[87598] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hannigan, Martin)
Tue Dec 27 19:01:36 2005
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:00:57 -0500
From: "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan@verisign.com>
To: "NANOG" <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C60B41.C789C483
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We didn't want it the first time. Try network operations.
(rushes to finish the jc dill killfile entry)
-----Original Message-----
From: JC Dill [mailto:lists05@equinephotoart.com]
Sent: Tue Dec 27 18:01:29 2005
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?
Here is the link again:
<http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm>
Please spend some time reading that site to educate yourself about the=20
facts and common misconceptions about this incident before you try any=20
further analogies based on it.=20
In *this* case the injured woman had done most[1] of the reasonable=20
things one should do to try to mitigate injury, but she was seriously=20
injured and the seriousness of the injury was directly due to the=20
product being defective. McDonalds was held liable because they=20
knowingly and intentionally sold a defective product even after having=20
over 700 prior incidents (serious burns) reported to them due to this=20
defect (the coffee being too hot).=20
Jason Frisvold wrote:
>Still, a little common sense... Hot coffee of any type, between the
>legs, in a moving car? Umm.. even "normal" coffee still causes a
>jump of pain. That jump of pain could easily cause a car accident.
>
<quote>
Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge=20
that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when=20
she spilled the coffee; neither is true.
</quote>
The coffee wasn't just "hot", it was much too hot to be safely=20
consumed. Note that
<quote>
[if the] spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have =
cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn
</quote>
and
<quote>
The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer=20
third degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of=20
the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the=20
writing would not warn customers of the hazard.
</quote>
Now let us consider Microsoft's continued sales of defective Windows and =
IE software given their track record for failing to ensure that their=20
product works safely and doesn't enable others to cause damage to the=20
user's system and data or (of primary importance to the networking=20
community) the systems and networks of others:
<http://bcheck.scanit.be/bcheck/page.php?name=3DSTATS2004>
Even if the end user updates their Windows/IE software the minute a=20
security update is available, their browser would still have been=20
vulnerable for all but 7 days in 2004! I wonder how 2005 has been=20
shaping up. Hmmm. I wonder if Stella's lawyers would like to take on=20
Microsoft....
jc
[1] The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This =
amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C60B41.C789C483
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>We didn't want it the first time. Try network =
operations.<BR>
<BR>
(rushes to finish the jc dill killfile entry)<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: JC Dill [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:lists05@equinephotoart.com">mailto:lists05@equinephotoart.=
com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Tue Dec 27 18:01:29 2005<BR>
To: NANOG<BR>
Subject: Re: Compromised =
machines liable for damage?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Here is the link again:<BR>
<BR>
<<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm">http://www.lectlaw.com/fi=
les/cur78.htm</A>><BR>
<BR>
Please spend some time reading that site to educate yourself about =
the<BR>
facts and common misconceptions about this incident before you try =
any<BR>
further analogies based on it.<BR>
<BR>
In *this* case the injured woman had done most[1] of the reasonable<BR>
things one should do to try to mitigate injury, but she was =
seriously<BR>
injured and the seriousness of the injury was directly due to the<BR>
product being defective. McDonalds was held liable because =
they<BR>
knowingly and intentionally sold a defective product even after =
having<BR>
over 700 prior incidents (serious burns) reported to them due to =
this<BR>
defect (the coffee being too hot).<BR>
<BR>
Jason Frisvold wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>Still, a little common sense... Hot coffee of any type, =
between the<BR>
>legs, in a moving car? Umm.. even "normal" =
coffee still causes a<BR>
>jump of pain. That jump of pain could easily cause a car =
accident.<BR>
><BR>
<quote><BR>
Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often =
charge<BR>
that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion =
when<BR>
she spilled the coffee; neither is true.<BR>
</quote><BR>
<BR>
The coffee wasn't just "hot", it was much too hot to be =
safely<BR>
consumed. Note that<BR>
<BR>
<quote><BR>
[if the] spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would =
have<BR>
cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn<BR>
</quote><BR>
<BR>
and<BR>
<BR>
<quote><BR>
The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could =
suffer<BR>
third degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side =
of<BR>
the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since =
the location of the<BR>
writing would not warn customers of the hazard.<BR>
</quote><BR>
<BR>
Now let us consider Microsoft's continued sales of defective Windows =
and<BR>
IE software given their track record for failing to ensure that =
their<BR>
product works safely and doesn't enable others to cause damage to =
the<BR>
user's system and data or (of primary importance to the networking<BR>
community) the systems and networks of others:<BR>
<BR>
<<A =
HREF=3D"http://bcheck.scanit.be/bcheck/page.php?name=3DSTATS2004">http://=
bcheck.scanit.be/bcheck/page.php?name=3DSTATS2004</A>><BR>
<BR>
Even if the end user updates their Windows/IE software the minute a<BR>
security update is available, their browser would still have been<BR>
vulnerable for all but 7 days in 2004! I wonder how 2005 has =
been<BR>
shaping up. Hmmm. I wonder if Stella's lawyers would like to =
take on<BR>
Microsoft....<BR>
<BR>
jc<BR>
<BR>
[1] The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. =
This amount<BR>
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at<BR>
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in<BR>
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee<BR>
sales.<BR>
<BR>
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at =
the<BR>
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.<BR>
<BR>
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 =
--<BR>
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called<BR>
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C60B41.C789C483--
