Coincidence versus legal responsibility

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

looking for thoughts here!

Going to avoid giving the actual issue, try to give a parallel to protect the innocent!

Ok, so imagine a closed system where something from outside it, managed to interfere
with it and caused a disaster within the system. Is that the fault of the system for
allowing the 'trespass' or the 'alien' for breaching non existant security by accident.

Said closed system has worked perfectly ish without the attack although similiar
incidents elsewhere in the system led to some redesign of the system but this didnt
include improving protection from the outside attack.

Further if the actual incident that led to the disaster was found to a lessor risk say
50% of the time on the grounds of internal efficiency is acceptable and mean costs
saves validate the extra risk.

 

[(RIP) PLANK]

looking for thoughts here!

Going to avoid giving the actual issue, try to give a parallel to protect the innocent!

Ok, so imagine a closed system where something from outside it, managed to interfere
with it and caused a disaster within the system. Is that the fault of the system for
allowing the 'trespass' or the 'alien' for breaching non existant security by accident.

Said closed system has worked perfectly ish without the attack although similiar
incidents elsewhere in the system led to some redesign of the system but this didnt
include improving protection from the outside attack.

Further if the actual incident that led to the disaster was found to a lessor risk say
50% of the time on the grounds of internal efficiency is acceptable and mean costs
saves validate the extra risk.

i am completely lost, is it an episode of Star Trek? :nenau

 

[solarman216]

I think it would largely depend on whether the out side "attack" was accidental or intentional, Rick

 

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

trying to avoid personal thoughts rather analytical driven by emotion.

 

[solarman216]

trying to avoid personal thoughts rather analytical driven by emotion.

Now you are getting heavy:nenau Rick

 

[wildbri]

well it wan't me. I never touched it!

 

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

the issue is a chain of events that were more than unlucky coincidence
where even if they had all been there in another sequence the outcome
might well not have been so grave.

so if you have an accident ok even incident because you shoulder some
blame to start without how far down the line are you responsible for the
design of the stuff you have then come into contact with, which is as far
removed from your world as you are from its.

 

[(RIP) PLANK]

it would also depend on ones point of view - may be glass half full or half empty. In other words do you see the attacker as the issue or the person failing to protect from attack - are you on the inside or the outside?

as the attacker you would probably think - it's their own fault for poor security!

and to be honest, if this has happened before and steps have not been taken then maybe the responsibility does lie with the person responsible for the system.


is that a better answer?

 

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

thanks plank, thats just what ive thought.

duty of care, even to 'kin trespasser.

if you dont make it resonably difficult to prevent
an attack, or a botched attack causes injury the
owner is responsible.

ok taking another view, first time its an animal, animal
dies, cant prosecute dead or alive animal, probably
farmsers fault then despite system owner not taking
steps to prevent...

second case numpty comes along, ok guilty of stupidity
or something. is is then responsible for all the hell that
breaks loose in the system too.

 

[lacroupade]

looking for thoughts here!

Going to avoid giving the actual issue, try to give a parallel to protect the innocent!

Ok, so imagine a closed system where something from outside it, managed to interfere
with it and caused a disaster within the system. Is that the fault of the system for
allowing the 'trespass' or the 'alien' for breaching non existant security by accident.

Said closed system has worked perfectly ish without the attack although similiar
incidents elsewhere in the system led to some redesign of the system but this didnt
include improving protection from the outside attack.

Further if the actual incident that led to the disaster was found to a lessor risk say
50% of the time on the grounds of internal efficiency is acceptable and mean costs
saves validate the extra risk.

OK so lets try and make some better parallels.

Lets say its an internal computer system that manages some process or other. Its been subject to some external attack thats caused a minor problem, but sounds like there is the potential for it to be attacked again perhaps with worse consequences for equipment or people.

Well clearly the 'fault' is initially with the attacker. But once the owner of the system is aware of its vulnerability then if that vulnerability is able to cause physical problems for its usres then they have a duty to address the problem, if they don't then they almost certainly have liability.

Make sense?

 

[solarman216]

You can only be held responsible for direct results of your actions, not 1st or more generations of them, throw a stone in the water if it hits a fish and kills it you are responsible if you aimed for the fish, if it happened to swim under your stone it was an accident, if the ripples from the stone cause some other problem then only if it can be shown that you knew those ripples would cause that problem would you be responsible, hope this helps, Rick

 

[lacroupade]

You can only be held responsible for direct results of your actions, not 1st or more generations of them, throw a stone in the water if it hits a fish and kills it you are responsible if you aimed for the fish, if it happened to swim under your stone it was an accident, if the ripples from the stone cause some other problem then only if it can be shown that you knew those ripples would cause that problem would you be responsible, hope this helps, Rick

ahhh Grasshopper. :lol

 

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

So what if that risk is then driven by efficiency. perhaps tested but not aggresively
in the past. If the 'gain' in economy is built around a 50/50 so is possibly safer
one way than the other but the usage is equal in both states.

perhaps the technology used was fine in safer state when used that way all the time
and the reverse mode was fine in controlled testing within the closed system and
seemingly no thought given to what if. guess rolled out to bring costs down asap,

oh this could be corporate negligence...

 

[solarman216]

So you throw a hand full of stones instead of one! I think that if you hit and killed a fish you would be responsible, as it is much more likely a fish will be in the way of such a spread, Rick

 

[lacroupade]

So what if that risk is then driven by efficiency. perhaps tested but not aggresively
in the past. If the 'gain' in economy is built around a 50/50 so is possibly safer
one way than the other but the usage is equal in both states.

perhaps the technology used was fine in safer state when used that way all the time
and the reverse mode was fine in controlled testing within the closed system and
seemingly no thought given to what if. guess rolled out to bring costs down asap,

oh this could be corporate negligence...

I woiuld agree with your conclusion.

 

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

thanks guys,

so in my best rolf harris, can you tell what it is yet, go on have a guess I sense
some itching!

 

[Adz]

JACE ..... :augie Way to obvious...

 

[solarman216]

I am no good a guessing games, go on tell us, you know you want to, Rick

 

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

JACE ..... :augie Way to obvious...

wow thats amazing Adz.

But wrong,


like more thoughts on corporate responsibility into designing into something a fault
or safety issue just to save money?

 

[Thomas-the-Terrano2]

I am no good a guessing games, go on tell us, you know you want to, Rick

ok a green oval was involved!