Try looking this up carefully. It's very difficult and I haven't yet found
the original judgement. The comments (not posting) on Bruce Schneier's blog seem to be a good point
to start.
The important points as I understand them
- one low level
scientist specifically predicted the earth quake related to some
tremors.
- the earth quake prediction was based on relatively new science, was
somewhat speculative but did have some basis.
- the scientists in question
made a private report to the local officials.
- the local officials (non
scientist) said that the original scientist was wrong and that there was almost
no risk.
- the local officials were misleading and wrong; they misrepresented
what the scientists said. They were also simply wrong about there being an
earth quake.
- the scientists failed to correct that and the court felt they
had the duty to (haven't been able to find out why)
- the scientists also
failed investigate or point out the specific risks of local buildings
- many
people who had decided to move to safety due to the tremors returned to their
homes
Based on that understanding; the scientists are not being
charged for failing to predict. They are being charged for allowing misleading
information (about risks being lower than they were) to be presented in their
name.
I do not think it's appropriate to criticise this until the point
that someone actually finds the Italian judgement, translates it into English.
So far I haven't been able to work out where to get it from. This would
actually be a very interesting legal case to investigate from the side of
Groklaw. I know it's outside the norm, however that makes it much more
educational.
PJ. If you are interested to investigate need some money (up
to say 100Euro) to help with that I will be willing to put it up. I'll try to
remember to check back at this comment and I definitely read all front page
articles. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
