Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by rahimnathwani | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

rahimnathwani·

Right, and from the POV of the child, the parent is liable.

View on HN

The child is crying, because the parent took the toy away.

Liable is a bit strong word here, liability without fault is mainly rejected concept in modern world.

If so, why is the retailer liable but not the parent?

I think retailer's liability here is also limited.

Imagine you are a shop selling cola in can.

If coca cola company put some unhealthy stuff in, you are not liable just for selling it. But if you made the stuff unhealthy because you stored it in direct sunlight long time, you are liable.

Because the parent is a natural person and the retailer is the last commercial entity in the chain. If the purchaser was a day-care center or other commercial entity, liability would be with them.

"without fault"? Is it reasonable to assume that a cheap internet connected toy with a video camera and microphone is secure enough to use without any precautions?

" secret embedded camera "

I bought "child's toy" and sold you "child's today", you expect seller to check every toy if there is "secret camera" ?

Yeah, I expect the seller to know what they're selling.

Interesting. So if you buy such a device for a gift, not knowing that it has a secret camera, and then decide you don't want it and resell it on Ebay, you'd agree that now it is you who are liable?

Sorry I don't have anything more substantive to add, but yes, I would be liable.

caveat emptor

This is settled now, everyone says google shouldn't have put a secret camera in their fancy thermostats:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19407147

Reply on news.ycombinator.com