• AeronMelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Whomever allowed that robot outside is to blame. If they have grievances, they can sue whomever wrote the software or built the device. Keep sending the buck up until it reaches the top.

    • eicker@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      The responsibility should lie with the company that decided the robot was safe enough to deploy. How it distributes liability among its developers, manufacturers and suppliers is its problem, not the public’s.

      • xtr0n@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        11 hours ago

        When it’s a criminal matter, the assigment of blame is absolutely a public matter. If you or I caused a car accident with irresponsible use of an RC car or a consumer drone, we would be facing criminal prosecution. The fact that no one is likely to face charges in this case is a huge failure of public policy.

        • eicker@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 hours ago

          💯 That’s an important distinction: Civil liability determines who pays for the damage, while criminal responsibility addresses whether someone’s negligence was serious enough to constitute a crime. And that question absolutely deserves public scrutiny. Automation must not become a shield against criminal accountability.