• HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Except if they were halfway intelligent they wouldn’t have it go automatically to the site.

    And when you do this and something goes really wrong criminal charges get laid.

    • HalfAHero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Can we just get a website that plays a soundbite at full volume screaming about how they person is bad at privacy practices, maybe with Korn in the background for maximum embarrassment?

    • Krafty Kactus@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m not sure if you could actually get criminal charges for this unless you were hosting the malware in which case that’s another issue. It would essentially be the same as walking around with a website URL on your shirt. The observer is responsible for typing in the URL or scanning the code and what they decide to do on the website that follows.

          • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            I don’t know about the states, but here in Canada the government takes the position “ignorance of the law is not a defence”.

                • LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  “Malice” implies intent. Accidents are not malicious. Neglect in the worst case. So certainly any charges could not be based on malice.

                • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Christ you’re a cordial fellow

                  I was, I thought quite clearly, having a joking poke. Obviously “didn’t know lol” isn’t a defense.

                  • LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    Consider florida, where if you are caught with shrooms that are wet, freshly picked, they cannot convict you for carrying contraband because you do not necessarily know what you picked.

                    Laws are often based on intent. In some cases, penalties vary depending on intent. It would be an unacceptably brutally harsh law to judge someone under a presumption of harmful intent for something they might have no awareness of.

                    QR codes can have icons on them. Certainly if I created such a t-shirt, I would put some cool looking icon in the center of it. Someone being dragged through the system might argue “i did not know that qr code was real… i just liked the cat in the middle of it”.

      • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Not if it incites violence, causes harm or any of the other carve outs in the first amendment of the USA.

        I am aware that the post is supposed to be funny, and you are most likely making a joke, but this is the internet and these sort of disclaimers tend to be necessary.

        • LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          A smart attack would be coupled with a clear message. Have the malware clobber them with anti-evil messages and just like that you have a sound free speech defense.