Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Let me get this straight. All this fanfare, and all they got was a bunch of teenagers (who most likely are not even legally liable) + their moms?



What does being a teenager have to do with being liable? If they're criminally liable, they'll be tried by a juvenile court. If they're civilly liable, their parents will face civil suits.


Are parents civilly liable in the US when their kids do something? That’s under most circumstances not the case in Germany. It is possible but the barriers are extremely high.

A thirteen year-old downloading software off the internet and using it is age appropriate (i.e. it is not reasonable for parents of teenagers to check everything they are doing online), the parents would consequently not be civilly liable in Germany.

(This is my personal extrapolation of the respective German laws. The case I know about is the following: Two twelve year-olds walk home unaccompanied from a nearby playground and decide on their way home to slash the tires of a neighbor’s car with a small swiss army knife one of the kids received as a present. The parents aren’t civilly liable in this case because it is age appropriate for twelve year-olds to walk to a nearby playground and back alone and it is also appropriate for one of the kids to own a small swiss army knife. There is nothing reasonable the parents could have done to directly prevent the incident.)


The laws vary from state to state, but, generally, yes.


oh, hello our friendly neighborhood cybercrime legal expert. If I have written:

teenagers who most likely are not liable to the same extent as adults

would it have satisfied your pedantry, or would you still argue to the contrary?


You should say what you mean. "Not legally liable" is pretty clear and does not imply "to the same extent as adults."


unlike others I don't pretend to be a legal expert, that's why I've written "most likely not even legally liable" in the first place. I think I've made it pretty clear with that sentence that I'm not sure, but I see it as highly unlikely that persons mentioned in the article will face any serious legal liability over their alleged actions.

But let's wait for the court session (if there will be any), shall we?


Their goal is to deter the behaviour by making examples of out people.

I think they achieved this.


usually making examples out of people implies naming them by name


They will be named if/when anything goes to trial.


With it being Anonymous, I wouldn't be surprised that the main demographic were indeed teenagers. At least those of them who didn't cover their tracks.


I would be willing to bet the teenagers are either most of anonymous or anonymous's cannon fodder. I'm leaning towards the second because it's so much cooler. :)




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: