it's not about the the number of escapes, it's about whether reasonable and conscious effort is being expended to prevent the escapes.
replythere could be 1,000 escapes, where each one was enabled by novel and unexpected chain of 0-day exploits. not likely to be considered reckless disregard in court.
there could be 1 escape, where there was no sandbox, no guardrails, no instructions to avoid damage, etc. which would likely to be considered reckless disregard (well, more likely to be, but still, reckless disregard is a high bar).
Are you sure? At some point a reasonable person would conclude that this activity can’t be conducted safely.
replywhat i am getting at is that it is impossible to answer the question "How many escapes until it becomes reckless disregard?"
replyreckless disregard is a specific legal term, with specific criteria, and none of the criteria cares about "number of attempts" (or number of escapes, etc.).
Surely after 999 escapes, a reasonable person could conclude that the sandbox is not a sufficient precaution?
replyit’s not a perfect hypothetical, but it illustrates the point that the number of escapes is not the deciding factor of what constitutes reckless disregard.
reply