NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/infosyst/gis/4576

Text File | 1992-12-24 | 2.5 KB | 54 lines

Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gis
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!dmarble
From: [e-mail] (Duane F Marble)
Subject: Liability for Spatial Data
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 14:38:58 GMT
Lines: 42


The current (January 1993) issue of the COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
contains an interesting discussion by Pamela Samuelson in the
column "Legally Speaking." The article is entitled "Liability for
Defective Electronic Information" and contains some food for
thought for those active in the GIS arena.

One basic point that is made is that of products that behave like
"machines" vs those that behave like a "book." I should note that
this is a distinction that is drawn within the U.S. legal system;
local views may differ. Courts here have treated books differently
for liability purposes than they have treated machines. Basically,
they have been reluctant to impose liability on authors, publish-
ers, and booksellers for defective information in contained in
books. In contrast, the maker of a defective machine has generally
been considered liable for injury and, under some circumstances,
economic losses caused by the defect. The situation with respect to
electronic information (both data and programs) is much less clear.

She does mention one specific case which may give us cause to
think. In the early 80's there was a case (Aetna Casualty & Surety
Co. vs Jeppsen & Co. -- Jeppsen is a leading publisher of aeronau-
tical charts) in which Aetna persuaded the trial judge that a
defect in the design of a chart had caused a plane to crash. Their
claim was not that the chart contained inaccurate information, but
that it failed in its design goal of graphically representing this
information in a readily understandable way. Here, the product was
treated like a "machine."

For a considerable period of time I have been pointing out the
potential problems (not just legal ones) arising out of the poor or
missing data dictionaries associated with many spatial databases.
Here is yet another reason to (a) clean up our act, and (b) start
thinking about the possible consequences of what we are doing.



--
Duane F. Marble                   E-mail: [e-mail]
Department of Geography                Telephone: [phone]
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210                   Fax: [phone]