4 ms·

> Do you believe that the operator of a deliberately insecure system should be liable Only if said operator signed a contract. No contract=no liability. Here

• thfuran 3y ago
  Do you also think it's fine to shit in other people's wells or for companies to dump their toxic waste in the middle of other companies parking lots as long as you/they haven't signed a contract explicitly agreeing not to?
  • csdvrx 3y ago
    > Do you also think it's fine to shit in other people's wells or for companies to dump their toxic waste in the middle of other companies parking lots as long as you/they haven't signed a contract explicitly agreeing not to? You are using loaded words to 1) imply I would support some questionable actions where you assume intent and 2) refer to negative externalities, but I'll suppose you are not trolling interact in good faith with you. Both the actions you define are ignoring property rights: your well, your parking lot = I can't do that, unless you allow me (with a contract!) My well, my parking lot = I can do that, and you don't get to say what I do with my property, unless we have signed a contract which creates liability. Many people seem to have a strong desire to be able to force ME to update MY browser/operating system/bios/whatever else to be up to THEIR standards, because it has consequences on THEIR liability. I care a bit about them, but I care way more about MY freedom: I do what I what with MY computers. Note that intent matters: I have no desire to cause bad things to other people. I'd be very sad if my computer was used as "part of a botnet" like someone else said. I might even try to avoid that - but only as far as it puts my freedom first, and there's not even a requirement that I try (because I might have better things to do lol) Should bad things like botnets happen, 1) it wasn't my intent, as preserving my freedom was my intent 2) the negative externality is sad, but it's not my liability: you should secure your property, or said differently "your problems aren't my problem" This whole interaction feels very strange to me. By any chance, are you European? Europeans seem to have very different concepts of freedom and liability than we do.
    • thfuran 3y ago
      >but it's not my liability: you should secure your property, or said differently "your problems aren't my problem" But we're talking about you deliberately not securing or even actively reducing the security of your property in a manner that could reasonably be predicted to lead to harm to other's property, and that harm occuring, through no fault of the harmed party. You're not supposed to store loaded guns unsecured on your front porch (not around here anyways). >By any chance, are you European? Europeans seem to have very different concepts of freedom and liability than we do. No, I'm from the US. >You are using loaded words to 1) imply I would support some questionable actions where you assume intent and 2) refer to negative externalities, but I'll suppose you are not trolling interact in good faith with you. I'm asking whether you would, not suggesting that you do. But yes, the acts in question were significantly more questionable than those in my previous comment, since your answer to that was more extreme than I expected. So how about the middle ground: Do you believe that the EPA should impose restrictions on companies' or citizens' right to dump whatever toxic waste they want into rivers? If you think the physical commons should be protected from predictable harm by negligence or reckless disregard, why not the digital?
      • csdvrx 3y ago
        > But we're talking about you deliberately not securing or even actively reducing the security of your property We have different preferences about what's the right security/freedom ratio. > You're not supposed to store loaded guns unsecured on your front porch (not around here anyways). I don't think the government or anyone has any say about where or how I may keep my guns. People believe they might have a say, so there are laws on the books, but they're frequently taken down by the courts. > So how about the middle ground: Do you believe that the EPA should impose restrictions on companies' or citizens' right to dump whatever toxic waste they want into rivers? I believe it shouldn't, but that's just my opinion. You may not believe it, but in terms of efficiency and keeping the environment, it doesn't matter (see below) > If you think the physical commons should be protected from predictable harm by negligence or reckless disregard, why not the digital? I don't believe in in the physical word, and I don't believe it in the digital world either. Regardless of my beliefs, there's a nobel prize winner who's shown that it doesn't matter how the rights are initially assigned, as long as parties can negotiate with no transaction costs. Check the Coase theorem. The EPA imposing restrictions create transaction costs, so I think we're better off without them