News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Uber will not re-apply for self-driving car permit in Cal... by atomical on Tuesday March 27, 2018 @09:44PM (#16694497)
This is comparable to prosecuting the developer who works for a gun manufacturer when a new type of digital "safety" fails.
Re:Uber will not re-apply for self-driving car permit in Cal... by Whitestrake on Wednesday March 28, 2018 @01:13AM (#16695479)
An equally fair comparison. I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and I'm really just spit-balling for discussion's sake and because I consider it interesting; please do poke holes in my reasoning.

Presumably the developer in this scenario is not responsible for guaranteeing to and/or misleading a customer that his code adequately renders a deadly weapon safe, more likely that responsibility falls on the managers whose project it was to implement such a digital "safety" and instructed the developer to write the code in the first place.

Assuming the developer did not write the code with the intent of bringing about a person's death, which might involve fooling his superiors as to the efficacy of his work, I'd wager he can't be guilty of a crime. Outside of that, I believe vicarious liability applies.

Perhaps he was a one-man department of this hypothetical gun manufacturer, implementing, deploying, and marketing his product himself and of his own initiative; I don't think there's any doubt he'd be liable in this case, the extent of which is dependent on his intention.

Perhaps our developer was self-employed as a contractor, and warranted to his client (the hypothetical gun manufacturer) that the code was safe; assuming the manufacturer used it as warranted, and it failed, I'd assume the developer would be mostly liable for the result.