Scared of lawsuits? or tigers?
One of the persistent refrains when trying to deploy a security specification is 'someone may sue because'. And there follows a convoluted argument that providing some sort of security may make things worse by making it more likely that someone will sue if it fails.
There is some truth in this argument but not a lot of sense. As the BBC reported yesterday a man sued the city of New York for removing the tiger and alligator that he illegally kept in his appartment. The plaintif argued that the search was illegal without a warrant and that cash, jewels and a pet rabbit had disappeared during the search. The judge disagreed considering the police had acted "cautious and reasonably" in the interest of public safety. On the disappearence of the rabbit he stated "The whereabouts of the rabbit has not been ascertained, but there is no indication that Al the alligator was questioned in that regard".
Anyone can sue over anything but that is equally true of what you might do and what you might not do. If the police had not acted promptly and the tiger had escaped and injured someone the victim might have sued the police for negligence not to mention the owner of the tiger, the appartment block, the supplier of tiger food, the maker of the door the tiger had broken through and anyone else they thought might pay.
Anyone can sue over everything but the law is considerably more sensible than people generally expect. The occasional daft decision happens but most judges are much more cautious and sensible than is generally allowed. If there is doubt as to the legal implications of a security protocol the right action is to talk to a real lawyer and not to assume that the law is an ass
