I’m not sure if you could actually get criminal charges for this unless you were hosting the malware in which case that’s another issue. It would essentially be the same as walking around with a website URL on your shirt. The observer is responsible for typing in the URL or scanning the code and what they decide to do on the website that follows.
Consider florida, where if you are caught with shrooms that are wet, freshly picked, they cannot convict you for carrying contraband because you do not necessarily know what you picked.
Laws are often based on intent. In some cases, penalties vary depending on intent. It would be an unacceptably brutally harsh law to judge someone under a presumption of harmful intent for something they might have no awareness of.
QR codes can have icons on them. Certainly if I created such a t-shirt, I would put some cool looking icon in the center of it. Someone being dragged through the system might argue “i did not know that qr code was real… i just liked the cat in the middle of it”.
I tend to agree that this is how it should be, that doesn’t mean that’s how it is. If you walk around with a T-shirt that says “kill all CEOs” along with where to find them, you’re going to run into some trouble, despite being a similar situation- you’re just giving instructions, it’s up to the viewer what to do with them.
Except the shirt doesn’t say “visit this site, there are cool things on it”. If you’re gonna make the comparison to CEOs then it would be like putting a CEOs address on your shirt.
I’m not sure if you could actually get criminal charges for this unless you were hosting the malware in which case that’s another issue. It would essentially be the same as walking around with a website URL on your shirt. The observer is responsible for typing in the URL or scanning the code and what they decide to do on the website that follows.
There’s the argument that you distrubuted it.
got it from a thrift shop, I don’t even know what that square thing is
I don’t know about the states, but here in Canada the government takes the position “ignorance of the law is not a defence”.
You’re not being ignorant of the law - you’re being ignorant of the weird computer square printed on the shirt you thrifted
Claiming you didn’t know it could cause harm isn’t a defense in court in Canada.
Anymore bullshit?
Christ you’re a cordial fellow
I was, I thought quite clearly, having a joking poke. Obviously “didn’t know lol” isn’t a defense.
Consider florida, where if you are caught with shrooms that are wet, freshly picked, they cannot convict you for carrying contraband because you do not necessarily know what you picked.
Laws are often based on intent. In some cases, penalties vary depending on intent. It would be an unacceptably brutally harsh law to judge someone under a presumption of harmful intent for something they might have no awareness of.
QR codes can have icons on them. Certainly if I created such a t-shirt, I would put some cool looking icon in the center of it. Someone being dragged through the system might argue “i did not know that qr code was real… i just liked the cat in the middle of it”.
“Malice” implies intent. Accidents are not malicious. Neglect in the worst case. So certainly any charges could not be based on malice.
I tend to agree that this is how it should be, that doesn’t mean that’s how it is. If you walk around with a T-shirt that says “kill all CEOs” along with where to find them, you’re going to run into some trouble, despite being a similar situation- you’re just giving instructions, it’s up to the viewer what to do with them.
Except the shirt doesn’t say “visit this site, there are cool things on it”. If you’re gonna make the comparison to CEOs then it would be like putting a CEOs address on your shirt.