6 ms·

I always thought that the very notion that information can be illegal is like a contradictory premise that logically leads to crazy conclusions.

by gggy 10y ago

matthewmacleod 10y ago
I don't think information is generally ever illegal, but rather the distribution of it is.
- dublinben 10y ago
  In this case, mere possession of this information is a major crime. No evidence or proof of distribution is necessary. In the US at least, every distinct image is its own violation as well, so you can easily end up with potential sentences reaching the thousands of years.
  - cr0sh 10y ago
    Let's say someone sent you a file, that was encrypted in such a manner (4096-bit RSA, maybe?) that you had no way - indeed, no entity on the planet had the means - to decrypt it. Yet - unbeknownst to you - that file contained something so illegal, it would cost you your life if you knew about it. Is possession of that file still illegal? Or does it only become illegal when you have knowledge of its contents? Does having that knowledge then entail a potential for "thoughtcrime"? What if you (somehow) imagined the exact information that was contained in that file - before seeing the file? You now have the knowledge, but you never saw the information - is it now illegal? Or - what if you created a very large number that matched the unencrypted value of the file? Does possession of that number become illegal? Illegal enough to forfeit your life?
    - sathackr 10y ago
      I am not a lawyer and you should trust what I say as much as you would trust graffiti scribbled on a wall in the bathroom. That being said, In Florida, it is treated much like drugs. Most cases are constructive possession and in such cases The prosecution has to show: 1. You had knowledge of the presence of the contraband 2. You had knowledge of the contraband's illicit nature. 3. You had the ability to excercise dominion and control over the contraband. I read a case in which a person had, on their person, a over-the-counter Tylenol bottle. Inside the bottle was Tylenol w/codeine, of which they did not have a prescription for. They were convicted of possession of a controlled substance. Their conviction was overturned on appeal because there was no evidence showing that they knew the substance in the bottle was actually Tylenol w/codeine as opposed to just Tylenol. Proving those three is a giant rabbit hole. Researching this was extremely eye opening for me, and if you live in a similar state, I would suggest you research it as well. In your example, if there was no evidence that you knew what the encrypted file contained, and no evidence that you knew the password/key to the file, then only the first bar would be met -- knowledge of its presence, and thus your case could never even go to trial -- even an okay lawyer would get it dismissed for lack of evidence. Now that 'evidence' word is very squirrelly. If a detective says you told him you knew what was in the file, that counts and the case goes to trial and a jury gets to decide whether you actually knew what was there. With drug cases, they might listen, weigh the facts, and be sympathetic. With a child porn case, not so much. Yes, the detective would be perjuring himself if you did not actually say that, but how do you prove that? That's one of the reasons any lawyer will tell you NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE. If you excercise your fifth amendment and do not talk to them, they can't put words in your mouth. A site with a ton of information on this is http://www.ejdirga.com/criminal_offenses/drugs/florida-drug-case-law/drug-case-law-constructive-possession.html http://www.ejdirga.com/criminal_offenses/drugs/florida-drug-... Edit: add IANAL disclaimer at the top
- microcolonel 10y ago
  The thing about child pornography, is that it is also illegal to receive in many cases. This means that if you know about it by receiving it, you are usually in a position to be charged.
  - matthewmacleod 10y ago
    Yes, that's a good point. Information is not illegal, but it's easy to see that the receipt, distribution or possession of it can be. Im not sure that leads to many logical problems.
    - microcolonel 10y ago
      It means that it's a very difficult crime to report. The only case where you can report child pornography, is also a case where you can not prove it without putting yourself in legal peril. If you take a picture of somebody looking at child pornography on a monitor, you could be charged with creating it. If you see it on a website, and report it, you could be charged with receiving (and possibly possessing).
- ue_ 10y ago
  >but rather the distribution of it is. Why?
throwaway2016a 10y ago
My thought has always been that this, in additional to drugs is better treated on the supply side and the demand side is better treated as a health issue. Although in the US we have stupid rules like if two teens who are dating share photos of themselves with each other they can wind up on a registry for life.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  Australia too. Their zero tolerance policy has caused teens to end up on sex offender lists. At least Australian sex offender lists are confidential (they can only be used for housing and some employment lookup. The US system is appalling)
tankenmate 10y ago
In most western jurisdictions having child porn is a strict liability offence, there is no issue of mens rea; if you have it you are guilty regardless of the reason.
- rev_null 10y ago
  Unless you are police or a prosecutor handling evidence. Then you can look at all the child porn you want.
  - digler999 10y ago
    Or if more than one person lives in a household where there is an alleged consumer. If it's such a "strict liability" then the whole family should be hauled off to jail (including kids, there's no exemption that children can "possess" it). * Not saying I actually want that to happen, but just pointing out that "strict liability" logic breaks down real quick.
    - kaybe 10y ago
      Worse, kids can make it. What are you going to do, supervise your teenager's access to cameras 24/7? (I hope the law is sane enough here.)
      - cr0sh 10y ago
        > I hope the law is sane enough here. I can guarantee you, it isn't.
  - djsumdog 10y ago
    There are some pretty strict limitations on this. I knew a lawyer who had to take such a defence case and he refused to look at the evidence. He also was not allowed to share the evidence with anyone in his office: no interns, paralegals, assistants .. only people who were directly involved in the prosecution. I think this might also be why Microsoft seemed to only have one individual looking for so much of this content. He might have been given specific clearance with Microsoft/the justice department (the guy that was in an article a few weeks back for suffering from PTSD from that job).
shp0ngle 10y ago
It's funny how "information wants to be free" proponents change tunes when it's their private e-mails and browsing habits. Anyway. Yeah, there is hell lot of information that should be illegal. It's not just the information itself, it doesn't exist in a context-free vacuum
- yosamino 10y ago
  I think you need to be more specific with your criticism. There are roughly two kinds of > "information wants to be free" proponents The newer kind, who are of the "post-privacy" persuasion, who don't believe privacy is actually possible in this evermore connected world. Sometimes this includes a value statement of whether that's something good or not. And then there is the traditional kind who's philosophy can be rougly summarized as "Public information should be free, Private information should be protected". The slogan "information wants to be free" describes the tendency of information to proliferate and the value this brings to societey, and in any useful interpretation does not mean "Every single bit of information should be free .. whoops I forgot that my browser history is information". Documentation of the exploitation of children clearly falls within the boundy of information that is private and should be protected, yet these things are shared all of the time, highlighting how information "wants" to be free. I don't see how you are constructing a hypocricy here.
andrepd 10y ago
Can you elaborate on that? I can think of several situations where information can and should be illegal.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  What situations would those be? Hard time in a federal prison simply for having the bits on your hard drive is really hard for me to justify, no matter what those bits represent. It also creates a chilling effect on someone who winds up saving they don't want to save (browser caching!) and want to report it to the proper authorities. It also makes framing someone easy. Just send them a link...
  - freehunter 10y ago
    What about hard time in federal prison just for having atoms in your possession? No matter what those atoms represent? It makes framing someone easy, just mail them some atoms.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      Reductionism is cute, but in this case, wrongheaded. A certain collection of bits on a hard drive cannot, no matter how arranged, turn into smallpox or ricin or a gun or a nuclear bomb.
      - yosamino 10y ago
        You're saying that like information can't be powerful. That certain collection of bits, can enable you to create smallpox, ricin, a gun, a nuclear bomb and all sorts of other things, can't it?
        Karunamon 10y ago
        Creating smallpox given any amount of any information would come as a surprise to most scientists and religions, and I can look up information right now how to create ricin, guns, and nukes, and nobody would stop me from doing so. But information so powerful that merely having it should be worth automatic prison time? With no possibility to safely report the possibly much more harmful act of transmitting it or using it? No such information exists.
djsumdog 10y ago
It is legal to post photos of kids shot up by soldiers. Sebastião Salgado has entire collections of photography featured in museums around the world of genocide; even children in Africa laid waste by gunfire. ..and I'm sure somewhere, someone is jerking off to one. When someone rapes a child, they put something into them; into their body, cause permanent mental and sometimes physical damage or death and leaves them with a high chance of developing PTSD. When someone shoots a child, they put something into them; into their body, cause permanent mental and usually physical damage or death and leaves them with a high chance of developing PTSD. I don't know what the correct solution is either. Both are terrible terrible things. But this disconnect shows where the priorities are in our current social structures.

I always thought that the very notion that information can be illegal is like a contradictory premise that logically leads to crazy conclusions.

by gggy 10y ago

I always thought that the very notion that information can be illegal is like a contradictory premise that logically leads to crazy conclusions.

matthewmacleod 10y ago

I don't think information is generally ever illegal, but rather the distribution of it is.

dublinben 10y ago
In this case, mere possession of this information is a major crime. No evidence or proof of distribution is necessary. In the US at least, every distinct image is its own violation as well, so you can easily end up with potential sentences reaching the thousands of years.
- cr0sh 10y ago
  Let's say someone sent you a file, that was encrypted in such a manner (4096-bit RSA, maybe?) that you had no way - indeed, no entity on the planet had the means - to decrypt it. Yet - unbeknownst to you - that file contained something so illegal, it would cost you your life if you knew about it. Is possession of that file still illegal? Or does it only become illegal when you have knowledge of its contents? Does having that knowledge then entail a potential for "thoughtcrime"? What if you (somehow) imagined the exact information that was contained in that file - before seeing the file? You now have the knowledge, but you never saw the information - is it now illegal? Or - what if you created a very large number that matched the unencrypted value of the file? Does possession of that number become illegal? Illegal enough to forfeit your life?
  - sathackr 10y ago
    I am not a lawyer and you should trust what I say as much as you would trust graffiti scribbled on a wall in the bathroom. That being said, In Florida, it is treated much like drugs. Most cases are constructive possession and in such cases The prosecution has to show: 1. You had knowledge of the presence of the contraband 2. You had knowledge of the contraband's illicit nature. 3. You had the ability to excercise dominion and control over the contraband. I read a case in which a person had, on their person, a over-the-counter Tylenol bottle. Inside the bottle was Tylenol w/codeine, of which they did not have a prescription for. They were convicted of possession of a controlled substance. Their conviction was overturned on appeal because there was no evidence showing that they knew the substance in the bottle was actually Tylenol w/codeine as opposed to just Tylenol. Proving those three is a giant rabbit hole. Researching this was extremely eye opening for me, and if you live in a similar state, I would suggest you research it as well. In your example, if there was no evidence that you knew what the encrypted file contained, and no evidence that you knew the password/key to the file, then only the first bar would be met -- knowledge of its presence, and thus your case could never even go to trial -- even an okay lawyer would get it dismissed for lack of evidence. Now that 'evidence' word is very squirrelly. If a detective says you told him you knew what was in the file, that counts and the case goes to trial and a jury gets to decide whether you actually knew what was there. With drug cases, they might listen, weigh the facts, and be sympathetic. With a child porn case, not so much. Yes, the detective would be perjuring himself if you did not actually say that, but how do you prove that? That's one of the reasons any lawyer will tell you NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE. If you excercise your fifth amendment and do not talk to them, they can't put words in your mouth. A site with a ton of information on this is http://www.ejdirga.com/criminal_offenses/drugs/florida-drug-case-law/drug-case-law-constructive-possession.html http://www.ejdirga.com/criminal_offenses/drugs/florida-drug-... Edit: add IANAL disclaimer at the top
microcolonel 10y ago
The thing about child pornography, is that it is also illegal to receive in many cases. This means that if you know about it by receiving it, you are usually in a position to be charged.
- matthewmacleod 10y ago
  Yes, that's a good point. Information is not illegal, but it's easy to see that the receipt, distribution or possession of it can be. Im not sure that leads to many logical problems.
  - microcolonel 10y ago
    It means that it's a very difficult crime to report. The only case where you can report child pornography, is also a case where you can not prove it without putting yourself in legal peril. If you take a picture of somebody looking at child pornography on a monitor, you could be charged with creating it. If you see it on a website, and report it, you could be charged with receiving (and possibly possessing).
ue_ 10y ago
>but rather the distribution of it is. Why?

throwaway2016a 10y ago

My thought has always been that this, in additional to drugs is better treated on the supply side and the demand side is better treated as a health issue. Although in the US we have stupid rules like if two teens who are dating share photos of themselves with each other they can wind up on a registry for life.

djsumdog 10y ago
Australia too. Their zero tolerance policy has caused teens to end up on sex offender lists. At least Australian sex offender lists are confidential (they can only be used for housing and some employment lookup. The US system is appalling)

tankenmate 10y ago

In most western jurisdictions having child porn is a strict liability offence, there is no issue of mens rea; if you have it you are guilty regardless of the reason.

rev_null 10y ago
Unless you are police or a prosecutor handling evidence. Then you can look at all the child porn you want.
- digler999 10y ago
  Or if more than one person lives in a household where there is an alleged consumer. If it's such a "strict liability" then the whole family should be hauled off to jail (including kids, there's no exemption that children can "possess" it). * Not saying I actually want that to happen, but just pointing out that "strict liability" logic breaks down real quick.
  - kaybe 10y ago
    Worse, kids can make it. What are you going to do, supervise your teenager's access to cameras 24/7? (I hope the law is sane enough here.)
    - cr0sh 10y ago
      > I hope the law is sane enough here. I can guarantee you, it isn't.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  There are some pretty strict limitations on this. I knew a lawyer who had to take such a defence case and he refused to look at the evidence. He also was not allowed to share the evidence with anyone in his office: no interns, paralegals, assistants .. only people who were directly involved in the prosecution. I think this might also be why Microsoft seemed to only have one individual looking for so much of this content. He might have been given specific clearance with Microsoft/the justice department (the guy that was in an article a few weeks back for suffering from PTSD from that job).

shp0ngle 10y ago

It's funny how "information wants to be free" proponents change tunes when it's their private e-mails and browsing habits. Anyway. Yeah, there is hell lot of information that should be illegal. It's not just the information itself, it doesn't exist in a context-free vacuum

yosamino 10y ago
I think you need to be more specific with your criticism. There are roughly two kinds of > "information wants to be free" proponents The newer kind, who are of the "post-privacy" persuasion, who don't believe privacy is actually possible in this evermore connected world. Sometimes this includes a value statement of whether that's something good or not. And then there is the traditional kind who's philosophy can be rougly summarized as "Public information should be free, Private information should be protected". The slogan "information wants to be free" describes the tendency of information to proliferate and the value this brings to societey, and in any useful interpretation does not mean "Every single bit of information should be free .. whoops I forgot that my browser history is information". Documentation of the exploitation of children clearly falls within the boundy of information that is private and should be protected, yet these things are shared all of the time, highlighting how information "wants" to be free. I don't see how you are constructing a hypocricy here.

andrepd 10y ago

Can you elaborate on that? I can think of several situations where information can and should be illegal.

Karunamon 10y ago
What situations would those be? Hard time in a federal prison simply for having the bits on your hard drive is really hard for me to justify, no matter what those bits represent. It also creates a chilling effect on someone who winds up saving they don't want to save (browser caching!) and want to report it to the proper authorities. It also makes framing someone easy. Just send them a link...
- freehunter 10y ago
  What about hard time in federal prison just for having atoms in your possession? No matter what those atoms represent? It makes framing someone easy, just mail them some atoms.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    Reductionism is cute, but in this case, wrongheaded. A certain collection of bits on a hard drive cannot, no matter how arranged, turn into smallpox or ricin or a gun or a nuclear bomb.
    - yosamino 10y ago
      You're saying that like information can't be powerful. That certain collection of bits, can enable you to create smallpox, ricin, a gun, a nuclear bomb and all sorts of other things, can't it?
      - Karunamon 10y ago
        Creating smallpox given any amount of any information would come as a surprise to most scientists and religions, and I can look up information right now how to create ricin, guns, and nukes, and nobody would stop me from doing so. But information so powerful that merely having it should be worth automatic prison time? With no possibility to safely report the possibly much more harmful act of transmitting it or using it? No such information exists.

djsumdog 10y ago

It is legal to post photos of kids shot up by soldiers. Sebastião Salgado has entire collections of photography featured in museums around the world of genocide; even children in Africa laid waste by gunfire. ..and I'm sure somewhere, someone is jerking off to one. When someone rapes a child, they put something into them; into their body, cause permanent mental and sometimes physical damage or death and leaves them with a high chance of developing PTSD. When someone shoots a child, they put something into them; into their body, cause permanent mental and usually physical damage or death and leaves them with a high chance of developing PTSD. I don't know what the correct solution is either. Both are terrible terrible things. But this disconnect shows where the priorities are in our current social structures.