, why is the retailer liable but not the parent?
- bluesign 8y agoI think retailer's liability here is also limited. Imagine you are a shop selling cola in can. If coca cola company put some unhealthy stuff in, you are not liable just for selling it. But if you made the stuff unhealthy because you stored it in direct sunlight long time, you are liable.
- tremon 8y agoBecause the parent is a natural person and the retailer is the last commercial entity in the chain. If the purchaser was a day-care center or other commercial entity, liability would be with them.
- jakobegger 8y ago"without fault"? Is it reasonable to assume that a cheap internet connected toy with a video camera and microphone is secure enough to use without any precautions?
- bluesign 8y ago" secret embedded camera " I bought "child's toy" and sold you "child's today", you expect seller to check every toy if there is "secret camera" ?
- afureta 8y agoYeah, I expect the seller to know what they're selling.
- asdkfjasl 8y agoInteresting. So if you buy such a device for a gift, not knowing that it has a secret camera, and then decide you don't want it and resell it on Ebay, you'd agree that now it is you who are liable?
- afureta 8y agoSorry I don't have anything more substantive to add, but yes, I would be liable.
- bregma 8y agocaveat emptor
- jessaustin 8y agoThis is settled now, everyone says google shouldn't have put a secret camera in their fancy thermostats: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19407147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19407147