Who's Responsible When Your Semi-Autonomous Shopping Bot Purchases Drugs Online? 182
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.
i cant even (Score:3, Funny)
Re: i cant even (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
$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.
Depends on location and... (Score:4, Funny)
...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.
Re: (Score:1)
don't drop the soap judge and jury bot just give you life with no parole
Bender Should Not Be Allowed on Television (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:i cant even (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Yes, but for specific reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 'reck
Re:Yes, but for specific reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The obvious question... (Score:5, Insightful)
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? :) And at what age does this happen?
Actually that an interesting question
Re:The obvious question... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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 re
Re:The obvious question... (Score:4, Informative)
Can you prove that your teenage kid is sentient and fully autonomous? :) And at what age does this happen?
Actually that an interesting question
Well....
Yes. It's called mens rea. [wikipedia.org] 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: (Score:3)
Well, given that parents can be liable for the debts of their adult children [mcall.com], I would argue in those states, they will never be fully autonomous.
So, if you live in any of these states [elderlawanswers.com]:
the law says they are ne
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, just change the criteria to "Once something has achieved sentience, it is no longer moral to abort/take that away".
Problem Solved?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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 re
Re: (Score:3)
Having your personal conveyance device break is abnormal or unexpected function. The bot buying (at random) whatever was available was the intended function.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [lawyers.com].
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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 distinct
Re: (Score:2)
... 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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 hi
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 app
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>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: (Score:2)
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 stron
Wall Street Precedent (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
When a Wall Street program loses money for the owners, they eat it.
Not always...
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/0... [cnn.com]
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a040... [ft.com]
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 i
Re: (Score:2)
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
Oblig XKCD (Score:5, Funny)
http://xkcd.com/576/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 waitin
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The Absolutely Fabulous Robot (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
...and it's on drugs. And it has a fake Hungarian passport to its name.
Re:The Absolutely Fabulous Robot (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
As a hungarian... (Score:1)
I welcome our new semi-autonomous shopping bot overlord to our country.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one way to replace the lost business income from factory robots... program them to accept a paycheck and shop!
Re: (Score:3)
Can a bot have a positive drug test?
I can program one to, for a fee.
Simple answers (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
f@ke (Score:2)
I assure you that the Louis Vuitton handbag was a knock-off.
Re: (Score:1)
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?
Simple answer is: (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Likewise... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Only Semi-Autonomous? (Score:2)
Re:Only Semi-Autonomous? (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
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.
They ran the bot on the dark net, of course (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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)
Your Random Shooting Bot (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:3)
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.
Fake Hungarian Passport (Score:3)
My hovercraft is full of eels
Re: (Score:2)
"I will not buy this passport. It is fake."
So... (Score:2)
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?
Your cat roams the neighborhood at will (Score:3)
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 (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
Not sure if anyone agrees, but it seems simple enough to me.
A car analogy (Score:2)
Well... could have gone much worse (Score:2)
At least the bot didn't pay a hitman to have random people killed.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Whoever is in physical possession of the drugs (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Did it violate First Law of Robotics? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Because possession of drugs is a victim-less crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you happen to have stolen them from someone :)
Re: (Score:2)
Event then the possession is victim-less. What creates the victim is the theft.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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.
Corporation bot. (Score:1)
I started a corporation to sell guns and our company's gun occasionally goes off [remington.com] without you pulling the trigger. If a bullet hits a person, am I responsible for their death?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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. Ignoranc
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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/... [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 variet