5 ms·

This is false, there are laws about booby traps (they’re generally illegal in all jurisdictions). If you plant mines on your property and a thief walks onto you

by vxNsr 5y ago

This is false, there are laws about booby traps (they’re generally illegal in all jurisdictions). If you plant mines on your property and a thief walks onto your lawn and loses a leg, he can sue you and will likely win with a competent lawyer. You don’t get to say “well you shouldn’t have been there”

wearywanderer 5y ago
Traps that harm people are illegal. Traps that harm animals are legal under some circumstances (mousetraps are legal basically everywhere afaik.) But traps that harm devices rather than people or animals? Are you sure that is generally illegal?
knaik94 5y ago
Laws on booby traps specify that the trap be used to cause harm to a living thing. It's not a booby trap if it wasn't meant to harm someone. So the digital booby trap isn't governed by the same laws.
- Waterluvian 5y ago
  I agree. But that law demonstrates the concept.
WrtCdEvrydy 5y ago
booby traps that cause harm are illegal, someone stealing my phone who cuts themselves on a broken piece of glass from the screen can't argue "it's a booby trap"
- failwhaleshark 5y ago
  This is true. Also, if you add hidden buttons that alter the way a data port works to either disable or enable it, or fry a device attached to it, this isn't intentional harm caused to police equipment specifically. It is a deterrent-after-the-fact, a protection, and a personal choice to modify one's own device without targeting anyone in particular and not intentionally, unexpectedly causing bodily harm.
  - chii 5y ago
    the owner of the device could be charged with tampering with evidence. Signal is, paradoxically, an uninvolved third-party imho (technically uninvolved).
    - ArnoVW 5y ago
      If Signal put this on their home page, in a sort of "download this to fuck with da police" advertising, maybe. Judges aren't machines, that slavishly follow any tenuous reasoning. They're judging; it's in the name. Specifically, they have to judge your intent. In many cases American criminal law requires a 'mens rea', or 'guilty mind' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
PostOnce 5y ago
However, in many jurisdictions, a trap is only a trap if it is hidden. For example, you can have barbed or razor-wire fences, its obviously barbed, its your fault if you climb up it and get impaled. They advertised this, it's not hidden, so even if trap laws governed it (which they don't because its not hurting a person), it's not a trap.
- wearywanderer 5y ago
  Even if it were a trap, it would be a trap for a device, not a person. Like anti-drill pins in a lock, which can damage or destroy a drill bit. I think you could reasonably say anti-drill pins are traps for drill bits, and they're certainly not a violation of anti-boobytrap laws.

by vxNsr 5y ago

wearywanderer 5y ago

Traps that harm people are illegal. Traps that harm animals are legal under some circumstances (mousetraps are legal basically everywhere afaik.) But traps that harm devices rather than people or animals? Are you sure that is generally illegal?

knaik94 5y ago

Laws on booby traps specify that the trap be used to cause harm to a living thing. It's not a booby trap if it wasn't meant to harm someone. So the digital booby trap isn't governed by the same laws.

Waterluvian 5y ago
I agree. But that law demonstrates the concept.

WrtCdEvrydy 5y ago

booby traps that cause harm are illegal, someone stealing my phone who cuts themselves on a broken piece of glass from the screen can't argue "it's a booby trap"

failwhaleshark 5y ago
This is true. Also, if you add hidden buttons that alter the way a data port works to either disable or enable it, or fry a device attached to it, this isn't intentional harm caused to police equipment specifically. It is a deterrent-after-the-fact, a protection, and a personal choice to modify one's own device without targeting anyone in particular and not intentionally, unexpectedly causing bodily harm.
- chii 5y ago
  the owner of the device could be charged with tampering with evidence. Signal is, paradoxically, an uninvolved third-party imho (technically uninvolved).
  - ArnoVW 5y ago
    If Signal put this on their home page, in a sort of "download this to fuck with da police" advertising, maybe. Judges aren't machines, that slavishly follow any tenuous reasoning. They're judging; it's in the name. Specifically, they have to judge your intent. In many cases American criminal law requires a 'mens rea', or 'guilty mind' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

PostOnce 5y ago

However, in many jurisdictions, a trap is only a trap if it is hidden. For example, you can have barbed or razor-wire fences, its obviously barbed, its your fault if you climb up it and get impaled. They advertised this, it's not hidden, so even if trap laws governed it (which they don't because its not hurting a person), it's not a trap.

wearywanderer 5y ago
Even if it were a trap, it would be a trap for a device, not a person. Like anti-drill pins in a lock, which can damage or destroy a drill bit. I think you could reasonably say anti-drill pins are traps for drill bits, and they're certainly not a violation of anti-boobytrap laws.