This is a somewhat tricky one. The manufacturer of a product is liable for damage caused by that product, whether through normal use, or accidental or intentional misuse - but only damage to the user. In other words, if I smash my thumb with a hammer, I _could_ sue the manufacturer for not putting in sufficient safeguards to prevent damage.
However.
This does not mean that the manufacturer of the hammer is responsible if I use that hammer to kill someone. The manufacturer is not responsible, because this was not the intended or obvious use of the hammer.
Gun manufacturers, thus far, have not been held criminally liable (but may have been held civilly liable) for murders by those using guns they made.
To the point at hand, though.
Are the developers of rootkits and other mechanisms for breaking into systems, criminally or civilly liable for the criminal use of such mechanisms? Criminally, no. Civilly, quite possibly, because of the intended use of the mechanism.
My $0.02 adjusted for inflation.
Obviously it's a common practice for employers to ask/require employees to sign noncompete agreements before they begin employment. I was recently offered a position at another company (an offer I turned down, by the way) that had such a clause in their standard employee agreement. I informed them that I would not be willing to sign such an agreement, they responded that they would talk to their lawyers about removing it.
All that aside - if you don't want to have to worry about noncompete agreements, move to a "Right to Work" state like Virginia, where such contracts are difficult if not impossible to enforce.
Many places that I've seen have required that employees who are to receive training first sign a contract agreeing to stay on board for anywhere between 6 and 18 months. This at least ensures that the company will be able to realize SOME of their investment, even if not all of it. In some states, such binding contracts are not entirely legal, and so there may be a clause that allows the employee to leave, but requires him to repay the training costs if he does so.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a somewhat tricky one. The manufacturer of a product is liable for damage caused by that product, whether through normal use, or accidental or intentional misuse - but only damage to the user. In other words, if I smash my thumb with a hammer, I _could_ sue the manufacturer for not putting in sufficient safeguards to prevent damage. However. This does not mean that the manufacturer of the hammer is responsible if I use that hammer to kill someone. The manufacturer is not responsible, because this was not the intended or obvious use of the hammer. Gun manufacturers, thus far, have not been held criminally liable (but may have been held civilly liable) for murders by those using guns they made. To the point at hand, though. Are the developers of rootkits and other mechanisms for breaking into systems, criminally or civilly liable for the criminal use of such mechanisms? Criminally, no. Civilly, quite possibly, because of the intended use of the mechanism. My $0.02 adjusted for inflation.
Obviously it's a common practice for employers to ask/require employees to sign noncompete agreements before they begin employment. I was recently offered a position at another company (an offer I turned down, by the way) that had such a clause in their standard employee agreement. I informed them that I would not be willing to sign such an agreement, they responded that they would talk to their lawyers about removing it. All that aside - if you don't want to have to worry about noncompete agreements, move to a "Right to Work" state like Virginia, where such contracts are difficult if not impossible to enforce.
Many places that I've seen have required that employees who are to receive training first sign a contract agreeing to stay on board for anywhere between 6 and 18 months. This at least ensures that the company will be able to realize SOME of their investment, even if not all of it. In some states, such binding contracts are not entirely legal, and so there may be a clause that allows the employee to leave, but requires him to repay the training costs if he does so.