[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: liability for selling bad crypto?
Ah yes, after being foiled in their "shareholder protection" class
action suits filed after a stock drops and realizing that the y2k hype
is likely to not engender much support in the courts these parasites
are looking for a nice thick vein to suck dry.
The tobacco industry is on the ropes for lying and witholding documents
(but then so is the White House and the DNC so what's new, huh?) but look
how many smoking-related suits have been sucessful against them. Frightfully
few. Even for people who smoked before the Surgeon General's Warning! That's
highly relevant. Stupidity on behalf of the buyer won't find much favor
in a court I fear, but that probably won't stop the slime from filing suit.
Ever heard of the "Tort Tax"? It's about 45% of the cost of a ladder; about
90% of the cost of children's medicine. It's a negligible amout of the cost
of hardware and software but that may soon change.
Dan.
> By the way, the "cryptography" mailing list has been having an
> interesting discussion of whether companies are liable for selling bad
> crypto products or for relying upon them if they know that they are
> bad. I'm forwarding one of the recent messages on the topic. The
> entire discussion has been interesting thus far, although only some of
> the participants have been lawyers.
>
> Relevance? Look no further than 40 bit DES.
Follow-Ups:
References: