653

submitted 9 months ago by getoffthedrugsdude@lemmy.ml to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I figured if anyone was killed by this device it would cause a running mess of cascade lawsuits, even if it served as intended and killed the one who signed the TOS.

Then consider if the goggles glitched and activated on a false positive or if someone's kid tried the goggles on for a game.

This is why piracy deterrent payloads only extend to humiliation or stern warnings (rather than destruction of data or hardware). We can't restrict activations to perfectly just situations.

Something to think about as US law enforcement continues to kill Americans at four-plus a day.

[-] Klear@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago

What TOS? Did you read it?

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 9 months ago

In this case hypothetical, say, if they sold the working goggles as a novelty. Even for most relatively safe electronics there's a long list of don'ts that often rule out normal use (let alone typical use). Infamously VR goggles sometimes cause epileptic seizures even in people susceptible to epileptic seizures.

Some judges recognize no one reads TOS or can understand the legal language. Others (such as SCOTUS) beieve the draconion terms in the TOS are enough to absolve the manufacturer of responsibility.