>If someone starts running a meth lab out of your unlocked cellar, at what point do you become culpable for not knowing?
Are you implying that the property owner is liable because they neglected to lock the cellar, or because they weren't aware a crime was taking place there?
If the former, isn't that as clear an example of victim blaming as telling people to carry firearms/protection if they don't want to be sexually assaulted?
In a civil society, it is not the responsibility or duty of the victim to set up security measures to prevent themselves from being victimized. It is the responsibility and duty of the culprit to not commit those unlawful crimes in the first place.
Bringing the analogy back to security - who is guilty of a crime when a ransomware attack happens, the victim, or the criminal (who obtained unauthorized access, and used that access to perform extortion)?
>or because they weren't aware a crime was taking place there?
If someone is running a meth lab out of your cellar for a year, and you don't notice the smell, the power bill, the people coming and going, at what point are you no longer able to claim ignorance? If your answer is: you can claim ignorance indefinitely, what is preventing someone from just letting a meth lab be run from their basement and taking cash on the side? If the police can't find the cash, you're just not guilty?
>It is not the responsibility of the victim to set up security measures to prevent themselves from being victimized.
It is ABSOLUTELY the responsibility of the "victim" to not create an environment that FACILITATES crime. If you leave a gun unsupervised and unlocked on your front step, and a neighbor kid "steals" the gun off your front steps and proceeds to shoot and kill their friend, you are going to jail despite you being the "victim" of theft. Your internet connection in this instance is the loaded gun when your systems are being used in DDoS attacks.
With this statement you’re arguing past the person you’re responding to. If you are taking cash on the side to feign ignorance when the DEA comes squawking about the meth lab in your basement then you are clearly in the know.
Nobody is talking about negligence here. Your rebuttal is essentially “well victims can be blamed if they’re being negligent”. Yeah, sure, by definition they’re not just a victim, they’re a negligent individual. (I mean I’d even argue they can be blamed for less—I’m not one of those 100% the victim is always innocent types, but that’s a different topic.)
The original question is if you are honestly unaware (and not negligent) that your property is being used to commit a crime, are you culpable for the crime? The answer is a resounding “no”.
If someone hacks your PC and installs botnet software, and it evades your OS antivirus heuristics and protections because it’s a sophisticated root-kit, then no, you’re not culpable.
>With this statement you’re arguing past the person you’re responding to. If you are taking cash on the side to feign ignorance when the DEA comes squawking about the meth lab in your basement then you are clearly in the know.
Ironic that you're doing what you accused me of. I didn't say the person was taking cash, I asked WHEN op would consider the person to be culpable. You literally took an entire discussion and clipped four words then made up a bunch of stuff I didn't actually say or even imply.
>The original question is if you are honestly unaware (and not negligent) that your property is being used to commit a crime, are you culpable for the crime? The answer is a resounding “no”.
That was NOT the original question. The original question was whether or not someone could sue the police for removing malware and patching their system. My example was the cops shutting down a meth lab and locking the door.
Be my guest attempting to sue, and be prepared to have to defend yourself in a court of law that you were truly unaware. That's going to be a VERY expensive proposition - so who in their right mind would even start down that path?
Yes, and there’s plenty of case law to support that -
In fact, one of the most popular TV shows of all time had its finale specifically addressing the fact that a law needed to be made to discourage “bystanders” from actively ignoring crime.
Landlords can indeed be liable is many ways for some kinds of illegal activity that take place on their property (especially if it involves drugs.) There are a variety of local and federal laws that enable this.
Are you implying that the property owner is liable because they neglected to lock the cellar, or because they weren't aware a crime was taking place there?
If the former, isn't that as clear an example of victim blaming as telling people to carry firearms/protection if they don't want to be sexually assaulted?
In a civil society, it is not the responsibility or duty of the victim to set up security measures to prevent themselves from being victimized. It is the responsibility and duty of the culprit to not commit those unlawful crimes in the first place.
Bringing the analogy back to security - who is guilty of a crime when a ransomware attack happens, the victim, or the criminal (who obtained unauthorized access, and used that access to perform extortion)?