3 ms·

> and taking cash on the side With this statement you’re arguing past the person you’re responding to. If you are taking cash on the side to feign ignorance wh

by dcow 3y ago

> and taking cash on the side With this statement you’re arguing past the person you’re responding to. If you are taking cash on the side to feign ignorance when the DEA comes squawking about the meth lab in your basement then you are clearly in the know. Nobody is talking about negligence here. Your rebuttal is essentially “well victims can be blamed if they’re being negligent”. Yeah, sure, by definition they’re not just a victim, they’re a negligent individual. (I mean I’d even argue they can be blamed for less—I’m not one of those 100% the victim is always innocent types, but that’s a different topic.) The original question is if you are honestly unaware (and not negligent) that your property is being used to commit a crime, are you culpable for the crime? The answer is a resounding “no”. If someone hacks your PC and installs botnet software, and it evades your OS antivirus heuristics and protections because it’s a sophisticated root-kit, then no, you’re not culpable.

tw04 3y ago
>With this statement you’re arguing past the person you’re responding to. If you are taking cash on the side to feign ignorance when the DEA comes squawking about the meth lab in your basement then you are clearly in the know. Ironic that you're doing what you accused me of. I didn't say the person was taking cash, I asked WHEN op would consider the person to be culpable. You literally took an entire discussion and clipped four words then made up a bunch of stuff I didn't actually say or even imply. >The original question is if you are honestly unaware (and not negligent) that your property is being used to commit a crime, are you culpable for the crime? The answer is a resounding “no”. That was NOT the original question. The original question was whether or not someone could sue the police for removing malware and patching their system. My example was the cops shutting down a meth lab and locking the door. Be my guest attempting to sue, and be prepared to have to defend yourself in a court of law that you were truly unaware. That's going to be a VERY expensive proposition - so who in their right mind would even start down that path?

by dcow 3y ago

tw04 3y ago

>With this statement you’re arguing past the person you’re responding to. If you are taking cash on the side to feign ignorance when the DEA comes squawking about the meth lab in your basement then you are clearly in the know. Ironic that you're doing what you accused me of. I didn't say the person was taking cash, I asked WHEN op would consider the person to be culpable. You literally took an entire discussion and clipped four words then made up a bunch of stuff I didn't actually say or even imply. >The original question is if you are honestly unaware (and not negligent) that your property is being used to commit a crime, are you culpable for the crime? The answer is a resounding “no”. That was NOT the original question. The original question was whether or not someone could sue the police for removing malware and patching their system. My example was the cops shutting down a meth lab and locking the door. Be my guest attempting to sue, and be prepared to have to defend yourself in a court of law that you were truly unaware. That's going to be a VERY expensive proposition - so who in their right mind would even start down that path?