 JoeOnSunsetDoublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL | reply to JoeOnSunset
Re: Sounds fair to me said by Camelot One:I completely agree that people should be held responsible for their computers, even if the issue is caused by someone they allowed to use it. And with that in mind, I would want to see it expanded, to make people liable for their computers if infected with virus/spam bots as well, assuming it was due to their own inaction. (not running av software for example) My concern with this law is, what happens with the false positives? Will people just ignore strike 1, knowing it's not true, because it has no immediate consequences? And will strike 2 then come easier, since the person has already been found "guilty" of strike 1? And so on. That's rediculous. It's called "strict liability" and it's supposed to be saved for really huge things, and really small things. I think that people who support strict liability for EVERYTHING (as many people on here seem to) think that it could never be applied to them.
Look: your antivirus software isn't perfect. Your OS isn't perfect. And, in fact, the lock on your door isn't perfect. A fault with any of these could cause your computer to be infected with a virus and then, if the law specified strict liability, you'd be responsible for the actions of the guy who broke into your house, stole your computer, and later it got infected. After all: it's YOUR computer, why didn't you bolt it down? It's YOUR house, why didn't you secure it like Fort Knox?
Oh right, in your ideal liability law you added a caveat: "assuming it was due to their own inaction." What action would be the minimum needed? Installing ANY software labelled "antivirus"? What about updating it? What about keeping the OS updated so that flaws don't allow trojans to disable the a/v?
It's just not so simple. People think they like strict liability, but they never think of the million exceptions, places to draw lines, gradiations of responsibility that would have to be included to make it work like they're thinking in their heads.
Also, you mentioned false positives. Consider: Parking tickets are a great example of strict liability in law. Think of how often these are given out wrongfully. Surely you've gotten one when your car wasn't actually in the red, or when it hasn't really been an hour yet. But, because the barrier to issuing them is soooo low, it doesn' matter. They're handed out like candy. It hardly matters if you're not guilty: you just pay it half the time because it's so difficult to contest them.
Yeah, what we need is more areas of law to be like that system.
Edit: quoted. |
