Legal ramifications for PtD (Pay the Developer) feature in the SAFE protocol

[Tonda]

@janeannford

In the US we have a program that issues food stamps to millions of needy families. Food stamps, unfortunately can be abused and have been used to purchase illegal drugs, underage prostitutes etc. I contribute to the economy that pays for food stamps. Should I be held accountable morally, ethically or criminally for other people’s behavior because I support food stamps?

Agreed. I made the same almost exact argument above.

@Tonda

The welfare system funds people knowing there is a statistically high probability that a criminal will be funded. Are tax payers guilty of the crimes committed by these criminals?

Couldn’t agree more.

[bluebird]

@Tonda

Are tax payers guilty of the crimes committed by these criminals?

Yep! Whichever criminals you’re talking about.

[Tonda]

Yay! Another jester. I’ve been hoping someone would step in to reduce my workload. It’s fun to keep the overall tone of this forum playful. Welcome to the subdivision.

[janitor]

@neo

Actually the same can be said for people who have open WiFi and some criminal uses the WiFi for criminal activity. Now the person owns the WiFi, is responsible for it, and the common misconception is that the WiFi owner is able to be convicted for the crime.

Not the same at all, you aren’t funding anything if you leave your WiFi open (although you can be sued, it’s harder to get sentenced).

@neo

No court has ever gone against centuries old precedents of the buy/sell “informal contract” where legal liability ends with the supply/remuneration/warranties of the transaction. SAFE does not provide a T&C that is required to be viewed before purchase of storage. So even if the user is aware of such a thing as PtD, there is no legal connection because of the purchase of storage.

I said above, that is a legal issue and risk for the Foundation, so we’ll see how long they leave that unaddressed.
Let me know if you want to bet that SAFE won’t provide T&C before end of this year. Odds: 50/50, I’ll bet you $10.

[neo]

@janitor

ot the same at all, you aren’t funding anything i

Oh but you are directly funding them. Free WiFi that is not limited by time or amount of data is hard to find anywhere and you have to pay for it. So free WiFi is funding the activity. Context is these cases where really free wifi was not available (yet)

Which is one reason why PtD makes very little difference to the legal case, because it can be argued that the free use of the SAFE APP/network is already funding the criminal so much more than any token given once every few months. (seriously the criminal is not looking for massive traffic as that exposes their activity and courting trouble for the crim)

So which is worth more, equivalent of hosting fees (what $8/month) or a token every few months?

Same for the crim using the free WiFi, they don’t have to fork up $$ to use the internet. And if you say the crim can use a library or such then the library or such is “funding” the criminal

Obviously the courts do not the consider trivial funding as any consequence in these cases. And the same by precedent for the OP case.

Other factors come into play that show the person paying for storage is not agreeing or has any “reasonable person” intent to support the criminal so even if the network paid 100’s of tokens a day the person paying for storage or the farmer, or the SAFEcoin holder is not liable for the criminal.

[TungSvard]

@Tonda

Road makers know that a criminal will be psychically supported by the road

Road makers are not paying drivers to use the road.

@Tonda

Guns are created knowing that some will be used for crimes. Am I held liable for purchasing a steel pot that will eventually be recycled and contribute a gram of steel to constitute the gun that was used to shoot up a school?

No, you are not liable because you paid for the pot. What the vendor does with the payment is his choice. With PtP, there is no choice. Plus, you are also in the clear because you never entered a contract saying some of the proceeds will go to pay for anything and everything.

@Tonda

Recycling plants would have to be shut down immediately as they provide material to the community without regard as to how it will be used. What about 5 cent bottle refunds? Is it not possible to recycle and get paid for a bottle that held poison used to kill a person? Knowing this, why was this funding instituted?

No contract on how the material will be used. No contract, no intent, no liability. The recycling plant was hired only to recycle material to the community, no more. For SAFE, one pays for storage and gets the storage but with the caveat that some go to fund content and apps. There’s no caveat for the recycling plant beyond recycling material according to what they were hired to do.

@Tonda

State funded farmers feed everyone indiscriminately knowing statistically that some will reach criminals.

This seems to fall in the welfare category that @Safety1st pointed out in the food stamp example. Criminals can take the food and sell it to support their illegal activities so there is liability. But which state would ever do this? Not even Russia or China does it without some minimal standards to qualify for a handout. The closest example I can think of would be North Korea (minus the black markets) and look at how their economic situation is turning out. If anything, it supports the idea of not using PtP and PtD.

[Tonda]

Bravo! The expected response and behavior. Now tell me, when you see the word support what do you think of? What comes to mind for me is button hash cheese fish. Mmmm… Got to love em. You previously loosely associated criminality and implied agreement with mere participation. Now it has to be “explicit”. Ha, I see. Quite the chameleon you are. This is why this discussion is not very fun.

@TungSvard

No, you are not liable because you paid for the pot. What the vendor does with the payment is his choice.

I speak of inevitable mineral recycling. By buying the the pot and paying the tax that will fund the plant, you are directly participating in the cycle. Knowing that there is a guarantee that even one ion of the material you own will end up constituting a murder weapon. It is a system established knowing that.

@TungSvard

No contract on how the material will be used. No contract, no intent, no liability.

Knowing that the materials will be used for a crime (statistically), is foreknowledge prior to engagement. By participating they should be held liable similar to the participants of SAFE.

@TungSvard

This seems to fall in the welfare category that @Safety1st pointed out in the food stamp example. Criminals can take the food and sell it to support their illegal activities so there is liability. But which state would ever do this?

Are you speaking on the improbability? I was born in the ghetto ( I ran the streets hard when I was a kid) and now live near a ghetto my friend (Science salvaged me). I see it all the time. It doesn’t have to be state sanctioned to occur. Once the funds are allocated to the recipient, discretion is also transferred. Time to buy drugs and guns…

Well this was fun… As usual, you still haven’t answered the most outstanding question from my previous post. No matter. It was expected. Moving on.