4 ms·

While I understand that today there are potential problems, it seems to me that a person ought to be responsible with what's done with his property. If he lets

While I understand that today there are potential problems, it seems to me that a person ought to be responsible with what's done with his property. If he lets someone use his gun, he's got some degree of responsibility, and if he lets someone use his communication facilities, he's assuming some as well. Today this is difficult, since the average person doesn't have a clue how to set up a secure network. But this is a usability problem more than anything, and if our laws demanded that this be do-able even by somebody's mom, then I think manufacturers would address that usability problem.

eli 15y ago
So is an Internet Cafe responsible for what all its patrons do? Is Verizon responsible for everyone who buys bandwidth from them?
- Alex3917 15y ago
  I believe that common carriers are forced to comply with certain rules, so in a sense yes.
  - andrewpi 15y ago
    I think you have it backwards: one of the benefits of being treated as a "common carrier" is that you aren't responsible for others misusage of your service, since you are required to be open to the public.
    - Alex3917 15y ago
      Common carriers can't be held criminally liable for what their users do, but they are responsible for the actions of their users in the sense that they need to turn over their records if served a subpoena, and may be legally required to keep certain records.
  - pilom 15y ago
    ISP's are not common carriers and have lobbied for decades to not be treated as common carriers because then they can't do deep packet inspection and they must sell equal service to anyone. If a drug smuggler drops a package in a mailbox the postal service is legally obligated to deliver it and not look inside (assuming it doesn't smell or tick). An ISP finds out someone is sharing their wifi with their neighbors, the ISP can cut service b/c of breach of terms of service.
waqf 15y ago
Well now, it depends. If I let someone use something of mine that is licensed and restricted by the government because of the potential for misuse, such as a gun or prescription medication, then I am responsible inasmuch as I helped them circumvent government licensing. If I lend someone an easily obtainable item such as a pencil sharpener or a cat, and they commit a crime using it, I don't see how I'm responsible. The question is which of those categories Internet access falls into.
- evincarofautumn 15y ago
  A hundred people are now idly trying to figure out the feasibility and logistics of robbing a bank with a cat. I would go so far as to say that, in addition to the legal obligation to not violate a government license, you also have an ethical obligation to provide reasonable protection against theft, misuse, &c. Yet somehow it seems strange to apply that logic to network devices.
  - Monotoko 15y ago
    Bahaha, I sure was :)
  - m_for_monkey 15y ago
    $ cat BigMoney > MyAccount
  - danssig 15y ago
    It's probably easier to rob a bank with a pencil sharpener.
- tseabrooks 15y ago
  Important to not that in the vast majority of the U.S. there is no such thing as gun "licensing" or "registration". You can trade, loan, buy, give, or otherwise move firearms around all you wish with private parties. Your only obligation in most places is to ask, "Are you legally allowed to own a gun".
larrys 15y ago
"it seems to me that a person ought to be responsible with what's done with his property." I think in a practical sense this is never going to happen. If you lend someone your car you are responsible and will get sued if they kill someone. The type of lawsuit and even criminal charges might depend on whether you knew of their capacity at the time to commit a crime or fitness to drive. Important distinction with cars and guns. With both you know they can be dangerous. (In the case of a gun you know even more so obviously.) There is not the same widespread knowledge or even possibility with the internet for harm along the lines of death because of use of an internet connection. Although I'm sure it's happened a few times (harassment or planning terrorism.) As far as the requirement to lock down a network that also is not going to happen as you well know in a world that chooses "football" or "123456" for a password not to mention key loggers and viruses. Simply not the same as keeping your gun in a gun safe or knowing your neighbor is drunk and shouldn't drive your car. "and if our laws demanded that this be do-able even by somebody's mom, then I think manufacturers would address that usability problem." I think there is quite the demand from users to not have constant viruses, infections and hacking of computer networks (as well as embarrassment to both the software and hardware industries and to high profile websites.) Do you really think that this can be achieved with "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards so that someone's mom can have secure wifi in her house? I don't. I get calls every day from people who type domain names into the google search box instead of the browser bar.
debacle 15y ago
I don't think that's a fair comparison. If you ask to use my phone, I'm going to let you borrow it, but I can't know whether you're going to use it to order a pizza or call in a bomb threat. Of course I have some degree of responsibility, but with guns its is completely different - we went out of our way as a society to make rules about the responsibilities of gun owners.
superasn 15y ago
> If he lets someone use his gun, he's got some degree of responsibility, and if he lets someone use his communication facilities, he's assuming some as well. Analogies such as these should be avoided because you're falling in the same "you won't download a car" trap. Say, if someone comes to my party and uses a kitchen knife to commit a crime, what is the degree of my responsibility?
harshreality 15y ago
I strongly disagree. When a person gives or lends something or provides a service to another person, you should not be able to hold the first person responsible for what happens, unless they had reason to believe the second person would misuse it. The legal system depends on treating every person who is mentally competent as being responsible for his or her own actions with regard to the law. What you suggest upends that dependency. Publishing metasploit, running a torrent tracker, running a car rental service or a gun range would all require extremely expensive liability insurance if liability always transferred.
rmc 15y ago
Manufactors are partially to blame aswell. e.g. WEP is still available. It is totally insecure and should not be used. Any consumer grade equipment that only supports WEP is just encouraging people to be insecure while thinking they are secure.

eli 15y ago

So is an Internet Cafe responsible for what all its patrons do? Is Verizon responsible for everyone who buys bandwidth from them?

Alex3917 15y ago
I believe that common carriers are forced to comply with certain rules, so in a sense yes.
- andrewpi 15y ago
  I think you have it backwards: one of the benefits of being treated as a "common carrier" is that you aren't responsible for others misusage of your service, since you are required to be open to the public.
  - Alex3917 15y ago
    Common carriers can't be held criminally liable for what their users do, but they are responsible for the actions of their users in the sense that they need to turn over their records if served a subpoena, and may be legally required to keep certain records.
- pilom 15y ago
  ISP's are not common carriers and have lobbied for decades to not be treated as common carriers because then they can't do deep packet inspection and they must sell equal service to anyone. If a drug smuggler drops a package in a mailbox the postal service is legally obligated to deliver it and not look inside (assuming it doesn't smell or tick). An ISP finds out someone is sharing their wifi with their neighbors, the ISP can cut service b/c of breach of terms of service.

waqf 15y ago

Well now, it depends. If I let someone use something of mine that is licensed and restricted by the government because of the potential for misuse, such as a gun or prescription medication, then I am responsible inasmuch as I helped them circumvent government licensing. If I lend someone an easily obtainable item such as a pencil sharpener or a cat, and they commit a crime using it, I don't see how I'm responsible. The question is which of those categories Internet access falls into.

evincarofautumn 15y ago
A hundred people are now idly trying to figure out the feasibility and logistics of robbing a bank with a cat. I would go so far as to say that, in addition to the legal obligation to not violate a government license, you also have an ethical obligation to provide reasonable protection against theft, misuse, &c. Yet somehow it seems strange to apply that logic to network devices.
- Monotoko 15y ago
  Bahaha, I sure was :)
- m_for_monkey 15y ago
  $ cat BigMoney > MyAccount
- danssig 15y ago
  It's probably easier to rob a bank with a pencil sharpener.
tseabrooks 15y ago
Important to not that in the vast majority of the U.S. there is no such thing as gun "licensing" or "registration". You can trade, loan, buy, give, or otherwise move firearms around all you wish with private parties. Your only obligation in most places is to ask, "Are you legally allowed to own a gun".

larrys 15y ago

"it seems to me that a person ought to be responsible with what's done with his property." I think in a practical sense this is never going to happen. If you lend someone your car you are responsible and will get sued if they kill someone. The type of lawsuit and even criminal charges might depend on whether you knew of their capacity at the time to commit a crime or fitness to drive. Important distinction with cars and guns. With both you know they can be dangerous. (In the case of a gun you know even more so obviously.) There is not the same widespread knowledge or even possibility with the internet for harm along the lines of death because of use of an internet connection. Although I'm sure it's happened a few times (harassment or planning terrorism.) As far as the requirement to lock down a network that also is not going to happen as you well know in a world that chooses "football" or "123456" for a password not to mention key loggers and viruses. Simply not the same as keeping your gun in a gun safe or knowing your neighbor is drunk and shouldn't drive your car. "and if our laws demanded that this be do-able even by somebody's mom, then I think manufacturers would address that usability problem." I think there is quite the demand from users to not have constant viruses, infections and hacking of computer networks (as well as embarrassment to both the software and hardware industries and to high profile websites.) Do you really think that this can be achieved with "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards so that someone's mom can have secure wifi in her house? I don't. I get calls every day from people who type domain names into the google search box instead of the browser bar.

debacle 15y ago

I don't think that's a fair comparison. If you ask to use my phone, I'm going to let you borrow it, but I can't know whether you're going to use it to order a pizza or call in a bomb threat. Of course I have some degree of responsibility, but with guns its is completely different - we went out of our way as a society to make rules about the responsibilities of gun owners.

superasn 15y ago

> If he lets someone use his gun, he's got some degree of responsibility, and if he lets someone use his communication facilities, he's assuming some as well. Analogies such as these should be avoided because you're falling in the same "you won't download a car" trap. Say, if someone comes to my party and uses a kitchen knife to commit a crime, what is the degree of my responsibility?

harshreality 15y ago

I strongly disagree. When a person gives or lends something or provides a service to another person, you should not be able to hold the first person responsible for what happens, unless they had reason to believe the second person would misuse it. The legal system depends on treating every person who is mentally competent as being responsible for his or her own actions with regard to the law. What you suggest upends that dependency. Publishing metasploit, running a torrent tracker, running a car rental service or a gun range would all require extremely expensive liability insurance if liability always transferred.

rmc 15y ago

Manufactors are partially to blame aswell. e.g. WEP is still available. It is totally insecure and should not be used. Any consumer grade equipment that only supports WEP is just encouraging people to be insecure while thinking they are secure.