Accountability vs. Liability
from the a-more-reasonable-solution dept
A different writer at ZDNet has followed up on yesterday's story about Howard Schmidt concerning the liability of software developers, and admitted that the original story was misleading (and was going to be changed). He followed up with Schmidt and clarified his thoughts to say that developers needed to be accountable, not liable, for flaws -- which makes much more sense. Yes, better training and better testing is needed, and, when flaws are found, they need to be addressed. That's reasonable. Adding liability to the equation isn't -- but it was apparently folks at ZDNet who did that, instead of Howard Schmidt.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
