[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
technology

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 23420)
Message
File  []
close
>> No. 23420 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 6:00 pm
23420 spacer
Can a robot, or a piece of software, be jailed if it commits a crime? Where does legal culpability lie if code is criminal by design or default? What if a robot buys drugs, weapons, or hacking equipment and has them sent to you, and police intercept the package?

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/05/software-bot-darknet-shopping-spree-random-shopper

Wow. Amazing article.
Expand all images.
>> No. 23421 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 6:04 pm
23421 spacer
>>23420
Legal culpability lies with the person who built or programmed it, of course. Is that not obvious? Do I need to read the rest?
>> No. 23422 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 6:12 pm
23422 spacer
>>23421
No you don't. I've just read it, a group of people made a computer program which is designed to buy stuff off the internet. And legal culpability does lie with the people who made the program, which they admitted themselves
“We are the legal owner of the drugs – we are responsible for everything the bot does, as we executed the code, says Smoljo.
>> No. 23423 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 6:13 pm
23423 spacer
>>23421
I don't care about the law bit to be honest, its the stuff it managed to buy I found particularly fascinating.
>> No. 23424 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 6:16 pm
23424 spacer
>>23423
>its the stuff it managed to buy I found particularly fascinating.

Why? It did exactly what it was programmed to do.

Do you mean you're fascinated that these types of things are for sale on the internet?
>> No. 23425 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 6:16 pm
23425 spacer
Well obviously not, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

>>23421

Yeah, what they said.
>> No. 23426 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 8:36 pm
23426 spacer
Then the personal who programmed it is responsible. This is bloody obvious.
>> No. 23427 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 8:36 pm
23427 spacer
>>23426
>personal
Sorry, it's very cold and I can god my auntie is hot barely feel my fingers, let alone what they're typing.
>> No. 23428 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 10:23 pm
23428 spacer
>>23427
Wat
>> No. 23429 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 10:25 pm
23429 spacer
>>23428
Auntiefucker has probably relapsed and gone around for another nosh.
>> No. 23430 Anonymous
5th December 2014
Friday 10:26 pm
23430 spacer
>>23428

He's godded his auntie or something. Usual .gs stuff.

I don't even know what I'm insinuating, really.
>> No. 23431 Anonymous
6th December 2014
Saturday 1:20 am
23431 spacer
>>23426
>Then the personal who programmed it is responsible. This is bloody obvious.
The person who writes a program is no more responsible for its use for criminal purposes than Ford are responsible for Transit drivers driving carelessly. The person using a program is considered to be committing the offence with the use of a tool. Not that any of that is relevant to what went on here, because last I heard it isn't actually illegal to buy drugs.

Where things get interesting is areas of law where agency doesn't apply, such as road traffic laws. Depending on what the underlying matter is, liability attaches specifically to one of the driver, the owner, the keeper, or the adult passenger (in the case of seatbelt offences). Consider a driverless car. If this automaton lands itself on double yellows, then the owner is responsible (unless one of the statutory exemptions applies). What if it is caught speeding (driver liability)? What if you're in the driving seat, but switched the vehicle to automatic some time earlier? What if you're in the back seat as a passenger? What if nobody's in it at all and you're sat in the office having summoned it from wherever it parked itself earlier in the day?
>> No. 23435 Anonymous
7th December 2014
Sunday 9:15 pm
23435 spacer
>>23431
>Not that any of that is relevant to what went on here, last I heard it isn't actually illegal to buy drugs.
Well, funny you should bring up what is and is not relevant, because the exhibition the bot bought drugs for is located outside of the jurisdiction of UK drug laws...

>Consider a driverless car.
Given the caution and high profile with which these things are being introduced, I imagine the law has plenty of time to catch up with them and that these questions are being asked and answered by the right people.
>> No. 23439 Anonymous
8th December 2014
Monday 12:35 am
23439 spacer
>>23435
>I imagine the law has plenty of time to catch up with them
If the talk I've been hearing is anything to go by, they've got about four to six weeks. There were trials here earlier this year, but they were limited to quieter roads and required a driver to retain control over the vehicle.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password