Vague Legalities

>> Mind you, I'm not sure the situation in the article applies, since the programmers are also the owner (and, frankly, the outcome that took place seems pretty obviously predictable). <<

That is true in this case, but other cases are easily predictable in which the programmers and owners would be different, and in which someone thought the purchases would be legal. It has already happened repeatedly that people bought things purported to be legal that turned out not to be, through online vendors.

>> But in general, we're already starting to get there (think of viruses that hijack computers, and the consequences of identity theft, which has essentially become full-scale guilt-transfer), <<

Identity theft infuriates me because it blames the victim. People are now pressured or outright forced to give up intimate information all the time. When I was growing up, we were taught never to give out the phone number to strangers, because it could cause problems, which is true. Now the fucking store clerks ask for phone numbers when you buy things, as if they have any right to even know who you are. Social security numbers are used for all kinds of things they were never meant for. Accessing any kind of service requires telling people a lot of information, and you don't even have the option of keeping it on paper anymore, it goes into their computers where it's vulnerable to hacking. Security is a figment of wishful thinking; once something is in electronic format all you can do it make it less convenient to access. Even if you know about these problems, you're not permitted much opportunity to prevent them. So your choices are to let people hurt you by collecting data that can be used against you, or not participate in society. No health care, government services, banking, education, shopping, etc. And then they blame the victims when someone scoops up that floating data and abuses it. They could not have created a better environment for identity theft if they tried.

>> and given the way in which laws are made (and, frankly, the ignorance of the people who make and enforce laws), I don't have high hopes. <<

When the law is not for everyone, there is no justice.

>> I think the principle from common law is that you want to go after the person with criminal intent? <<

Ideally, yes. In practice, law tends to go after who is most accessible (so they can look like they're doing something) or profitable.

>> Which in this case is only the seller. The program is random, and the programmers and users can reasonably say that they didn't expect contraband to be openly for sale. Although they'd probably be lying in this case. <<

True.

>> I *think* if you did something similar on a more reputable site and reported any contraband to the police right away, you could get away with not being charged. The law would probably let them arrest you though. <<

The trend is toward punishing people for context over intent; for example, children at school who find a weapon and turn it in are punished for having it, even if it is not theirs and they did not bring it to school. Property owners are similarly punished, and their property stolen, if contraband is found on it, even if it is not theirs and they had no idea it was there and the person who brought it did so without permission. This is a problem because it fails to stop the deciders and it punishes people who did not actually choose to commit a crime.

Entrapment is a huge problem in today's legal system. Much of that is driven by the for-profit prison industry. As soon as you allow someone to benefit from crime, they will try to make more crime so as to raise their benefit. This includes criminalizing things that used to be legal, harsh punishments for minor offenses, and pushing people into breaking the law.