OK then lets take not a murder but a bug in Apache or another webserver software and somone abuses it to gain access to the password database. Do you think the judge would say OK because the developer made a error you are not guilty of illegaly access the password database and download the CC Infos and abuse it?
I could just paste my prior response here with slight modification and it would still do the job. If my reasoning had taken a form such as
1) All producers are responsible for all unplanned actions carried out using their products
2) MindArk is a producer
3) Entropia exploits are unplanned actions carried out on Entropia, one of MindArk's products
____
∴ MindArk is responsible for Entropia exploits
or
1) All software producers are responsible for all unplanned actions carried out using their software
2) MindArk is a software producer
3) Entropia exploits are unplanned actions carried out on Entropia, MindArk's software
____
∴ MindArk is responsible for Entropia exploits
then your alleged counterexamples would have at least face value relevance to the key first premise, but I never proposed such far reaching, universally quantified statements as part of my case. Rather, I drew from the nature of video game exploits directly, and so my case would be unfazed by responsibility being distributed unilaterally to the hacker in your credit card database example.
But ironically, responsibility distribution
isn't unilateral even in your inapplicable database example (in your inapplicable murder example, it was). If something like a credit card database or a cryptocurrency wallet is hacked, it is indeed a moral failure on the part of the hacker, but it's hard to deny that it is also a failure on the part of the security provider, whose value proposition is, at least in part, cybersecurity. In fact, I would argue that the failure of the security provider to fulfill their responsibility to their customers is the bigger story here; it hardly surprises me that someone out there is trying to break into a database, but it is much more alarming when poor security allows them to succeed.
I suspect the reason you failed to recognize this counterproductivity of your example is that you've grossly misunderstood my conclusion. Your questions "
Do you think the judge would say OK because the developer made a error you are not guilty of illegaly access the password database and download the CC Infos and abuse it?" and "
Do you think the thief of the CC infos would keep the illegaly earned money from using CC's of others he gained access to by his stealing of the Infos though abusing the Bug in the Software?" portray my conclusion to be that MindArk should take
sole responsibility for exploitation, and never take any corrective action against players, but both of my posts explicitly reject this approach. I merely conclude that MindArk should take
primary responsibility; they should be more concerned with fixing the game to align players' actions with their design intentions than dishing out mass penalties of an unduly harsh nature to achieve those intentions through fear and coercion, but I would not deny that players are responsible for adhering to the rules of the game, or that there are conditions under which issuing certain penalties for exploiting the game is appropriate. I think MindArk has historically done a reasonably good job (at least a better job than the player base under the present, information-cascade-shaped, conditions of opinion formation and aggregation) of deciding when they have sufficient conditions and confidence to issue penalties without creating greater concerns for fairness than they fix in doing so.
