> > The
> > robot owner may be negligent, but is almost certainly not legally culpable
> > for failing to obey a *voluntary* standard
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that even if the owner of a robot
> that inflicts significant damages on a site is not legally culpable,
> he/she could still be financially liable for civil damages.
You missed the point of the second half of the sentence (the part you
deleted). American civil law can do some fundamentally wierd things. Just
look at 'attractive nuisances'. If I own a pool and I don't take every
reasonable measure to insure that local kids don't climb over the fence
and drown themselves ('keep out' signs are *not* enough - there have to be
substantial physical barriers) *I* am liable for their having drowned
themselves by trespassing on my property because a pool is an 'attractive
nuisance'. It may not be reasonable - but it is the way it works.
I am also not allowed by American law to set up 'deadfalls' on my property
that could kill or injure an intruder unattended. I could actually be
prosecuted for negligent homicide if such a trap killed someone - even if
they broke in to reach it.
The analogy with web sites, robots and xxx.lanl.gov is obvious.
Oh - IANAL.
-- Benjamin Franz