Reply to post: Re: Which document did you read?

Prosecute driverless car devs for software snafus, say Brit cyclists

Doctor Syntax Silver badge

Re: Which document did you read?

"No - the thrust is that you can't just ignore the criminal responsibility when you push insurance liability around."

Just this.

The cyclists have a good point here. This seems to have been dealt with purely as a civil matter which can be dealt with by compensation via insurance (and surely no insurance company would ever try to weasel out of their responsibilities). But where a human driver is involved there is also a criminal aspect and if there has been criminal negligence then there should be scope for prosecution.

However I think they're wrong in not putting the blame on the vehicle manufacturer alone. It's up to the vehicle manufacturer to ensure that the overall package is correct.

Consider, for example, that the vehicle manufacturer picks up some image processing library. It was actually written for an image classification system where a few false positives or negatives were acceptable and for this the library was good enough. Or it was written for a medical application where it was to be used for cytology images. Would it be right to prosecute the author of a library that has been used out of its intended context?

Consider the possibility that the S/W itself is fine but the manufacturer has seen fit to run it on H/W with less resources than the S/W was specified for, or shared the H/W with another package when that wasn't intended. Why should the author be responsible for that?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019