Hacker News Reader

Comment by alamortsubite | Hacker News Reader

Now that the cops have helped her get the message out, by arresting her, would a better approach be to go up to the robot, say "Hi, I'm giving these out for free today, if you don't want one, let me know," put a bag over the camera pod, and leave? It seems like her time is too valuable to waste actually blocking the robot.

View on HN

I think that actually would be much more likely to result in a charge that would be harder to defend against, by intentionally interfering with someone else's property in a more physical/touch way. computer programmers are among the ones who mistakenly that think a charade where you pretend like you might think the robot can respond and say "no thanks" (and weren't really giving them out for free to anyone else) is a legal defense. The law does not work that way.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I'm a lion tamer and I have plenty of bags to give away.

I look forward to running into you and getting one for free, just to clear up any concern I hereby give you advance permission to put it over my head when I don't respond to your question! So long as you don't tie it shut after and put me in the back of a van or anything like that, just a dainty easily removed placement.

If you truly believe that by giving free bags to the burrito robot, the law compels me to give them to everybody, then I'll give you one gladly, for that is a sweet fantasy.

oh no, they'll prosecute you for bagging burito bot anyway, but I'll still play.

i'll even help post bail!

No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

You couldn't do that to a mute person, an infant or someone's pet, what makes you think it's legal. At least if it was a mute person you could try to claim you didn't know they were a mute, with a robot it's straightforward that you blinded it on purpose because you knew it couldn't respond.

Yes! Unless you truly believe mute people lack agency and the ability to communicate their feelings and wants as well as the rest of us, but this would be a sad position to take. I hope you don't really feel that way.

The infants and pets analogy is silly. Are you suggesting that if someone leaves their unattended infant or pet on the public sidewalk, the rest of are simply to skirt and ignore it? Since we can't be sure of the robot's intentions (it's behaving erratically, has it been hacked?), and the owner is nowhere to be found, disabling it seems like the safest thing for everyone, especially if there's automotive traffic nearby and it might wander off-course and cause a crash.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com