On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:01:14PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > * What are the legal consequences of implementing or not implementing > this feature? In a system where the sysadmin can edit the content > of the machine, he may be liable. In a system where every change > can be (presumably) traced to me, _I_ am liable. How can I proof > that the machine was compromised if there is a strong scientific > argument that the machine is "safe"? > > For completeness: If we build such a system, and it turns out to > _not_ be safe, are we programmers liable? Certainly we can't afford > to carry such a liability as free software hackers writing in our > spare time.
If Microsoft isn't liable for dumping a viral breeding place to the market, then we can't possibly be liable for trying but failing to make a system which has privacy. Then again, the law is strange, and Microsoft has many lawyers. So while we can't possibly be liable, we may still be... Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
