4 ms·
Negligence is generally not sufficient for conspiracy statutes, and Flock wouldn't have to be knowing or even negligent. Indeed, there is no possible way they
by kragen 11mo ago
Negligence is generally not sufficient for conspiracy statutes, and Flock wouldn't have to be knowing or even negligent. Indeed, there is no possible way they could prevent their services from being used by violent insurgencies except to not sell them at all.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> Flock wouldn't have to be knowing or even negligent Neither do banks. > there is no possible way they could prevent their services from being used by violent insurgencies except to not sell them at all Prevent? No. Increase the cost of? Yes. Trying to police domestic terrorism by restricting what they see is a bit silly. But if that were a concern, I said "make the database operators strictly liable for breaches and mis-use." Domestic terrorism is mis-use. But it's not precedented mis-use, which makes it a strange priority to get distracted by.