Who's Responsible When Your Semi-Autonomous Shopping Bot Purchases Drugs Online?

Nerval's Lobster writes Who's responsible when a bot breaks the law? A collective of Swiss artists faced that very question when they coded the Random Darknet Shopper, an online shopping bot, to purchase random items from a marketplace located on the Deep Web, an area of the World Wide Web not indexed by search engines. While many of the 16,000 items for sale on this marketplace are legal, quite a few are not; and when the bot used its $100-per-week-in-Bitcoin to purchase a handful of illegal pills and a fake Hungarian passport, the artists found themselves in one of those conundrums unique to the 21st century: Is one liable when a bunch of semi-autonomous code goes off and does something bad? In a short piece in The Guardian, the artists seemed prepared to face the legal consequences of their software's actions, but nothing had happened yet—even though the gallery displaying the items is reportedly next door to a police station. In addition to the drugs and passport, the bot ordered a box set of The Lord of the Rings, a Louis Vuitton handbag, a couple of cartons of Chesterfield Blue cigarettes, sneakers, knockoff jeans, and much more.

Comments

i cant even

[ganjadude]

get my guy to call me back on time, now there is a bot that takes care of all the dirty work for me??!?!?!!

Re: i cant even

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard about this a few days ago. Law enforcement was alerted ahead of the exhibit to oversee contraband as some was expected to arrive.

Re:i cant even

[Anonymous Coward]

don't drop the soap judge and jury bot just give you life with no parole

Re: i cant even

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words they can exhibit what comes through though cops take formal possession on discovery to keep it legit

Re:i cant even

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm, I just walk into the store and purchase my stuff

Re: i cant even

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great until the bot orders a hit on someone.

Re: i cant even

[aitikin]

That's great until the bot orders a hit on someone.

$100 would be a pittance for a hit.

Re: i cant even

[Anonymous Coward]

for 100 bucks in bitcoin? i somehow dont think someones going to do that
its more insulting than doing it for free

Re: i cant even

[Anonymous Coward]

Like in the X-Files episode "Killswitch"? (by William Gibson

Re: i cant even

[Penguinisto]

$100 would be a pittance for a hit.

Depends on the country, I suspect. Some complete 3rd-world craphole would probably consider $100USD to be a hefty sum.

Re:i cant even

[o_ferguson]

Mistakenly modded this overrated when trying to mod funny. Commenting to clear mod.

Re: i cant even

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a crackhead that will do it for $50.00

Re:i cant even

[Aighearach]

hmmm, I just walk into the store and purchase my stuff

I can't imagine spending my life in a place so far into the 3rd world that they sell fake Hungarian passports in shops. I would totally send in the tele-presence robot for that one.

Re:i cant even

[Anonymous Coward]

Hong Kong isn't 3rd world....

Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously.

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

“But our lawyer and the Swiss constitution says art in the public interest is allowed to be free.”

I don't think this would work as a justification for a crime like murder or kidnap (it was FOR ART!) so why should it work for a drug crime?

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[TWX]

“But our lawyer and the Swiss constitution says art in the public interest is allowed to be free.”

The distinction comes from the possibility for art to also be something else. I find some automobiles to be works of art, but that doesn't mean that I can drive them any way, anywhere I want, or can park them to display them anywhere I want. Even if I create a car or re-body a car so that it's truly unique, the rules of being a car are still in-effect.

The rules of being a computer program or a device should still apply even if the program or device can also be called art.

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[amicusNYCL]

I don't think the program necessarily is the art, as far as the artists are concerned. The exhibition isn't the software necessarily, it is the collection of all of the items that the software "decided" to purchase. That means that the drugs themselves are part of the art exhibit. The full quote shows that they are aware of the fact that the drugs aren't legal on their own.

"We are the legal owner of the drugs - we are responsible for everything the bot does, as we executed the code," says Smoljo. "But our lawyer and the Swiss constitution says art in the public interest is allowed to be free."

So, in this context, it is legal for them to be in possession of the otherwise-illegal drugs. Or, at least they think so.

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[rudy_wayne]

Is one liable when a bunch of semi-autonomous code goes off and does something bad?

The entire premise here is flawed. The code didn't just accidentally do something bad.

That would be like me randomly shooting a gun and if a bullet happens to kill someone I say "I didn't do it deliberately so it's OK".

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely, if the bot had made purchases on Amazon or eBay that turned out to be illegal, I think there'd be cause to blame the software. But, this is software that was designed to buy random things from sites that the programmer expected to carry illegal things.

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[Sperbels]

It's not okay, but it wouldn't be murder either. It would be manslaughter.

Re: Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

I think as long as there was no intent to consume or traffick in the illegal material ( it's likely ALL the goods are illegal ) , law enforcement can let them take pictures before making the items unusable (eg heat sealed in plastic) or destroying them.

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[Lowry]

I think in that case Amazon or the eBay seller should be to blame.

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[Baloroth]

It's not okay, but it wouldn't be murder either. It would be manslaughter.

That depends. If you should have known the gun would have a significant chance of hitting someone, you could well be facing a full murder charge. Randomly shooting a gun in a field in the country? Probably manslaughter. Doing the same in a crowded shopping mall? Yep, that'd be murder. Likewise this bot was shopping randomly on a darknet that has a lot of illegal stuff for sale, and the creator would (absolutely should have, anyways) have known that, which means he would be legally liable for the purchases (if the government decided to press the issue).

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[Smallpond]

Obviously.

In some places it is the sale that is illegal, not possession. That makes it interesting to decide whether a crime was committed and who is guilty.

Re: Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[TWX]

(to both parent comment and grandparent comment)

They may think that it's legal to set-up a Rube Goldberg Machine scenario to attempt to put the final actions at arms' length, but the fact that they set up all conditions along the way should mean that they cannot make such an arms' length claim.

As far as intent to commit an illegal act, it looks like they did intend to commit an illegal act, and are trying to somehow get that illegal act interpreted as art or speech or whatever Swiss law has as an equivalent. I don't think that their attempt will fly.

As to keeping whatever contraband was ordered, normally for contraband to be used in some fashion when it's otherwise illega, it's cleared in-advance with a prosecuting authority and a court, giving the entity using the contraband some form of limited immunity for possessing the contraband. That we're having this discussion indicates that this was not done. When I was a kid, I was taught to never buy something illegal (like drugs) from someone with the intention of presenting those drugs to the authorities, because it was still illegal for me to be in possession of those drugs and illegal to purchase those drugs, and I wouldn't have had any prior immunity to protect me. Even if my intentions were completely above-board I'd still get into trouble. That's where they are now, at a minimum, assuming as the party that set this software bot up is held responsible for its actions.

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[gweihir]

Because possession of drugs is a victim-less crime.

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[3.5 stripes]

Unless you happen to have stolen them from someone :)

Re: Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that an art based defense is unlikely to succeed. I also think that graffiti is art, which is also illegal. What they've done with this project feels sincerely like an art project to me (whether a good one or not is up to interpretation, but it does make you think and any good art should accomplish that at least). I personally would confiscate the illegal stuff and order they shut down the bot, possibly institute a fine, but I don't see how jailtime would serve any purpose in this instance as the materials being obtained were not being used for any of the reasons they were made illegal in the first place.

Your next reply would be "Well according to them but how can we be sure the next guy to use that line isn't lying". Well, I think this case could be used as a precedent and maybe a law specifically aimed at this activity would need to be enacted if this specific type of activity became more widespread. Until then I would err on the side caution, I don't like people (especially ones with no malice) being locked up over non destructive acts simply because they may have placed themselves in an awkward position. Who is the victim here?

Re: Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[omnichad]

And I'd be willing to bet that even the "legal" merchandise is illegal - even the Lord of the Rings box set. If it weren't stolen goods, you'd sell it on a bigger market (Amazon or eBay) and likely get a higher price.

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[catmistake]

Its even less complicated. If my dog bites you, who is to blame? If my empty parked car's breaks fail, roles down a hill and over your grandmother, killing her, who is to blame?

This is not an interesting legal question, and it is not new legal ground. Whomever owns the instance of code, whomever owns the computer, whomever owns the currency that is spent, and whomever's address it is the drugs arrive at, would be places to start for culpability.

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

No, in that case the theft is the crime, not the possession by either the thief or the original owner.

Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[gweihir]

Event then the possession is victim-less. What creates the victim is the theft.

Re: Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

(to both parent comment and grandparent comment) They may think that it's legal to set-up a Rube Goldberg Machine scenario to attempt to put the final actions at arms' length, but the fact that they set up all conditions along the way should mean that they cannot make such an arms' length claim. As far as intent to commit an illegal act, it looks like they did intend to commit an illegal act, and are trying to somehow get that illegal act interpreted as art or speech or whatever Swiss law has as an equivalent. I don't think that their attempt will fly. As to keeping whatever contraband was ordered, normally for contraband to be used in some fashion when it's otherwise illega, it's cleared in-advance with a prosecuting authority and a court, giving the entity using the contraband some form of limited immunity for possessing the contraband. That we're having this discussion indicates that this was not done. When I was a kid, I was taught to never buy something illegal (like drugs) from someone with the intention of presenting those drugs to the authorities, because it was still illegal for me to be in possession of those drugs and illegal to purchase those drugs, and I wouldn't have had any prior immunity to protect me. Even if my intentions were completely above-board I'd still get into trouble. That's where they are now, at a minimum, assuming as the party that set this software bot up is held responsible for its actions.

I get the impression from elsewhere on the same story that it was cleared in advance with appropriate authorities. From this it seems like they are acting without prior notification or cover and this was an after thought to them; seems unlikely they would act on a whim almost with no thought for liability etc before going past the planning stage not to mention the by the time it is done and turned loose on SR2 or BMR or the likes. To not prepare for that until the stuff arrives as an after though would be foolish. Especially for public exhibit as that isn't exactly low key.

Yes, but for specific reasons

[TWX]

The creator of a device that breaks the law because the creator either negligently or intentionally set up the device to break the law is responsible, as that creator set the conditions for the operation of the device.

The creators knew both that they were designing something to make its own decisions without programming any real concept of legality in the process, and setting it to operate in an environment which is known to have served to facilitate criminal activity.

The degree of responsibility is up for grabs, and that's why things like limited liability corporations exist, to attempt to shield the owners from being personally liable, but the act itself is still criminal. One can even debate the line between engineering and art, since the bot is an artificial construct that actively does something in the greater world, rather than a passive display or something contained to its own small environment.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Slick_W1lly]

I cannot agree with this.

The programmers just set the thing up to 'buy whatever'. At the time, 'whatever' may have simply been a bunch of knockoff handbags. It's not illegal to buy those... the seller may get slapped for violating a trademark, or something - but no-one's going to come rip your handbag out of your hands or put you in jail.

And, quite honestly - the feckin' article tells the submitter 'who is responsible'. If the law says : 'knowingly violated' - they are not responsible. If the law says 'recklessly violated' then there is a case to be made.

But let me spin you this :

>The creator of a device that breaks the law because the creator either negligently or intentionally set up the device to break the law is responsible

If I father a child (creator) and raise it to be... less than respectful of the law... my child then robs a bank. Do they put *me* in jail? By your definition they should...

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[tverbeek]

Another human that you create is not a "semi-autonomous bot". It is a self-aware person, and is held responsible for its own actions. Maybe if you can demonstrate that your bot is sentient and fully autonomous, that'll get you off the hook.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Blaskowicz]

No, this may depend on juridictions but buying, acquiring a counterfeit good or even owning it may be a liable offense just like doing the same with stolen goods.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

If I father a child (creator) and raise it to be... less than respectful of the law... my child then robs a bank. Do they put *me* in jail? By your definition they should...

That is an interesting thought when taken in the context of fundamentalist christianity. Technically, each and every human being is personally responsible for the sins carried out by adam and eve. Original sin and all that.

So its not a huge jump to say that actually, your son is responsible for all of your sins too. And his grandfathers sins, and ...well you get the drift.

Yet another reason to think that literal Christianity is complete and utter BS.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah cause a child and a script are so similar.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[prelelat]

I think you are over complicating this. Use the analogy of a bridge. The bridge is designed to allow people to pass over it, and if it's designed properly it will allow people to pass over it. If the bridge collapses it becomes a question of was the bridge built properly was it checked to see if it would fail before hand was it built according to the original plan. If there is a design flaw someone(typically the engineer who stamped the documents) can be held liable.

I think the same could be said here. If the design was flawed in that it bought illegal things that's one thing when it's suppose to be searching say amazon. Here I would question it's design because it was designed to buy things from where it did. In the design there was a decent chance it could hit illegal materials, and it did. I think if they didn't build anything to compensate for that it's on them. It's like asking, is it really assault if you close your eyes and start swinging at the air and just happen to hit people?

also where's the originality http://xkcd.com/576/

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

what would jail for an AI be then? purposely limiting it to x amount of rehabilitation scripts? I would argue forcibly reseting it to factory zero is like being executed.

Legal system was not really designed for autonomous, immortal, intangible entitiess.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[ScentCone]

that's why things like limited liability corporations exist, to attempt to shield the owners from being personally liable, but the act itself is still criminal

Why do people keep trotting this out? It's wrong. An LLC (and other forms of business-forming) don't shield you personally from the consequences of criminal acts.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Crimey McBiggles]

If I father a child (creator) and raise it to be... less than respectful of the law... my child then robs a bank. Do they put *me* in jail? By your definition they should...

While scripts aren't children, in any event parents are often held responsible for the actions of their children.

Check out this article.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Em Adespoton]

The creators of Google knew they were designing something to make its own decisions (about what to copy) without programming any real concept of legality in the process, and setting it to operate in an environment which is known to have served to facilitate criminal activity.

Does that set the perspective any better?

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if I set up a gun to automatically fire once a day down an empty street, and the next day there are people there, then I am not responsible?

They well knew (and I am sure it was part of the intention) that they were aiming the bot at markets which sell both semi and completely illegal items..
So, they are therefore quite responsible for what it actually purchased there.

And no, it has NO resemblance to your child example, moron - a child has free will, a program does not! as is quite obvious.
If you had spent the childs whole youth training them and brainwashing them to rob banks for you, then yes, you would hold some responsibility.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[ceoyoyo]

A computer program is a tool. If I toss a hammer off a scaffold and it hits someone, I'm responsible. I can't just say "the hammer did it, not me." The crime or non-crime I'm responsible for may vary depending on the circumstances. If I threw the hammer on purpose or accidentally kicked it off, whether I took sufficient safety precautions, etc.

These artists are clearly responsible for whatever their program did, and it purchased illegal drugs from a website. If Switzerland doesn't have a legal distinction between purchasing drugs and possession or use then hopefully smart cops, district attorneys, judges will take the mitigating circumstances into account. But it doesn't absolve the artists of responsibility.

Incidentally, where I live (and I believe in the US, probably in Europe as well) you can absolutely be held responsible for the actions of your children, until they reach an age where they are legally determined to be responsible themselves.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[vux984]

The programmers just set the thing up to 'buy whatever'.

Knowing full well that 'whatever' was a range of legal and illegal goods.

If I father a child (creator) and raise it to be... less than respectful of the law... my child then robs a bank. Do they put *me* in jail? By your definition they should...

When the child turns the age of majority he is elevated to independently being responsible for his actions regardless of how well or poorly you raised him. Perhaps you truly should be in jail, but it will be him, not you. In any case there is no legal system by which a shopping bot no matter how long i let it run ever becomes an independent legal adult.

Now let me spin you this:

If I setup a robot with boxing gloves and have it programmed to randomly walk around and swing them, am I responsible if it punches anyone?

f the law says : 'knowingly violated' - they are not responsible. If the law says 'recklessly violated' then there is a case to be made.

Regardless of what the law says today its pretty much guaranteed to be updated to include "recklessly" language as soon as it's an issue as a result of silliness like this.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[SuricouRaven]

No, but it certainly goes a long way. Did anyone go to jail when BP negligently cut corners on a well and Deepwater Horizon started spewing oil with no off-valve? The company even pled guilty to eleven counts of manslaughter, but all it got was a fine (though quite a large one). It appears that in this case, the corporate entity took all the consequences and left the individuals who actually made the decisions shielded from anything worse than a drop in their annual bonus.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Lowry]

If I make a 'fully autonomous art machine' to paint my house but, somehow, malfunction and kill a lot of people.. shouldn't be me responsible for the deaths? Bridges would be a lot cheaper that way..

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[mjwx]

The creator of a device that breaks the law because the creator either negligently or intentionally set up the device to break the law is responsible, as that creator set the conditions for the operation of the device.

It's not necessarily the creator, rather the operator who uses it for illegal purposes. A general purpose script or bot that is re-purposed for illegal means does not make the creator liable.

It's like suing Toyota because someone used a Hilux in a ram raid.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Aighearach]

In many countries there is a common-law presumption that items for sale in shops are legal, and the fault for the purchase lies with the proprietor of the shop. The fault for possession after purchase might lie with the purchaser, but in the case of an automated robotic purchase, the question would be if the robot owner took possession of the items when they became aware of the nature of the purchase , or if they disposed of them immediately.

A lot of people seem... mentally "allergic" to the idea of waiting until the human finds out and responds before deciding if "a law was broken," but courts in most countries are going to focus mostly or entirely on exactly that; when did the human find out the purchased item was illegal, and did they accept possession or dispose of the contraband according to local custom or reasonable action?

In most places even if there is a remote possibility that a purchased item is contraband, or stolen property, the customer is still allowed to make a presumption that items for sale in stores are legal to buy. So even if your robot has returned with stolen items, or other contraband, that doesn't mean you're knowingly breaking the law to ever use the robot to purchase again. It is actually a crazy idea; if you extend that hyper-strict concept out to automobiles, the existence of deaths due to mechanical failure would turn driving a car into attempted homicide, even without an accident happening. So if the normal reasonable thing is that the robot will purchase legal items, then it is not illegal for the robot to purchase illegal items accidentally. Just inspect the items before taking possession, and be aware of local disposal customs.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Aighearach]

Reckless is going to be harder to prove than knowingly here. It is clearly not reckless to purchase a random item in a store. For that to be the case you have to prove that the store itself was of such disrepute that the customer should expect them to sell illegal items. But if you prove that, you've proven actual intent already, since we're already stipulating that the contraband purchase was made by the robot, that the store was selected by the human, and that the robot was under the human's control. They actually both come down to the same issue of intent, which if proven, would prove the action to be knowing, and not reckless.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[dbIII]

Right after you get your Nobel Prize for creating a self aware bot then as it's gaurdian you'll still have to take responsibility for whatever crimes it commits.
Since we haven't got that far this is a simple "my dog bit someone" or "I left the handbrake off and my car rolled away and hit something" situation.

Personally I see this situation as a simple one of not defining tasks properly for a machine and the results are obvious in hindsight.

If you set a machine to do a task and it fucks up due to poor task definition then the responsibility clearly lies with the person who set it loose in such a state.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Aighearach]

I think you're over-simplifying here. Just because a machine has a design flaw does not elevate any accident it has to a crime, or an intentional act.

If you close your eyes and throw a punch, your intent is still to throw a punch that you know might land. You haven't changed intent at all. But if you build an experimental personal conveyance device, and it breaks, and you fall off, and your hand strikes me in the face, you're responsible for any damages but it probably not assault. It may be some sort of reckless endangerment, depending on a wide variety of other facts and complications, though.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Aighearach]

Parents are civilly responsible for whatever their kids do, potentially even including signing contracts, but in modern countries they are not criminally responsible for their children's acts. Though permitting some acts may be an additional crime.

If you read your link, it describes laws where permitting some acts is an additional violation or crime, and then civil liability. It never claims a parent has criminal liability for the laws the child breaks.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Aighearach]

... and if you accidentally drop the hammer, then you did "it" but "it" was only an accident, and you likely only have civil liability, depending on the details of the accident, your training, your expected level of training, etc.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[ceoyoyo]

Perhaps in the US. In Canada, if you didn't take appropriate precautions you could be found guilty of things like criminal negligence or involuntary manslaughter, depending on what happened. I don't know about Switzerland.

From what I've heard of US drug laws, I suspect if you ordered drugs in the US and your defense was "my computer did it!" you'd be convicted of a criminal offense.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Aighearach]

One of two things would happen; you'd be found to have been reckless and go to prison for multiple manslaughter, or it would be found to be an accident and you'd be civilly liable and later unable to get credit or insurance to build such devices, so you'd be out of business and the deaths would stop.

Of course you would be "responsible," but how responsible and what exactly for depends on various facts and details.

Bridges don't have an inflated insurance cost, so no. Also, bridges are designed to be as strong as the relevant authorities dictate, they're not just built to whatever minimum strength the designer feels happy to accept liability for.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Aighearach]

It wasn't found that a person committed manslaughter in the company's name, and was shielded. There was no single person whose actions were considered manslaughter. The actions of the company in total were accused of amounting to manslaughter, and the company admitted to that.

Without that minimal collective liability, there just would have been nowhere to hang it at all, and no entity to even fine.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[OrangeTide]

If I father a child (creator) and raise it to be... less than respectful of the law... my child then robs a bank. Do they put *me* in jail? By your definition they should...

Yes, if your child is a minor and under your care. Then in most parts of the world, you will be held mostly responsible for the crimes they commit. And it is especially common for parents to be fully responsible for civil penalties. (that is, when you kid does something terrible that caused them to be sued for damaged)

When they are an adult, they are now responsible.

Of course, software is neither a child or an adult. If you wanted to make an analogy, perhaps the legal precedent around dogs would be more appropriate. When your pitbull rips my face off, you go to prison. Hard time prison. Then I sue you too, so your wife has to work 3 jobs and your children have to lower their college expectations or earn a full scholarship.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

As to originality: there's a difference between writing a comic presenting an idea and writing a script which actually demonstrates it :) Personally, I think the creators in this case hoped their bot would break the law.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[penguinoid]

>The creator of a device that breaks the law because the creator either negligently or intentionally set up the device to break the law is responsible

If I father a child (creator) and raise it to be... less than respectful of the law... my child then robs a bank. Do they put *me* in jail? By your definition they should...

A computer program does exactly as it is told to do, nothing more and nothing less -- in much the same way that you can't blame your gun for shooting someone as it has no will of it's own. When a certain level of complexity is reached, the creator of a machine or program can reasonably argue that a bad result was not malice but merely negligence, and with yet higher level of complexity that it was neither malice nor negligence. Besides this, there can be hardware faults and operating conditions in which case the blame could go to the manufacturer or the operator or the admin.

As for a child's malicious actions, they could fit in any of those categories (malice, negligence, or merely-a-human) in terms of their parents' blame. And as for software, you might not want to hold the authors of Notepad accountable for a ransom note created using Notepad, but you probably want to hold the creators of CryptoLocker responsible for ransom notes resulting from the use of CryptoLocker.

As for the topic of conversation, if it were up to me, whoever told the bot to buy random objects from the location with an especially large proportion of illegal items without checking their legality, was doing a bit more then negligence. They can't possibly expect to get away with this... and they better not be setting a precedent that drone strikes, insider trading, fraud, or whatever magically become legal when done by a bot.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[TWX]

If I father a child (creator) and raise it to be... less than respectful of the law... my child then robs a bank. Do they put *me* in jail? By your definition they should...

Honestly, while I definitely have a problem with sins of the father punishment, where progeny is punished solely because they're the offspring of someone that did something wrong, I don't really have a problem with the idea that a parent, in some specific circumstances, could be held accountable for something that their offspring did. If a pattern of encouraging despicable and illegal behavior was promoted by a parent to a child, and that child while still directly under the influence of the parent or free from it for only a short time committed certain types of felonies related to that encouragement, then I really don't have a problem with there being some legal consequences for the parent.

But, there's something else that completely invalidates your argument- people are recognized as having rights, including a right to self-determination, even before they reach the age of majority for many of their rights. Computers, machines, pets, livestock, and anything else that can be considered property does not have rights, and as property is owned by a party that can be held responsible for the repercussions of the actions, or even when abandoned the former owner, the ramifications of abandoned property can still fall on that former owner.

It's called liability. It's another reason why LLCs exist, they will usually take out liability coverage insurance based on their business, and in some circumstances are required to take out insurance.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, it wasn't designed for us mortals either.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Aighearach]

Yeah, because if those words are your "defense" it means you don't have a lawyer. Once you translate the real scenario where the person's computer really did do it into legal terms, then I'm sure it will sound a lot more believable. ;)

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[stephanruby]

>The creator of a device that breaks the law because the creator either negligently or intentionally set up the device to break the law is responsible

If I father a child (creator) and raise it to be... less than respectful of the law... my child then robs a bank. Do they put *me* in jail? By your definition they should...

Come on? A child is a device now! May be if the authors had been using some kind of artificial intelligence for their bot, but from the article, it does sound like they deliberately picked a gray marketplace just so they could generate some kind of contrived moral dilemma, or some social media publicity for themselves.

In any case, $100 isn't much. Imagine if the budget had been $10,000, that could easily get you a freshly cut human head for that price.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

They specifically coded it to shop on the "Deep Web", which I can only assume means Tor hidden services. The whole reason you'd do this would be to wind up with illegal items, and then claim it was your bot that did it. If you wanted something like this, then make it buy random items off Amazon or Ebay. It's extremely obvious that the goal was to obtain illegal merchandise. Come on.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[gnoshi]

Having your personal conveyance device break is abnormal or unexpected function. The bot buying (at random) whatever was available was the intended function.

Re: Yes, but for specific reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that's not correct. Literal Christianity doesn't hold you responsible for the sins of your parents, or Adam and Eves. The doctrine is actually that sin causes spiritual death, and that once Adam sinned, all of us were born spiritually dead and slaves to sin (which comports pretty well with observable reality when you look at how much evil is in the world).

Also, note that this was what Jesus was talking about when he said that through faith in him you could be "born again". He was saying that his death on the cross and resurrection would pay our penalty and forgive our sins, allowing our dead, sinful souls to live again, just as he did after the ressurection.

So now you know what the original sin doctrine actually is, and where the phrase "born again" comes from, and as a bonus, you now know where baptism comes from also (it's a public, symbolic act demonstrating the Christian's burial of their old sin nature along with Christ's burial, and their spiritual rebirth through Christ's resurrection. Baptism also is their public demonstration of faith and trust in Christ.)

Side rant: It's really a shame we took God out of the schools, because these are the core beliefs of a huge segment of the population, yet most people, especially younger people, have no idea what the others around them actually beleive. And you would think that would be important info to have so that people could relate to each other.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

We could make it a closer analogy if I had a child who robbed a bank while it was still a toddler - and, by law, was not considered an autonomous person with responsibility for its own actions.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[u38cg]

No, you're just saying words without knowing anything about the law or how it is interpreted.

Cases like this turn quite precisely on the the law as written and the practice of the courts in interpreting them. It's not a degree of responsibility thing; it's a 'have you broken the letter of the law' thing, and a 'will the courts just shit on you anyway' thing.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[oobayly]

It's like suing Toyota because Toyota used a Hilux in a ram raid.

FTFY

In this case the "artist" was the creator and operator, so yes they should be liable. They created the script to buy items in an area where it's possible to purchase illegal goods. They then proceeded to run it without verifying whether each item should actually be paid for (probably because it wouldn't be art if they did, or something).

If they had created the script, and somebody else (the operator) had decided to run it, then [like you said], the operator should be liable, not the creator.

Re:Yes, but for specific reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

Using your same analogy, software could not have any bugs in the same way that a car cannot break down. The simple fact is that accidents can and do happen.

Again, this is where intent comes into play. A jury will have to decide whether or not there was any.

The Absolutely Fabulous Robot

[Irate Engineer]

I got this mental picture of a robot wearing jeans, high heels, clutching a Louis Vuitton handbag and a credit card strutting by and saying "I'm Shoppppppinnng!!!!" Stupid brain.

Re:The Absolutely Fabulous Robot

[denzacar]

...and it's on drugs. And it has a fake Hungarian passport to its name.

Re:The Absolutely Fabulous Robot

[Irate Engineer]

Great, now my brain has named the robot Zsa Zsa Gabor.

Re:The Absolutely Fabulous Robot

[idontgno]

And its hovercraft is full of eels, because the record is scratched.

Thats not mine baby, the bot ordered that!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad bot, bad bad bot.

Download.Porn(tentacle)

depends - are they people or a bank/hedge fund?

[Anonymous Coward]

eom

Re:depends - are they people or a bank/hedge fund?

[bobbied]

You beat me to the automated trading angle....

However, Neither matters. If your program or you do the trading, you are liable for the results. So in the case of the article, the person responsible is the one who put the BOT program in motion, just like the hedge fund would make or loose money when they run their program.

Re:depends - are they people or a bank/hedge fund?

[Anonymous Coward]

just like the hedge fund would make or loose money when they run their program.

Spelling mistake aside, the people responsible for the flash crash got their trades rewound. When a hedge fund makes a mistake, they are not the ones who lose money.

As a hungarian...

[Anonymous Coward]

I welcome our new semi-autonomous shopping bot overlord to our country.

Re:As a hungarian...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can a bot have a positive drug test?

Re:As a hungarian...

[Aighearach]

That's one way to replace the lost business income from factory robots... program them to accept a paycheck and shop!

Re:As a hungarian...

[Aighearach]

Can a bot have a positive drug test?

I can program one to, for a fee.

Knock-offs aren't illegal anywhere in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't really matter whether they bought jeans or bags. It's not illegal. The brand owners might have put import embargoes into place which the customs office would deal with, but other than destroying counterfeit items (after sending them to the original manufacturer to find out whether they are actually counterfeit), nothing happens.

Actually illegal things like funny pills are a different thing, though.

Re:Knock-offs aren't illegal anywhere in Europe

[ceoyoyo]

It depends where you are. On one visit to Venice we were told that there was a problem with street vendors selling counterfeit designer bags and it was an automatic 10,000 euro fine if you were caught buying one.

Gun bot.

[Anonymous Coward]

I made a gun bot that shoots a bullet in a random direction 100 times a week. If a bullet hits a person, am I responsible for their death?

Simple answers

[gurps_npc]

First there different levels of responsibility - financial and legal responsibility. Most of the time they are the same, but not always. Some laws take intent into consideration (obvious example is murder in the first degree vs manslaughter/negligent homicide). But there are some rather simple solutions

1) If it was unmodified software sold to someone, and you were using it in the approved fashion, than the corporation that sold it is responsible. If you modified or ignored instructions that relate to the illegal activity, then it is your responsibility.

2) If instead of buying the code, you made it yourself, then you are responsible.

In some cases, where the law takes intent into consideration, then the law would have to prove that the person responsible (seller or creator), had the right intent.

Re:Simple answers

[arkenian]

So I basically agree, the writer is responsible. That said, in this PARTICULAR case, I think its an excellent example of when prosecutorial discretion should apply, as they notified the police immediately etc.

Re: Simple answers

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the cops were preemptively notified, they are actually participating in putting on the exhibit

Bender Should Not Be Allowed on Television

[Thud457]

This bot, it paid for blackjack and hookers?

Re:Bender Should Not Be Allowed on Television

[mjwx]

This bot, it paid for blackjack and hookers?

I dont recall seeing Bender actually pay for Blackjack or Hookers, he just used them a lot.

Wall Street Precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

When a Wall Street program loses money for the owners, they eat it.

If I fuck up and code a program that goes out and buys or trades and buys illegal shit, then it's my fault for being stupid.

Or let's put it this way, I code a program that looks for and downloads kiddie porn. Cops nab me and I just say, "Oopsie. The robot did it, not me!" So, I should get off...I mean let go?

Re:Wall Street Precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you google?

Re:Wall Street Precedent

[wolrahnaes]

When a Wall Street program loses money for the owners, they eat it.

Not always...

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/0...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a040...

Not saying this is common, Knight provides a good example in the other direction and I honestly don't care enough about the markets to know of anything that didn't make national news, just that it seems it depends on the situation.

If I fuck up and code a program that goes out and buys or trades and buys illegal shit, then it's my fault for being stupid.

Legally of course this depends on the jurisdiction, IANAL. Morally I believe this is very grey area and depends primarily on intent. Obviously it's sort of hard to judge intent in most cases, though in this case unleashing it specifically on a "Dark Web" type site does imply at least some knowledge that it'll happen these days.

Then again I have to imagine part of the point of this exhibit was to counter that assumption, that all these sites are good for are illegal things.

By displaying them in such a conspicuous location also changes things compared to if one had tried to use "the computer did it" as an excuse when caught with the same things in their home.

Basically it's probably legally wrong, but I'd have a hard time being convinced that they should actually be punished for it.

Or let's put it this way, I code a program that looks for and downloads kiddie porn. Cops nab me and I just say, "Oopsie. The robot did it, not me!" So, I should get off...I mean let go?

Again depends on the context and the intent. If you wrote a bot that went out looking for anything it thinks is porn to display automatically in an art installation and it happened to come across kiddie porn, it'd certainly be illegal in a lot of jurisdictions. That said, due to the context of displaying the results of a search automatically as art I'd still be unconvinced that punishment is appropriate. The same excuse deployed by someone caught with a collection of images on their own machine should get laughed out of court and them right in to jail.

Re:Wall Street Precedent

[Aighearach]

The reason you're not understanding the legalities is that you're conflating results with intent. Using an intermediary to achieve the same results does not change liability, and that has nothing to do with Wall Street. Having innocent intent and accidentally getting the wrong result, that is already not illegal.

If you program your robot to download pictures of kittens, and a few child porn pictures get downloaded too, your liability rests mostly on what you did in the first moments after you discovered the error; did you delete, or retain?

Lord of the Rings?....

[Anonymous Coward]

.... It should've ordered The One Ring To Rule Them All.

Re:Lord of the Rings?....

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wish there was a -1 (Lame) mod option.

f@ke

[tverbeek]

I assure you that the Louis Vuitton handbag was a knock-off.

Re:f@ke

[Anonymous Coward]

I assure you that the Louis Vuitton handbag was a knock-off.

How can you tell? Is it because the stitching in the corners and zipper don't come loose on the fake?

Re:f@ke

[Anonymous Coward]

I assure you that the Louis Vuitton handbag was a knock-off.

Or stolen.

Oblig XKCD

[khasim]

http://xkcd.com/576/

Corporation bot.

[Anonymous Coward]

I started a corporation to sell guns and our company's gun occasionally goes off without you pulling the trigger. If a bullet hits a person, am I responsible for their death?

Re:Corporation bot.

[SternisheFan]

Yes, to both of you AC's.

Re:Corporation bot.

[Anonymous Coward]

OP here. Yes, the manufacturer of a gun can be liable for the deaths. I saw it on an episode Law and Order, which is a reality TV show about cops and courts.

Re: Corporation bot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah and Coder... I saw it on a cop show and they really grok law dude *ulp* not

Simple answer is:

[bobbied]

You...

If YOUR bot buys something, it does so on your behalf so YOU are responsible. The question here really is: can your lack of understanding of what the bot was going to do provide a defense if your program buys something illegal. I'm guessing the answer to THAT question is "NO" but this is a question for the courts to decide.

Re:Simple answer is:

[Anonymous Coward]

What of all other programmers and the bug-ridden code that allows a plethora of terrible things directly or indirectly to take place? They should be just as guilty as this man. Maybe we should start pushing legal action for every patch that is pushed out to a piece of software.

Re:Simple answer is:

[Old Aylesburian]

If I buy drugs and give them to you then we are both guilty of offenses. The robot cannot own anything, so although it may be difficult to pin the purchase function, clearly the possession charge must be answered.

Likewise...

[Richy_T]

Who's responsible when I point my car, traveling at speed, at a bunch of pedestrians and jump out? There's just no way to know.

Re:Likewise...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they didn't exactly "point it at a bunch of pedestrians", it's more like they "pointed it at random without knowing or caring if there were pedestrians in the line of travel"...

But yeah, your point stands.

Only Semi-Autonomous?

[Rob Riggs]

If it were autonomous, you'd be free and clear. But this "semi-autonomous" bit leads me to believe you were semi-involved.

Re:Only Semi-Autonomous?

[zlives]

its interesting to me

non-autonomous bot = does as programmed = good programmer
autonomous bot = AI = you are a programming god
semi-autonomous = it does random shit = bad programmer

Bad Example

[Richy_T]

Since this is playing in darknet waters, illegality is only likely to be expected. However, I have been playing with the idea of an app that buys random $1 stuff off ebay on either a daily, weekly or ad-hoc basis (Hey, that's less than people spend on cable). I hadn't really considered any issues with legality. The main thing stopping me was I wasn't sure if people would feel comfortable entering their Paypal details.

Re:Bad Example

[Anonymous Coward]

From reading the article, it looks like their exploiting a loophole in Swiss law related to art displays. If this weren't an art exhibit, they probably would be legally responsible for the bot's purchases, and I expect that after the exhibit is pulled they will have to provably destroy the illicit goods in some way.

The slashdot post asks a question which is very dependent on locale and circumstances, and the artists apparently had a lawyer weigh in before they put up their exhibit.

Pets

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace "bot" with "pet" or "livestock" in the article and you will find the question practically answers itself. You will find that in most jurisdictions the "owner" is liable. A web "bot" isn't much different. Who ever enabled it (by running it, or providing the "seed" money) would be liable.

Re: Pets

[Anonymous Coward]

Better call Saul!!

Re:Pets

[Moof123]

Huh?

In this case there is willful negligence going on by pointing a bot in a dangerous direction and pressing go, then throwing your hands up like you had no control. If I cut a horse or cow loose near a busy freeway to see what happens and someone dies I should be responsible for manslaughter and animal neglect. These guys were very intentionally reckless.

Re:Pets

[queazocotal]

The above comment is especially fun - because it varies.
Some animals you keep you have no liability over their actions, and some you do.
(in the UK)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

For example - you are liable for the damage livestock causes to others property.
But this is only "cattle, horses, asses, mules, hinnies, sheep, pigs, goats and poultry, and also deer not in the wild state and, in sections 3 and 9, also, while in captivity, pheasants, partridges and grouse; poultry” means the domestic varieties of the following, that is to say, fowls, turkeys, geese, ducks, guinea-fowls, pigeons, peacocks and quails"

Ostriches, camels, llamas, kangaroos, cats, dogs, parrots, peacocks are not listed, so you aren't.

Unless your dog damages other peoples livestock.
If it savages a Kangaroo - no liability.
Or if your cat kills chickens.

in short - the exact legislation matters.

The obvious question...

[jopsen]

Another human that you create is not a "semi-autonomous bot". It is a self-aware person, and is held responsible for its own actions.

Can you prove that your teenage kid is sentient and fully autonomous?
Actually that an interesting question :) And at what age does this happen?

Re:The obvious question...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Note that I can't prove that YOU are sentient and fully autonomous, much less my kid....

Re:The obvious question...

[rahvin112]

The law in most nations says that at the age of majority you are an independent "person" with the law assuming such a person is sentient and a aware of their actions, though again in most jurisdictions if you can prove you are incapable of rational thought and/or unable to assist with your defense that you are therefore unable to be held culpable and will be committed to a facility until such time as you are.

There have been some rather cool early childhood studies on sentience and self awareness. From my recollection it comes in phases with the first self awareness occurring around 2 when the child realizes they are a separate individual and recognize that in their own reflection. The bulk of self awareness is there by about 5 years old but there is neither experience in life or experience in emotions to make much of that until much later. Most western nations recognize legal independence at around 18 years of age.

Re:The obvious question...

[Mashiki]

Can you prove that your teenage kid is sentient and fully autonomous?
Actually that an interesting question :) And at what age does this happen?

Well....

Yes. It's called mens rea. And it depends on where you live, in some cases it's 9 years old in Canada it's 12 years old. That's the legal definition of "sentient and fully autonomous" while knowing the difference between "right and wrong."

Re:The obvious question...

[Anonymous Coward]

instead of arguing continually over this point it is usual to have the polite convention that everyone thinks

Re:The obvious question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Maybe we are talking now with a bot that barely passes the Turing test, posing as a teenager from Odessa.

Re:The obvious question...

[Anonymous Coward]

My cat is fully autonomous. Sentient? Well it is up to something...

Re: The obvious question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Another thing to consider is the current psychological definition of adolescence in human growth and development biologically. There is some compelling material that adolescence lasts longer than previously considered. I would refer the reader to ask a friend who is taking psych at the grad or postgraduate level for more insight. I mention it even though it isn't directly relevant... but interesting nonetheless

Re:The obvious question...

[gstoddart]

Well, given that parents can be liable for the debts of their adult children, I would argue in those states, they will never be fully autonomous.

So, if you live in any of these states:

Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia

the law says they are never fully autonomous, and you could be on the hook.

Grand, aint it?

What about my knife-spinning bot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is responsible if someone runs into my knife-spinning bot and gets sliced!?

Re:What about my knife-spinning bot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you would be held responsible, much like Google/Audi/etc would be responsible if their self-driving cars injured or killed somebody.

For $100/week

[Anonymous Coward]

I will randomly defend them in court.

They ran the bot on the dark net, of course

[mark_reh]

they are responsible legally. If they didn't want to have legal problems they should have pointed it at Amazon.com or Walmart. Just because they are "artists" doesn't make it art, and doesn't absolve them of legal responsibility. Maybe they were too stupid to anticipate illegal purchases. They are still responsible.

If they had made a gun that randomly shoots moving objects in front of it expecting to shoot birds and squirrels, but it ends up shooting people, would they be legally responsible? Is it art?

Re: They ran the bot on the dark net, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

"Maybe they were too stupid to anticipate illegal purchases. They are still responsible"
Hey Alzheimer- it is run with police cooperation

Re:They ran the bot on the dark net, of course

[Qzukk]

If they didn't want to have legal problems they should have pointed it at Amazon.com or Walmart

So they point it at amazon.com and it buys some drugs from some seller that managed to get them listed, using a code name that the bot just happens to hit at random. What now? (Actually, since magic mushroom spores are legal in large portions of the US I'm a little curious if they can be found on amazon.com, but not curious enough to actually search for them and screw up the already terrible suggestions)

If they had made a gun that randomly shoots moving objects

The problem with all these gun bot scenarios is that in all of these examples, the gun bot is harming someone else. If a corporation shot someone else, it would not be arrested for murder, but it WOULD be sued for the damage it caused.

In this case, the drug bot generally harms no one, and might violate criminal law - if the law says that unintentionally buying drugs is illegal.

Here's a question to really beat your brain on: what if the bot found a hitman and bought a contract, then filled in its owner's address in the "delivery" form. Would this be [assisted] suicide?

Depends on location and...

[denzacar]

...the choice of target.
There are certain people out there willing to kill certain people out there for no money at all.

For bonus points, have the bot convince random people that it is a teenage girl, THEN get them to "off someone" in exchange for sexual favors.
Oldest "girl" with most kills wins.

It's OK. Turing would approve.
I know that from watching that Cabbagepatch movie.

Your Random Shooting Bot

[tomxor]

Not a straw man honest... just highlighting what should be obvious responsibility.

1. You get a gun for your "art project"...

2. You program a robot to randomly fire 100 bullets per week in random directions.

3. Your deploy your robot in an area KNOWN to contain humans.

4. Inevitably... a human is eventually killed given enough time.

Q: Are you responsible for being a fucking moron?

A: yes

Re:Your Random Shooting Bot

[bobbied]

I think the question really is can you claim a viable defense from a first degree murder charge by saying you didn't intend to kill anybody. Surely you are guilty of manslaughter or perhaps something more, but the question here is how much can they convict you of.

Being Stupid? Surely.

Manslaughter (killing w/o intent)? Most likely.

....

Premeditated murder in the first degree? Unlikely

Re:Your Random Shooting Bot

[tomxor]

Yes but within reason... how stupid are you required to be to not see the blatantly obvious. This isn't something easily quantifiable, more likely something a judge with have to defer to "common sense".

Re:Your Random Shooting Bot

[mod prime]

I think the question really is can you claim a viable defense from a first degree murder charge by saying you didn't intend to kill anybody.

I would imagine you'd find yourself dealing with second degree murder: "A killing that results from an act that demonstrates the perpetrators depraved indifference to human life". That's what they get you for if you fire into a crowd without intending anybody actually die, but someone does.

My browser bought drugs. My bot hacked your comput

[raymorris]

If my browser sends an order to buy drugs, based on me clicking things like "Submit Order", I used my computer and browser to make the order. Clearly I'm responsible. Whether I place the order by using cash, a telephone, or a browser, the person running it made the purchase.

If my bot infects your computer, based on me typing code like:
for each ip in network
do
      try_to_infect(ip)
done

I used a Word macro to infect you. Clearly, I am responsible. It doesn't mater if I use a Word macro, a boot-sector virus, or a hammer to destroy your computer - I did it, the hammer or macro is just the tool I used.

If I use my computer to submit an order for illegal drugs by typing:

while true
do
    buy_random_item(piratebay)
done

Then once I again, I bought drugs using a program I wrote as the tool. I'd be the one who chose to order random stuff from someone selling illegal stuff. The bot I wrote is just the tool I used to place the order.

Other side

[Falos]

This bot was only semi-autonomous, it was placed and written and instructed all very specifically. It's hard to consider these events to be unowned.

Today's is easy to consider. But let me play Devil's advocate:

Is the butterfly responsible for the tornado that happens 20 years later?

Then there's a line somewhere and we don't know where it is.

Re:Other side

[Moof123]

A butterfly cannot be reasonably expected to know if its wing flapping will result in a tornado, and there is a high probability that it won't (trillions of wing flaps per day, maybe hundreds of tornadoes per year, and far fewer deadly ones).

Buying stuff from the hidden bowels internet at random is pretty likely to net stolen and or illegal stuff a fair percentage of the time.

So while there is a line, these guys are clearly on one side of it, and the butterfly is quite far on the other side of it. Ignorance is not a defense for the most part.

Did it violate First Law of Robotics?

[billstewart]

If it bought meth or Nigerian Herbal Fake Viagra and let you use it, then yes. (Bad robot!)

If it bought cannabis or some other safe but politically incorrect substance, then it might have violated the Second Law, depending on whether Swiss law commands robots and other non-humans not to buy them, or only humans. (Also, if it bought cannabis and let you drive under the influence, that'd be a First Law problem, but any robot smart enough to buy dope online is smart enough to emulate an Uber app and call for a ride.)

Under US law, property that commits crimes or torts (such as a car used to buy drugs or a dog that bites people) is subject to civil or criminal forfeiture, so your dope-buying robot might be subject to arrest, and might end up as a slave of the US government, buying dope for them instead of you, but I assume Swiss law isn't quite that silly.

intent; negligence

[Anonymous Coward]

if you created this for ebay, you may not be liable. Create it for a darknet market-- designed, intended and majority populated by illegal items-- go fuck yourself you were trying to buy random contraband.

Fake Hungarian Passport

[rossdee]

My hovercraft is full of eels

Re:Fake Hungarian Passport

[Arancaytar]

"I will not buy this passport. It is fake."

So...

[Charliemopps]

So next they take a pipe bomb, place it in a bathroom stall behind the toilet with a fuse that will randomly detonate in the next 24hrs. Maybe there's someone in the stall when it goes off, maybe there's not. How can they be held responsible?

You are

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple as that.

When do we gain sentience? Excellent question

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen people argue that it's OK to abort a non-sentient fetus, but abortion becomes not OK when the fetus achieves sentience (which presumably happens about the time the fetus is born).

But then I point out that the fetus, if it's not aborted, has almost a 100% chance of gaining sentience; and I ask, would it be OK to abort you if you lack sentience because you've slipped into a coma, and you have almost a 100% chance of gaining sentience by emerging from the coma? Suddenly these smug philosophers back away from lack of sentience as a criteria that justifies abortion.

Sad when "Deep Web" means simply "not in Google"

[Anonymous Coward]

But I guess that's what reaping the 20 year harvest of AOL users brings us.

Charge with possession

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in Brazil, the seller is charged for selling and the buyer is charged for possession. From movies and stuff it seems to me that it's the same in the USA.

I have no idea about Swiss law.

Your cat roams the neighborhood at will

[TarPitt]

Then one night shows up at your back door with your neighbor's heroin stash.

Did you break the law or did the cat?

Is the cat effectively your bot?

And can Schrodinger's cat pass the Turing test?

doesn't seem like a conundrum

[silfen]

If these people had created anything resembling an artificial mind with free will, there might be a question here. But they haven't. All they have created is a mechanical device that randomly pushes buttons; the creators of mechanical devices are responsible for what their creations do.

Really?

[bigdavex]

Why is this even a question? The people running the bot are responsible. If a carpenter nails my hand to the door with his nail gun, is the nail gun responsible?

Whoever gave it the money.

[gTsiros]

Not sure if anyone agrees, but it seems simple enough to me.

A car analogy

[KNicolson]

If I programmed my own self-driving car to, for instance, not bother detecting pedestrians (they shouldn't be on the road!) and went off for a drive knocking over a kid or two, I don't think any jury would buy my defense of it not being my fault due to the people illegally being in the roadway.

Re:When do we gain sentience? Excellent question

[FunkSoulBrother]

Ok, just change the criteria to "Once something has achieved sentience, it is no longer moral to abort/take that away".

Problem Solved?

small stones

[umghhh]

3strikes are for wankers and liberals - let them criminals make small stones from big stones for few years and then release them into free marketplace with a permanent criminal record. That will teach them.
If they are abroad drone them down - no need for a court order then.

Robot with a gun shooting randomly

[Anonymous Coward]

If I build a robot, give it a gun, and program it to just shoot randomly of course I'm at fault if it kills someone.

Of course they are responsible

[Anonymous Coward]

It is quite easy really: it is the first person in a chain who is able to take responsability who has to take responsability. For example if you allow your child to purchase and run a bot who buys stuff then neither the bot nor the child is responsible, simply because you are the first who is able to take responsability. You could have prevented your child from doing this and those artists could have decided against letting their bot buy random stuff.
I am fully of the opinion they should no face the consequences.

Re:Nullify tools bots use then... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow !! much trolling, so stalking.

Seriously, this raymorris guy must have blown you up really hard for you to stalk him all over slashdot. All this stalking makes you look really bad.

I'm missing the point

[cyberchondriac]

I admit I don't get it.. what is the purpose of a bot that just randomly buys stuff?? How is that "art" ? Must be nice to have the money to burn, to just buy stuff randomly as an experiment. Even just $100 at a time adds up quickly.

Well... could have gone much worse

[Arancaytar]

At least the bot didn't pay a hitman to have random people killed.

Intent

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no intent to buy drugs, and no intent to use them. There is no risk of harm to another person. Looks like a non-event that will be pointlessly debated by idiots.

Re:Raymorris can prove this wrong then

[Anonymous Coward]

hosts files do for more speed

Oh, yes I even heard you had nice benchmarks to prove this, but I lost the link, can you send them (the benchmarks) back to me ? thanks a ton !! :-)

I also read in a blog post that your 5-million-line long host file is very slow to parse and load on memory, especially the first time (like 20-30 seconds to load from cold boot time) and that it requires admin privileges to edit it which is a highly unsecure design. Is it true ?

And while we're at it, do hosts file allow wildcards ?

WTF is common-sense ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooooh, you mean "common sense" !! So, let's see what that is, from rationalwiki:

Common sense is something which you think you know to be true but that may not actually be true. It is a way of reasoning based on heuristics, and basic rationality applied to that knowledge. However, the danger with common sense is that the scope of knowledge can be quite wrong, and the basic rationality can simply not be deep enough for an attempt at finding truth.

From this, we can deduce that:

1) rationality is not apk's strongest point
2) apk is paranoid
3) apk is an idiot, that's been proven by common-sense over and over again.

care to prove us wrong ? no you won't !! Why's that? YOU CAN'T... & you know it (hence your omitting doing that of course) - truth & fact are like that!

Applying downmods now, raymorris? LOL... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Took you a whole DAY raymorris, trying to hide your fail vs. this http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

Haven't seen you disprove my others points today which BLEW YOURS AWAY (by ac posts no less from you, lol) INVALID "point" of yours -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... by INVALID & DISPROVEN point from you yet again http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

( Big raymorris (lol, NOT), the "security expert" (not, you're a wannabe) can't seem to get the best of myself, as always... lol! See below...)

APK

P.S.=> I certainly HAVE with YOU, raymorris, shooting your mouth on on things you have NO CLUE on (let's quote it, shall we, for posterities' sake):

"I've just learned to keep my mouth shut if I don't know. I only say something when I know it to be true." - by raymorris (2726007) on Sunday August 10, 2014 @06:20PM (#47643835)

Like when you FALSELY stated Windows "just started" to do whitelisting raymorris -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

CLUE, Mr. wannabe: It's been there since XP even (just not as front-end gui easy automated etc.)... apk

Re:My browser bought drugs. My bot hacked your com

[Anonymous Coward]

Raymorris: Applying downmods to those that get the best of you != winning http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Common-sense + fact = more than you have

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove YOUR point via benchmarks

MY point is that you don't have any benchmark to prove YOUR point.

MY benchmark for proving MY point is the zillion spam-like posts YOU fed us up with without a single benchmark in any of them.

I therefore have a zillion datapoints showing "no benchmark from apk" and exactly zero datapoint showing "a benchmark from apk".

Consequently, the authors of the present post reckon a statistically significant tendency from said apk to make a lot of wind without any proof by the scientific mean of benchmarks and another statistically significant tendency to assume proof by the pseudo-scientific mean of "Common-Sense" [sic].

To the above problem of benchmark (or lack thereof), we propose one of the following solutions:

1) show us some real benchmark
2) edit your hosts and add the line "127.0.0.1 slashdot.org"
3) STFU

Failing to execute one of these actions will be assumed as a benchmarked proof of bad faith on apk's side and treated as such.

Re:Common-sense + fact = more than you have

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's yours? Apk posted adblock's inefficiencies (a valid benchmark). Take your advice: STFU (hypocrite). You can't even touch the points he put out. You fail.

Re:Common-sense + fact = more than you have

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you can't read ?

MY point is that you don't have any benchmark to prove YOUR point.

MY benchmark for proving MY point is the zillion spam-like posts YOU fed us up with without a single benchmark in any of them.

Re:Common-sense + fact = more than you have

[Anonymous Coward]

Apk posted adblock's inefficiencies (a valid benchmark).

Oh my .... you don't even science, do you ? a list of unproven claims is not a benchmark ...

And you're talking third person again ... go take your meds.

Wladimir Palant (adblock's coder) admits it

[Anonymous Coward]

Those aren't unproven. Wladimir Palant even admits it's all true. Ask him yourself http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... his design, no matter what he does, is a ram and cpu hog.

Re:Wladimir Palant (adblock's coder) admits it

[Anonymous Coward]

1) that article you link is not about adblock plus being a cpu hog. You could at least put some effort into giving us the proper link idiot.
2) it doesn't show that hosts are more efficient, faster and less heavy in RAM.
3) you don't even science, do you ?

don't forget: "127.0.0.1 slashdot.org" ;-)

This one is... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Adblock's inefficiency in RAM + CPU usage -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

* There you go!

(Whoever you're arguing with posted the wrong link from my post below you're running from is all...)

APK

P.S.=> Now the burden of proof is on you to prove my points wrong on what hosts can do, & adblock/ghostery can't... apk