Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by closewith 911 days ago
> People who use such a feature would surely have a backup strategy in case their phone dies, the battery dies, is stolen, is lost, or is unavailable for any number of reasons (fucked up OTA update? hacked?

People become inured to extreme risks. It's common to come across people with history of anaphylaxis who only carry one or zero epipens, despite the extreme risk of death.
1 comments
127361 911 days ago
And it is their negligence there. It should not be the fault of the prankster who used the Flipper Zero to temporarily crash consumer information devices (people's iPhones).

Some schools ban phones completely. And the school is not responsible if the children can't call 911 if there's some emergency for example.

And some buildings are constructed of materials which will obstruct the mobile signal as well. Nobody is held responsible for that when they can't call 911.

And I believe it's perfectly legal for me to use radio-blocking paint on the walls of my own house, that might obstruct the signals for the neighbours as well, if I'm hypothetically in a weak signal area. In that case the mobile operator has no right to force their signals through my home, it's within my right to block it as long as I don't use any form of illegal jamming.

link
closewith 911 days ago
Nah, if you effect other people's property, you are morally responsible for the foreseeable outcomes. You don't get to absolve yourself of responsibility because you've decided that their preparedness didn't meet your expectations.
link
127361 911 days ago
Some examples, e.g. court judgements?
link
ziml77 911 days ago
You need laws to stop you from being a shitbag, messing with other peoples' stuff?

The person you're replying to was also careful to say you are morally responsible. That has nothing to do with legal issues.

link
127361 911 days ago
Sorry. Yes I agree that you can be morally culpable for it, but not legally. I didn't notice the distinction there.
link
ziml77 911 days ago
I should also apologize. I was over-aggressive in my response. Just ticks me off to see a comment that seems like it's defending messing with property of others (which you actually didn't imply, but instead I inferred it).
link