6 ms·

> Jail time for storing a pattern of bits? I will stand up and say that's unjustified. The ridiculous basis of the concept is exactly what causes this screwed u

• mindslight 11y ago
  > there are plenty of bit patterns where possessing them should result in jail time. For example: ... novel ways to enrich fissile materials.[1] And yet you just pasted a link to a high level overview. I don't see an explicit governmental condonement of the contents of that link - perhaps the edit history contains something "over the line", and you should go turn yourself in? You still haven't made a case for why possessing such information should be a bona fide crime (as opposed to being evidence of a real crime). You've merely asserted it should be illegal, with only fearmongering innuendo to back it up. > How exactly would this work if there's no way to punish people for possessing data? Something tells me most people would stop using Google if it randomly popped up child porn. > Otherwise you'll just get trolls pasting links to child porn So where are these trolls now, given they can act with impunity through TOR? In fact, any such trolling is even more lulzful under the current regime, since the website operator is automatically guilty of possession! They're reliant on an informal "I'm a good person who was trying to remove it, please don't rough me up too bad" - which works most of the time if you supplicate to the police, ultimately undermining the rule of law. > people get framed from time to time I used the word "frame", but there is actually no such thing under a regime of strict liability. The problem isn't being framed, it's the ridiculousness of strict-liability non-mens-rea possession, especially of something that can be so easily obtained. The threat isn't just cops, it's anyone who decides to make you a criminal!
  • chroma 11y ago
    > I don't see an explicit governmental condonement of the contents of that link. > You still haven't made a case for why possessing such information should be a bona fide crime (as opposed to being evidence of a real crime). You've merely asserted it should be illegal, with only scary innuendo to back it up. SILEX makes it possible to enrich uranium in secret for mere millions of dollars. It was privately discovered, but the process was classified by the government. If the exact details spread, it could be a global catastrophe. I'm totally fine with this information being restricted, as the harm of censorship is outweighed by the risk of nuclear proliferation. The US government seems to agree. > So where are these trolls now, given they can act with impunity through TOR? They don't post links to child porn because such things aren't hosted on the open web. Right now, the worst things trolls can link to are disgusting or gory images. If the law was different, they could link to worse things. > The problem isn't being framed, it's the ridiculousness of strict-liability non-mens-rea possession, especially of something that can be so easily obtained. There are plenty of physical goods that meet the same criteria and are just as illegal. I think only a borderline anarchist would disagree with many of those laws. For example: Thanks to 3D printing, it is very easy to obtain a full-auto sear for an AR-15. Such a piece of metal is –by itself– completely harmless. It can't do anything dangerous unless it's installed into a compatible rifle. Yet mere possession of an unlicensed full-auto sear will get you up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. That's right: Possession of a tiny piece of metal is the difference between a completely legal existence and a decade in prison. And that has been the case in the US since 1934. When put that way, it may seem unfair. But that tiny piece of metal could easily be used to cause immense harm, and it has no other use. Just like some data. Now, if you're willing to bite the bullet and say that possession of full-auto sears should be legal, I'm fine with that. I'll disagree, but I'll admire your consistency. On the other hand: If you don't think such devices should be legal to possess, then I think your support for possession of arbitrary digital goods is rather hypocritical.
    • mindslight 11y ago
      > If the exact details spread, it could be a global catastrophe. I'm totally fine with this information being restricted And yet such criminalization won't stop someone actually determined to use it. If your security relies on preventing the spread of readily-available information, you've already lost. Your argument only seems practical for this situation because the only entities in possession of said information are already doing the work to keep it secret. > Right now, the worst things trolls can link to are disgusting or gory images Or uh, illegal images they upload themselves (obfuscated enough to get around whatever secret programmatic filters the hosting sites have been forced to implement via "consent" decree), or non-linked data: urls. > Yet mere possession of an unlicensed full-auto sear will get you up to 10 years in prison Which obviously conflicts with the 2nd amendment, itself created with foresight of hysterical attempts to ban weapons. There's no constitutional amendment spelling out the right to own hammers, not because it isn't a natural right, but because the founders didn't envision a scenario of widespread hammer ownership being criminalized by a corrupt government (and hammers subsequently being needed to violently overthrow said government). I'm sure you can find many similar examples of possession being criminalized - it's the dumbest, most simplistic way to go after "bad people" (base tribalism) instead of the harder route of policing and prosecuting actual bad behavior (rule of law). That its application is a foregone conclusion merely shows how totalitarian our society has become.