3 ms·

I guess somewhat a solution to this is to contribute anonymously, via Tor/VPN, incl. any emails so that nothing can be traced back to you. > the fact that norm

I guess somewhat a solution to this is to contribute anonymously, via Tor/VPN, incl. any emails so that nothing can be traced back to you. > the fact that normally no one has an active duty to save another (e.g. a police officer can stand holding a life preserver as you drown No idea about the UK but in many jurisdictions you have the duty of first aid to people as long as it doesn't put your own life at risk

nullc 2y ago
In the US and UK there is generally no duty to aid. And a duty to aid seems like bad policy, in the sense that it invites litigation over the "at risk" question. It's easy to make judgements after the fact. It's also sort of incompatible with the notion that you could be liable for gravely negligent "aid". I wonder to what extent this is enforced in places that have it, and I assume it's only applicable to obvious life/death situations? Particularly given that a sizable part of the population freezes in response to danger/shock I'm having a hard time imagining that it's a real rule in practice. > I guess somewhat a solution to this is to contribute anonymously, via Tor/VPN, incl. any emails so that nothing can be traced back to you. Being strongly anonymous over a long period of time is extremely difficult. If you mean just throwing something over the wall and vanishing then that's potentially possible but any long term collaboration is almost sure to out you given enough time. And then when it does your anonymity is vulnerable to being spun to argue that you knew what you were doing was wrongful. You're also less likely to be protected in other ways since you thought your identity was a secret. But perhaps most importantly, I believe the US is the only major jurisdiction where you have a right to defend yourself while anonymous. In the UK you can't even hire a solicitor as an anonymous party, and a related satellite case to ours (over the operator of Bitcoin.org who is anonymous) went all the way to the UK supreme court on this point. So if you're anonymous and the lawsuits come in you have to expose yourself there or lose by default. And if you lose by default and don't comply with the court's orders you could end up with an arrest warrant against you-- which is no problem, until your identity is somehow exposed and its suddenly a major problem. A lot of the way that liability in this space is damaging is that just because a case is weak, even farcical, you have to defend it vigorously because there are no retries... and there are plenty of procedural footguns where someone who is obviously in the right can lose none the less. At least for commercial software you can view liability as a cost of doing business, but the incentives for Open Source are shallow enough that they obviously can't cover it. Moreover, there might be a selection effect where more thoughtful contributors opt out while fools rush in-- ultimately to the detriment of the public.

nullc 2y ago

In the US and UK there is generally no duty to aid. And a duty to aid seems like bad policy, in the sense that it invites litigation over the "at risk" question. It's easy to make judgements after the fact. It's also sort of incompatible with the notion that you could be liable for gravely negligent "aid". I wonder to what extent this is enforced in places that have it, and I assume it's only applicable to obvious life/death situations? Particularly given that a sizable part of the population freezes in response to danger/shock I'm having a hard time imagining that it's a real rule in practice. > I guess somewhat a solution to this is to contribute anonymously, via Tor/VPN, incl. any emails so that nothing can be traced back to you. Being strongly anonymous over a long period of time is extremely difficult. If you mean just throwing something over the wall and vanishing then that's potentially possible but any long term collaboration is almost sure to out you given enough time. And then when it does your anonymity is vulnerable to being spun to argue that you knew what you were doing was wrongful. You're also less likely to be protected in other ways since you thought your identity was a secret. But perhaps most importantly, I believe the US is the only major jurisdiction where you have a right to defend yourself while anonymous. In the UK you can't even hire a solicitor as an anonymous party, and a related satellite case to ours (over the operator of Bitcoin.org who is anonymous) went all the way to the UK supreme court on this point. So if you're anonymous and the lawsuits come in you have to expose yourself there or lose by default. And if you lose by default and don't comply with the court's orders you could end up with an arrest warrant against you-- which is no problem, until your identity is somehow exposed and its suddenly a major problem. A lot of the way that liability in this space is damaging is that just because a case is weak, even farcical, you have to defend it vigorously because there are no retries... and there are plenty of procedural footguns where someone who is obviously in the right can lose none the less. At least for commercial software you can view liability as a cost of doing business, but the incentives for Open Source are shallow enough that they obviously can't cover it. Moreover, there might be a selection effect where more thoughtful contributors opt out while fools rush in-- ultimately to the detriment of the public.