3 ms·
Software defects kill people on an infrequent but fairly regular basis. Legal precedent and licensing agreements suggest that this is the software user's fault
by gdp 17y ago
Software defects kill people on an infrequent but fairly regular basis. Legal precedent and licensing agreements suggest that this is the software user's fault, not the manufacturer's.
So I assume we'll carry on with this preposterous state of affairs and just extend it to software-in-machines killing people autonomously, 'cause a defect in that still wouldn't be the manufacturer's fault, right?
- patio11 17y agoWe also have fairly well-developed laws and case law on animal attacks. If you keep a chihuahua in a jurisdiction which does not have strict liability, and it bites someone, you are likely not at fault unless you had reason to know it was prone to violence AND you took insufficient steps to restrain it. Your local jurisdiction may have strict liability ("It is the owner's fault, period") or may have designated certain breeds as "aggressive dogs" whose owners are presumptively liable. You could see this happening with the law of machines, too. Roomba crushes someone? Awful but lawful. KillBot9000 mistakes a troop of Girl Scouts for armed revolutionaries? You're probably going to end up liable.