• @HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    08 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
      18 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      08 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.

      • @Malfeasant@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        08 months ago

        I tend to agree that this is how it should be, that doesn’t mean that’s how it is. If you walk around with a T-shirt that says “kill all CEOs” along with where to find them, you’re going to run into some trouble, despite being a similar situation- you’re just giving instructions, it’s up to the viewer what to do with them.

          • @HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            08 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”.

            • apotheotic (she/her)
              link
              fedilink
              English
              18 months ago

              You’re not being ignorant of the law - you’re being ignorant of the weird computer square printed on the shirt you thrifted

                • @LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  04 months 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)
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  0
                  edit-2
                  8 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
                    14 months 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
        08 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.