It seems completely insane to me to insist that software MUST prevent (or atleast take steps to prevent) the user of said software from breaking the law wherever he may be at the moment.
It might be suboptimal, but it's definitely not insane. The question of at what point in the chain of behavior you should stop antisocial things from happening is omnipresent in law, and much of the time -- most, in fact -- we as a society opt to put responsibility somewhere other than the final link in the chain. Even though it effectively outlaws some additional things that aren't antisocial at all.
Some popular examples of the controversy: do you stop murders by making it against the law to manufacture guns? Own guns? Or just to shoot people? Do you make it against the law to take a weapon into an airport, or just to hijack a plane? In the techology world: should it be against the law to sell a cable descrambler, or just to watch TV with it?
We like to move up the chain because it's more efficient. Would you rather pay $1000 in taxes to have the government track down broadcasters or $10 to track down radio manufacturers?
Typical cars will, infact, if you push the pedal to the metal, go faster than the speed-limit at your location.
There's a good counterexample here, too. Some cars have legally required "governors" on them to prevent them from going above a certain speed. Sane people in those jurisdictions have decided it's the best tradeoff to stop speeding.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds