> If you shot up a public area and then tried to claim that was a business activity, you would obviously not have an argument. It isn't plausible on its face. So I'm really not sure what point you're making.

I'm running a terrorist training simulation and unwitting participants entered the area! Whoops! You haven't addressed the point of a company (composed of people) creating something that exceeds its bounds. Is a company liable if they are working on nuclear power and delete the city they are operating out of? Why would a software company be treated differently when it causes harm to a third party?

▲

godwinson__4-8 an hour ago | parent [-]

> I'm running a terrorist training simulation and unwitting participants entered the area! Whoops!

There is already precedent on more or less this exact scenario. Except you usually don't call people under your own jurisdiction "terrorists". That sort of term is reserved for people running those businesses in certain other places. By the way, it is an interesting feature of the American legal system that this sort of incident could spawn many proceedings, where a civil suit against the company in question could be one among many.

> Is a company liable if they are working on nuclear power and delete the city they are operating out of?

In theory, obviously. You still have to prove it in court.

> Why would a software company be treated differently when it causes harm to a third party?

They wouldn't. Again, you still have to prove it in court.

▲

skinfaxi an hour ago | parent | next [-]

What point are you making? This hasn't been brought to court yet and I am lamenting the fact that charges have not been brought.

> There is already precedent on more or less this exact scenario. Except you usually don't call people under your own jurisdiction "terrorists". That sort of term is reserved for people running those businesses in certain other places. By the way, it is an interesting feature of the American legal system that this sort of incident could spawn many proceedings, where a civil suit against the company in question could be one among many.

I don't have a jurisdiction as I am not the judiciary nor law enforcement. I'm really not sure what you're driving at.

▲

godwinson__4-8 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

> I don't have a jurisdiction as I am not the judiciary nor law enforcement. I'm really not sure what you're driving at.

If you were shot or a member of your family got "deleted" and you had sufficient control of the estate, then you would have standing.

Obviously, if you aren't involved you shouldn't be able to sue and be compensated because something happened to someone else that doesn't relate to you at all.

▲

skinfaxi 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

>If you were shot or a member of your family got "deleted" and you had sufficient control of the estate, then you would have standing.

> Obviously, if you aren't involved you shouldn't be able to sue and be compensated because something happened to someone else that doesn't relate to you at all.

Crimes don't require standing wtf are you on about? Prosecutors bring charges not individuals.

▲

godwinson__4-8 28 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Prosecutors bring charges even if the estate doesn't pursue.

Simply wrong. In criminal cases, the government may not elect to bring charges for all sorts of reasons. The civil courts will still be available to you. That will be true whether there are charges or not. Whether that results in a conviction or not.

The government can also initiate a civil suit. Criminal charges against businesses are rare. I'm not sure any would apply here. Perhaps you'd like to volunteer a statute?

	▲	skinfaxi 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Prosecutors bring charges even if the estate doesn't pursue. > Simply wrong. You didn't refute my point :P Wait so I only need to make a company and use AI to hack US banks and anyone else I want?

▲

hackable_sand 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I think they wanted an actual answer