3 ms·

I guess in today's times barbaric is used a lot more freely than when I grew up. It used to mean savagely cruel, and brutal. Transferred intent is when a perpe

by eggy 6y ago

I guess in today's times barbaric is used a lot more freely than when I grew up. It used to mean savagely cruel, and brutal. Transferred intent is when a perpetrator intends to harm one victim but then "unintentionally" (quotes mine to point out it is in the defined legalese rather than "accident"). Yes, you can say they meant to steal, and not intentionally kill anyone. IANAL. If you want to put it in legal scope though, it is involuntary manslaughter. You haven't convinced me to call it an "accident" by any means.

markdown 6y ago
Seems like I won't convince you because your bias is too strong. Look up any dictionary and I assure you that you'll find the definition fits this case perfectly. Eg from the Oxford dictionary: "An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury." Death is unexpected when you hack a University server. Death was certainly unintentional in this case.
- eggy 6y ago
  Your argument is worthy of discussion, which is why I am continuing the discussion, but I don't think it is bias on my part or yours as far as I can tell. Yes, the general definition of "accident" seems to fit it in the manner you mean, but let me illustrate why I initially made the assertion that it was not an accident. You stated: > Yeah, we call that an accident. Just like hitting someone with your car can be an unintended consequence of driving. I would add to your statement above to make it fit the comparison to the actual incident a bit better: > Yeah, we call that an accident. Just like hitting someone with your car can be an unintended consequence of driving a getaway car during a bank robbery. I wouldn't use the word "accident" here. I would say someone "tragically" died when a criminal was driving away from the scene of a robbery. Of the 38,000 people who die in car "accidents" in the U.S. each year, if 30,000 of those were getaway cars or tied to criminal activity, and not just "accidents" I think there would be a different response to the scenario I just presented. Accidental death benefits from the insurance industry exclude death caused by illegal activities, but I think this means by the person committing the illegal acts, so maybe not such a good example. I don't know. If someone chokes someone, so that they can render them unconscious to rob them or arrest them, and the choked out person dies during the process, would you use the word "accident" in reporting the incident? If this university/hospital hack was committed by completely naive hackers, they were still committing intentional harm to a business that affects the employees and others doing business with them. It doesn't take much imagination to figure that by using ransomware in this incident, you may affect people's lives negatively without the actual death that occurred. They might have to lay off a worker or two to cover the loss, not buy essential equipment for the university or hospital that year or more, etc. I'll leave off here, and say you had a "convincing" argument from a concise dictionary definition, but I wouldn't sling that word so nonchalantly in applying it to this woman's death. Perhaps I misread the tone of your "Yeah, we call that and accident.", but who's we?

by eggy 6y ago

markdown 6y ago

Seems like I won't convince you because your bias is too strong. Look up any dictionary and I assure you that you'll find the definition fits this case perfectly. Eg from the Oxford dictionary: "An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury." Death is unexpected when you hack a University server. Death was certainly unintentional in this case.

eggy 6y ago
Your argument is worthy of discussion, which is why I am continuing the discussion, but I don't think it is bias on my part or yours as far as I can tell. Yes, the general definition of "accident" seems to fit it in the manner you mean, but let me illustrate why I initially made the assertion that it was not an accident. You stated: > Yeah, we call that an accident. Just like hitting someone with your car can be an unintended consequence of driving. I would add to your statement above to make it fit the comparison to the actual incident a bit better: > Yeah, we call that an accident. Just like hitting someone with your car can be an unintended consequence of driving a getaway car during a bank robbery. I wouldn't use the word "accident" here. I would say someone "tragically" died when a criminal was driving away from the scene of a robbery. Of the 38,000 people who die in car "accidents" in the U.S. each year, if 30,000 of those were getaway cars or tied to criminal activity, and not just "accidents" I think there would be a different response to the scenario I just presented. Accidental death benefits from the insurance industry exclude death caused by illegal activities, but I think this means by the person committing the illegal acts, so maybe not such a good example. I don't know. If someone chokes someone, so that they can render them unconscious to rob them or arrest them, and the choked out person dies during the process, would you use the word "accident" in reporting the incident? If this university/hospital hack was committed by completely naive hackers, they were still committing intentional harm to a business that affects the employees and others doing business with them. It doesn't take much imagination to figure that by using ransomware in this incident, you may affect people's lives negatively without the actual death that occurred. They might have to lay off a worker or two to cover the loss, not buy essential equipment for the university or hospital that year or more, etc. I'll leave off here, and say you had a "convincing" argument from a concise dictionary definition, but I wouldn't sling that word so nonchalantly in applying it to this woman's death. Perhaps I misread the tone of your "Yeah, we call that and accident.", but who's we?