6 ms·

Most industry protections against liabilities are predicated on compliance with expectations about responsibility: the protection against liability is earned. F

Most industry protections against liabilities are predicated on compliance with expectations about responsibility: the protection against liability is earned. For example, firearm manufacturers are protected from being held liable for actions taken with their firearms as long as they comply with their legal responsibilities, like not selling firearms to children. If a firearms manufacturer sold firearms to children, they would absolutely be held liable for the outcomes. If you knowingly build software that can be used for money laundering and make no effort to prevent money laundering then, if software was treated like other industries, you’d absolutely expect to be held liable.

ziddoap 4y ago
>If you knowingly build software that can be used for money laundering You've retreated back to money laundering, but that is not what you originally were talking about. You were pretty clear that you were talking about any software which is used nefariously. Which I pointed out that pretty much any software can be used nefariously (e.g. ssh, browsers, hosting software, etc.), but you keep avoiding that.
- phphphphp 4y ago
  I’m not avoiding it. There’s nuance. A piece of software that is specifically designed to enable a behaviour that is core to money laundering is different from a piece of software that can be used to engage in money laundering. A web browser can be used to access a banking website through which you might engage in money laundering, sure, but that’s very different to a piece of software that can be used to hide the origin of funds. The difference is like a kitchen utensil manufacturer vs. a gun manufacturer. A kitchen knife can be used to kill, a gun can be used to kill, but we hold gun manufacturers and kitchen utensil manufacturers to different standards because intent is an important aspect. Your argument is predicated on the idea that intent doesn’t matter, but intent does matter, intent is a significant component of criminal law.
  - ziddoap 4y ago
    These are your words: >If a company releases software that is used nefariously, there are very common legal actions to hold them accountable There is no mention of intent. Just that if a software is used nefariously, the creators of that software should be legally accountable. You later talk about your intent, when you commit a crime, but that's very different. I agree that if someone commits a crime with X software, their intent should be considered. What I don't agree with is holding Tatu Ylönen accountable for someone else's nefarious use of ssh.

ziddoap 4y ago

>If you knowingly build software that can be used for money laundering You've retreated back to money laundering, but that is not what you originally were talking about. You were pretty clear that you were talking about any software which is used nefariously. Which I pointed out that pretty much any software can be used nefariously (e.g. ssh, browsers, hosting software, etc.), but you keep avoiding that.

phphphphp 4y ago
I’m not avoiding it. There’s nuance. A piece of software that is specifically designed to enable a behaviour that is core to money laundering is different from a piece of software that can be used to engage in money laundering. A web browser can be used to access a banking website through which you might engage in money laundering, sure, but that’s very different to a piece of software that can be used to hide the origin of funds. The difference is like a kitchen utensil manufacturer vs. a gun manufacturer. A kitchen knife can be used to kill, a gun can be used to kill, but we hold gun manufacturers and kitchen utensil manufacturers to different standards because intent is an important aspect. Your argument is predicated on the idea that intent doesn’t matter, but intent does matter, intent is a significant component of criminal law.
- ziddoap 4y ago
  These are your words: >If a company releases software that is used nefariously, there are very common legal actions to hold them accountable There is no mention of intent. Just that if a software is used nefariously, the creators of that software should be legally accountable. You later talk about your intent, when you commit a crime, but that's very different. I agree that if someone commits a crime with X software, their intent should be considered. What I don't agree with is holding Tatu Ylönen accountable for someone else's nefarious use of ssh.