View Single Post
Old 05-04-2012, 03:55 PM   #91
HarryT
eBook Enthusiast
HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
HarryT's Avatar
 
Posts: 85,557
Karma: 93980341
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by sun surfer View Post
Consider this similar but extreme hypothetical example: Suppose there was a new wave in murders of people sneaking into houses, stealing knives, murdering with them, and then returning them to the house. Say the practice was extremely widespread. Now let's also suppose that, indeed, there was a wave of people using their own knives to murder people as well.

Now, suppose the police and prosecutors had no other evidence to go on, but somehow they could identify the exact knife used in each murder and which house it was located in. Should the burden of responsibility be on the owner of the knife? Since it was their knife, and they didn't guard it well enough, they should be convicted for murder?

Also, should the burden of proof be on the owner of the knife, since the police can prove nothing except that the person owned a knife that was used in a murder? Using this hypothetical example your only options would be to punish all the owners of the knives used to murder, even though many would be innocent, to make sure the guilty are punished, or to let even the guilty go free unless and until better evidence could be found. Which would you choose? I'm actually very interested to hear your choice Harry, if you'll make one and let us know.
OK, yes, let's explore your example a little further. Let's replace your knives with guns, shall we? Where I live, if you own a gun, you have to:

1. Keep it at all times, unloaded, (other than when it's being used or cleaned) in an approved locked steel cabinet, which must be bolted to a structural wall of the house.

2. Keep any ammunition in a separate, locked, bolted, etc etc etc.

If someone breaks into your house, finds a gun that is NOT in the mandated locked, secure storage, and steals it, then YOU will go to prison for a good many years. British law does not look kindly on people who own guns and do not look after them. Your property. Your responsibility. Yes, even if a criminal breaks in and steals it it's your responsibility, because the whole purpose of the laws which dicate the circumstances under which someone is allowed to keep a gun at home are designed precisely with that situation in mind.

Now, if your gun IS kept locked up in the approved manner, and a serious criminal breaks in to your house and uses an oxy-acetylene torch to cut it from your locked safe, you won't be punished, because you've taken the necessary precuations that the law deems to be necessary to look after it.

Now, I'm not suggesting that an internet connection is as dangerous as a gun, but I am suggesting that, having taken the decision to acquire it, you have a responsibility to look after it and take the necessary safety precautions to ensure that it can't easily be abused. If a dedicated criminal steals your service despite you taking reasonable safety precautions then no, that's not your fault, but if you've left your system wide open to abuse then you have to take responsibility for that.
HarryT is offline   Reply With Quote