But we're talking about you deliberately not securing or even actively reducing the security of your property in a manner that could reasonably be predicted to lead to harm to other's property, and that harm occuring, through no fault of the harmed party. You're not supposed to store loaded guns unsecured on your front porch (not around here anyways).
>By any chance, are you European? Europeans seem to have very different concepts of freedom and liability than we do.
No, I'm from the US.
>You are using loaded words to 1) imply I would support some questionable actions where you assume intent and 2) refer to negative externalities, but I'll suppose you are not trolling interact in good faith with you.
I'm asking whether you would, not suggesting that you do. But yes, the acts in question were significantly more questionable than those in my previous comment, since your answer to that was more extreme than I expected. So how about the middle ground: Do you believe that the EPA should impose restrictions on companies' or citizens' right to dump whatever toxic waste they want into rivers? If you think the physical commons should be protected from predictable harm by negligence or reckless disregard, why not the digital?