from the will-you-avoid-prosecution-if-your-robot-buys-illegal-drugs? dept.
A group of Swiss artists recently set a bot free on the darknet ( http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/05/software-bot-darknet-shopping-spree-random-shopper ), allowing it to purchase whatever it could with Bitcoins. Among other weird things it bought were a few ecstasy pills and a fake Hungarian passport. Now an attorney asks whether the artists could be arrested under the law as it currently stands.
University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo, who studies the legal implications of robotics, has a piece on Forbes about a thought experiment he did last year on this topic. At the time, he was just musing about what would happen if a robot bought something illegal online and mailed it to its owner as a surprise. ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancalo/2014/12/23/a-robot-really-committed-a-crime-now-what/ )
http://io9.com/if-your-robot-buys-illegal-drugs-have-you-committed-a-1677183776
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday January 04 2015, @11:41AM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by lizardloop on Sunday January 04 2015, @11:51AM
Exactly. If anything law makers are faster than ever at making things involving technology fit in to our legal framework. Particularly if that technology potentially gives people a way to circumvent our wonderful prohibition.
For a good example see the seizure of bitcoins. We all know it's real money but for a while people thought the government wouldn't seize them in busts because "it's on a computer so the goobermint can't understand what they are". They figured out pretty quickly what they are and are quite happy taking them from you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @11:52AM
What is the reason that shit is illegal? Be specific please.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday January 04 2015, @11:59AM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:06PM
Seriously, yes. Ecstasy pills and fake Hungarian passports have perfectly legitimate uses as theatrical props, so I want to know why you believe that mere possession of these items should be illegal when the items themselves are harmless.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:10PM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:28PM
Computers can be used to commit crimes, therefore they should be illegal too, just as ecstasy pills and fake passports are.
Turn yourself in immediately comrade.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:34PM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @05:21PM
Are you taling about possession, use, or selling?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2015, @04:08AM
So you cannot think of one reason how computers can be used for illegal purposes?
Turn yourself in.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday January 04 2015, @04:23PM
so I want to know why you believe that mere possession of these items should be illegal when the items themselves are harmless
Feeding the troll, but here's one [bbc.co.uk].
To save you clicking on the link: four dead so far and one in a serious condition (but recovering) in hospital. No fake Hungarian passports involved, though.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by pogostix on Sunday January 04 2015, @04:57PM
The troll?
The article raises an issue.
Someone yells MY ANSWER. PERIOD.
"The troll" says are you so sure? In every situation? Period?
Well shut down soylent cuz discussion isn't required! :P
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 04 2015, @05:42PM
Someone yells MY ANSWER. PERIOD.
And now they're demanding that we show MY ANSWER. PERIOD. can't possibly ever a single reason for it. Because OBVIOUSLY, if there is a single reason, no matter how lame, ludicrous, or duplicitous for MY ANSWER. PERIOD. then it's MY ANSWER. PERIOD.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @07:24PM
Does that mean we change charge the pharmaceutical companies for every Aspirin and Tylenol death, both of which are far more toxic than mdma?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @08:28PM
Then alcohol should be illegal too:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm [economist.com]
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/29/nutt-drugs-policy-reform-call [theguardian.com]
Just because some people binge on stuff doesn't mean the stuff is the problem, it usually means those people have problems.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday January 04 2015, @08:39PM
Just because some people binge on stuff doesn't mean the stuff is the problem, it usually means those people have problems.
This case is more akin to someone drinking counterfeit alcohol [bbc.co.uk], sold as vodka, containing methanol and/or other solvents, floor cleaner, antifreeze etc.
That's the problem when you have an illegal and unregulated supply of drugs.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2015, @12:45AM
Which is a good argument for legalizing and regulating many of these drugs. Making them illegal inevitability makes it more probable that those who get it get it with dangerous contaminants.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday January 05 2015, @11:03PM
Dr David Nutt agrees. [theguardian.com]
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Sunday January 04 2015, @11:26PM
not really a reason, MDMA (what should be in ecstacy) has a low toxicity,
there are estimated to be about 2 deaths per million doses.
Interestingly, this is lower than paracetamol!
Drugs continue to be illegal not because of the harm they cause to the consumer
(or else alcohol would definitely be illegal) but because of the perceived harm
to those who don't use the drug (otherwise known as societal harm).
of course the same people who push the barrow of social harm often fail
to realise that criminalising the substance often increases harm
by encouraging criminal involvement.
As far as passports are concerned, how else are the ruling elites
supposed to control the movement of capital across borders?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2015, @01:48AM
> paracetamol
Ok, let's leave base jumping out of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2015, @12:50AM
The article says it was a bad batch. Such bad batches are less likely if these substances were legalized and regulated (as in the food you eat). It's almost like you are trying to find examples of why these substances should be legalized.
So, once again, you fail to answer the original question. I eagerly await your answer but highly doubt that you will provide a good one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @04:46PM
Seriously, yes. Ecstasy pills and fake Hungarian passports have perfectly legitimate uses as theatrical props, so I want to know why you believe that mere possession of these items should be illegal when the items themselves are harmless.
Well, I guess we can say the same thing for flamethrowers, slaves, radioactive material, etc. Just because some individuals are incapable (purposefully or due to certain limitations) of understanding why the possession and/or use of some items should be restricted or prohibited doesn't mean that everything should be available to everyone.
If you want a free-for-all society where everything is acceptable you should take over a country and become the "everybody loves me" leader. If, by chance, someone using an illegitimate Hungarian passport sneaks into your country and kills you with an overdose of Ecstasy I hope you'll understand that it was just a dress rehearsal for their theater group.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:21PM
Your body, your choice. Move to North Korea, authoritarian, and take your 'safety' rationalizations with you, as police states don't care about fundamental liberties either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:27PM
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday January 05 2015, @08:02PM
The shade of red in ketchup isn't regulated. I got green ketchup when "The Hulk" was in theaters.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:50PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 04 2015, @05:47PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 04 2015, @05:48PM
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday January 04 2015, @07:15PM
most drugs are illegal due to racism and nothing else. theraputic drugs (mdma, lsd, etc) are illegal due to fear of revolution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:32PM
If a program you created managed to do physical harm or even kill a person by accident, would you be willing to accept the consequences as being sentenced for assault or murder?
If not, then why is this benign action so hideous to you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:41PM
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday January 04 2015, @02:12PM
What's is up with Canadian writable-media tax? doesn't all (industrial) countries have that?
(Score: 1) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:13PM
Not really. The US technically has such a tax, but it only applies to cassette tapes and those special "music" CD-Rs no one smart uses as they're exactly the same as "data" CD-Rs but are cheaper because they aren't subject to the tax.
Data CD-R is a cool guy. Eh records my music and doesn't afraid of anything.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:38PM
Why bother with CD-R these days? they are supposedly more unreliable than writable DVD and BD-R is supposedly even more reliable than writable DVD.
(Score: 1) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:43PM
Well, the question was on media taxes, and DVDs/BD-Rs have no media tax, so they're not relevant. But, to answer your question, car CD players will read CD-Rs but not DVDs, so they are still useful for that.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:52PM
In some places media has "media tax" it it can save bits, without exempt. It has some hilarious consequences but it's still enforced..
(Score: 1) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:59PM
Okay, that's fair. The US, thankfully, doesn't do this.
Every time I buy CD-Rs (which is not often these days) I take some satisfaction at not buying the "audio" version :)
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday January 04 2015, @07:08PM
The "-R" probably stands for racketeering ;-)
(Score: 1) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday January 04 2015, @07:04PM
Oh, also, according to Wikipedia, Luxembourg doesn't have any tax at all. They're the only one in the EU not to ... I guess that's what you get for living in a high-tax/big-government nation.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday January 05 2015, @05:53AM
Makes DVDRs cheaper then CDRs, allows us to legally copy music, discourages us from using cassette tapes are some of the things that our writable old media tax does. Now if they'd succeeded in expanding it to MP3 players, USB sticks and hard drives we wouldn't be happy.
(Score: 3, Informative) by romlok on Sunday January 04 2015, @04:12PM
You said it yourself: "by accident". If someone dies "by accident", then it's not murder, by definition.
If you program an autonomous meat-chopping machine, and someone at the meat-packing plant dies to it accidentally, that's tragic. If you program an autonomous meat-chopping machine, and let it loose in a kindergarten, that's murder.
In this case, if the artists had set their creation going on ebay, then they could make an argument toward innocence if it bought something illegal there (say, if they were in Germany, and it bought some Nazi memorabilia), but they didn't; they specifically set it loose somewhere where they knew it had a large, almost certain, chance of doing something illegal.
But if they hadn't, it probably wouldn't be news. Or art.
(Score: 1) by Synonymous Homonym on Sunday January 04 2015, @05:14PM
If someone dies "by accident", then it's not murder, by definition.
It could be manslaughter, depending on the circumstances.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:51PM
And in "You programmed it to do it, your money went to pay for it, there's a reason that shit is illegal.", what does "that shit" refer to? The act of programming? Your money? or the nebulous "it" which you have failed to clearly define? "It" is "dredging for old coins" in my example. And whilst I agree that there's a reason that posession of switchblades is illegal I don't agree that there's a reason dredging for old coins is illegal. Your argument is malformed.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:58PM
Glad you made the blind man in bazaar analogy earlier, cause this one has no relevance.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday January 04 2015, @11:23PM
Presumably, when the canal was drained for maintenance, you and perhaps your kids might go out there and look for coins. You would pass over illegal things like guns,switchblades, and dangerous things like used syringes, hand grenades, and other evidence things, like human bones etc. You would counsel your kids ahead of time to to the same, or watch them to stop them from touching these things. You would take care not to retrieve these things, and certainly not to keep them.
So if you programmed your bot with no discrimination to select things you knew did not constitute money, you could be theoretically liable for negligence, but only if you kept them.
There usually exemptions in the law if you immediately turn such things over to the proper authorities, after all, you usually can't be held criminally responsible for possession of things you find, even if you were looking for them, as long as you don't keep them.**
So your dredging example is not directly on point. Its not a purchase. You might not be able to foresee that there were illegal things down there, or your bot might not have the ability to select things at that level of discrimination.
But programming a robot to purchase something without discrimination may well make you liable. What if the robot purchased a hitman's services to bump off your dad or your wife? You could have foreseen those things, after all you've been on the web for more than two minutes, right? You took the time to program it, why would you not take the time to put in some discrimination?
Still, if you turn in the illegal merchandise, you might get off with a warning to wise up. Your dad or your wife might not be that forgiving.
** A common practice in the US is to sell storage locker contents, at auction, without inspection, if the owner stops paying the fees, and they can't be found. Auction winners are obligated to turn in illegal things they find to be in the locker that are illegal to possess, and if they do so, they are not liable.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday January 05 2015, @03:40AM
Personally, I see this as being remarkably close to the situation the story is about. The only difference is that, like the XKCD daily e-bay, the story is spread out over time.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday January 05 2015, @06:47AM
Yes, it was the closest thing I could think of.
- You are buying a surprise.
- You are paying for it based on a cursory glance through the door.
- Once you pay, you willingly take title to everything in there.
++Then you find out you just bought something illegal to possess! That varies by state.
But in this case this is a known business practice, and the authorities will not charge you. But you are out the resale value of whatever contraband was found.
The facility owner will tell you the rules in advance, and some states have rules about motor vehicles found in such lockers, and there are separate ruled for these. (There are title and lien issues involved etc.).
----
By the way, this selling practice isn't always used. It is only used where there are a lot of buyers willing to bid.
In small towns, some proprietors will let you examine the stuff more thoroughly. They are, after all, trying to recover past due rent.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @11:50AM
Is the robot capable of intent? Did the owner intentionally instruct the robot to do the specific thing it did? Was the robot's act a random accident?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:02PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:09PM
He's a helpful kind of moron if he sets precedent that clarifies laws for everyone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:17PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2015, @01:09AM
You mean like how ip extremists use random bots to take down content they don't 'own' under the DMCA yet they go virtually unpunished.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:51PM
If the robot's purchases were provably random, it would be a lot easier to prove lack of criminal intent. My other half is a performance artist, they are a pretty naive lot in general so it wouldn't be hard to make it fly in court with enough prior art, no pun intended. Of course, some prior arrangement with the police (like using the local station as the shipping address) would probably work even better if they agreed to it.
I have no experience with the police or legal system in Switzerland. Given how rabid prosecutors in America are, they'd probably be naked in solitary with RICO charges hanging over their heads (or whatever they charged Howard Marks with is called these days).
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday January 04 2015, @02:18PM
> Is the robot capable of intent?
The bot who is capable of intent is also capable of dissimulating it. Hint hint :)
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @07:29PM
Intent doesn't matter when it comes to drug possession. Possessing drugs means you instantly lose all your rights. I could break into somebody's house, hide drugs somewhere, and then call a raid on them; it would result in all their pets being murdered and everyone in that house being sentenced to drug trafficking, and there would be nothing they could do about it.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday January 04 2015, @11:53AM
Unfortunately for them, even without /mens rea/, somebody in the end winds up with posession of the illegal items, and then he falls prey to a different law with strict liability, and no need for /mens rea/. However, when Brian Krebbs (of "on security" fame) received a packet of heroin through the mail (an obvious stitch-up), he wasn't found guilty, or even charged with any crime, so mere brief posession isn't enough either.
It's a tricky one. A problem that can only be solved by throwing large amounts of money at highly (over-)paid lawyers.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @11:57AM
If you browse the darknet, you must be a criminal. There's your mens reals brother. You're guilty! Guilty!11!!
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday January 04 2015, @11:43PM
However, when Brian Krebbs (of "on security" fame) received a packet of heroin through the mail (an obvious stitch-up), he wasn't found guilty, or even charged with any crime, so mere brief posession isn't enough either.
Because why?
Thankfully, I was able to warn the cops in advance, even track the package along with the rest of the forum members thanks to a USPS tracking link that Fly had posted into a discussion thread on his forum.
Without prior knowledge, Krebbs may have had a much harder time disavowing any responsibility.
He may have eventually been found innocent, but it would not have gone quite so easy.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2015, @04:22AM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence [wikipedia.org]
Lack of concern for outcomes is considered a form of mens rea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @11:55AM
It must be bad!
You're going to pound-you-in-the-anus-prison with the rest of the darkies, where you belong!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Urlax on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:11PM
quite relevant:
http://xkcd.com/576/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:15PM
damn you xkcd... i want my hour back!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:12PM
...ima gunna code myself a little drug dealing script :p
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday January 04 2015, @08:01PM
The only reason this could be legal was the the artist placed no controls over what the bot bought. Even then ... well, it depends on the local laws.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:12PM
I don't know anything about Swiss law, but in USA possession of most illegal things is in itself illegal. If the artists ever received the drugs then they would have committed a crime in the USA. It would be up to the police if they wanted to press charges or not. If a random person in public tosses you a bag a drugs and you catch it, the police are unlikely to press charges even though you technically committed a crime (possession of a controlled substance). If you hide the bag in your pocket and walk away, the police will likely press charges.
(Score: 1) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday January 04 2015, @07:23PM
I'm not a lawyer, but I have a great interest in the law, and you appear to be wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_%28criminal%29#United_States [wikipedia.org]
The US right of due process prohibits strict liability in most cases. The only "serious" crimes strict liability sometimes attaches to are drunk driving and statutory rape. Some scholars think the statutory rape one might be found unconstitutional eventually, although they've been found constitutional in the past, because the government has been found to no longer have the power to "strictly regulate" private sexual relations, which is a prerequisite for strict liability to not be unconstitutional. Driving, on the other hand, is clearly strictly regulated. Also, a large number of states don't currently have strict liability for rape.
I seriously doubt strict liability for drug possession would be constitutional.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @07:38PM
Shiiiiiiit, thats some wishful thinking. You would be put under 24 hr surveillance until they served you a no-knock warrant at 4 am and shot your dog. Then you'd be put in handcuffs while they tear apart your house to find the drugs you have hidden, which they will find even if they have to plant them themselves. Thats how the DEA rolls. Possession of drugs - even for an instant - means you instantly lose all your rights. The constitution and law meaningless before the DEA, the creators of "parallel construction".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Dunbal on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:35PM
IANAL but the law has already dealt with this. It doesn't matter HOW you break the law, what matters is that you did break the law. In this case the fact that some illicit substance was purchased and ended up in your posession. Doesn't matter whether you did it while wearing a ski mask, did it through a friend, or did it through a script. Just like when you kill someone - doesn't really matter if you used a knife, a gun, a car or poison - what matters is that someone is dead and you were behind it. If that link can be proven, you're going to jail.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:23PM
But that's clearly false. If you t-bone a speeding car that's jumped a red light, killing the driver, then you are not guilty of anything.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Sunday January 04 2015, @03:12PM
Like I said, IANAL. You can certainly be tried for manslaughter, but the prosecution would have to prove that there was some way you could reasonably have avoided it. In this case they'd go after the speeding driver instead, in which case you just become a link in the chain not the actual causal event. Sure, you can think of all sorts of examples, but the basic principle is the same. It's not like patents where you apparently can just tack on "with a computer" and get a whole new patent. If they can prove the link between the act and yourself, then it doesn't matter if you bought stuff in person or via a proxy (in this case being a bot).
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday January 04 2015, @08:14PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday January 04 2015, @08:37PM
Link isn't sufficient. E.g., if your last name begins with "E", then you are linked with ecstasy. What matters is the *kind* of link. Here...here it's on the edge. The artist wasn't exercising any control over what was bought, and, apparently, wasn't hiding the event. (He seems to have put them on public display.) And his use of the items appears to be as a piece of display art. So his use seems legal, his intent seems legal.
Whether this is legal or not clearly depends on local laws. Possibly also on what happens to the items after the display closes. So, to me, the interesting question is "Should this kind of thing be legal, and if so, under what conditions?"; also, "What kind of thing is this?". Another good question would be "If this should be legal once as creative art, should it be legal a second time?" My tentative answers are that this use should be legal, presuming proper disposition of the illegal materials after the exhibition is over (which could include safe storage for later exhibitions at other locations), and that doing it a second time wouldn't count as creative art, but also wouldn't be illegal presuming proper disposition of the acquired materials. But what if the things acquired included, say a vial of weaponized anthrax or smallpox? And how are the police supposed to manage this kind of thing, where the sale is clearly illegal, but may well have occurred out of their jurisdiction, and the purchase is arguably legal pending proper disposition? Perhaps a permit system, and if you don't have a registered permit you are guilty of purchasing whatever you end up with, but if you do you need to register it with them, and properly insure storage? That could be workable. Probably, though, the permit costs wold be set so high that it essentially forbid the activity, and this isn't totally unreasonable, as they would need to periodically validate that proper storage was being maintained.
OTOH, the drugs that I think deservedly illegal are few and far between. And don't include most recreational drugs. (I've heard of one that provokes sudden unexpected surges of rage, and that one perhaps should be illegal, because of the harm it is likely to inflict on those not taking it. I understand that in normal use it's a horse tranquilizer. It's also not popular, or wasn't in the 1970's.) Most drugs, however, just seem to cause a worse problem when they are illegal. Yet again, many should be illegal to use as ingredients in something else, and there are a very large number that I feel should be illegal to advertise, though not to sell or purchase. These include tobacco and alcohol as well as most drugs that are currently illegal. And many pharmaceuticals. Medical doctors have altogether too much power to allow and refuse access to drugs, while at the same time pharmaceutical companies have much too free a hand with advertising. Pharmaceutical companies should only be allowed to advertise to medical professionals, and should be subject to horrendous fines for any false advertising.
However, enough on that hobby horse. Illegal merchandise covers much more than drugs, as this exhibit proves. And again my touchstone is "How much harm is to be expected to be caused to other people?" It is for this reason that the use of (nearly) anything as a part of an art exhibit should, I feel, be legal. The problem is disposition of the materials afterwards. This, however, is not the point under question, which is rather analogous to:
If I pass a packet of money to someone for something, without knowing what the something is, am Iiable for the purchase if it turns out to be illegal merchandise. Current laws should already deal with that rephrasing. In this case what's happening is the artist is passing the money to an intermediary who it purchasing the unknown merchandise, and then passing the unknown merchandise back. In this case the intermediary is acting analogous to a "common carrier", who bears no blame for the transaction, so it reduces to the earlier phrasing without the intermediary.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2015, @04:13AM
Depends on the jurisdiction and the type of license you have. The reason why semi drivers are always blamed for accidents in the media despite having the most training and experience is because most states make them responsible for anything that goes wrong regardless of specific circumstances.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:40PM
This certainly is one view point. However it does not rhyme too well with self driving cars or reaper fucking drones...
We should discuss these things so the law wouldn't be arbitrary. Or at least random.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday January 05 2015, @07:18AM
That's not true when it comes to killing someone. Mens rea heavily comes into it.
Plan to kill someone, 1st degree murder with the maximum sentence usually
Get mad and kill someone on purpose, 2nd degree murder, sentence often close to the maximum
Actually mean just to give someone a thumping but you actually kill them, manslaughter, usually much less of a sentence.
Waving that sword around and someone walks into it, criminal negligence causing death. Usually a lesser sentence
Defending yourself from someone attempting to kill you, justifiable homicide, no sentence usually.
Unavoidable accident, also no sentence.
All involve the intention of the killer and in most all jurisdictions there are similar divisions in handling someone who kills another. As you mention, the method doesn't matter much though using your hands gives you a better argument for manslaughter whereas poisoning someone in a manner that takes forethought pretty well points to first degree murder.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:22PM
I can't help it if my robot has a problem with crack. He came from a broken home.
It's a disease.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:24PM
His mother was a sex doll.
You are still welcome on my lawn.