5 ms·

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 tho

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.
      - yosamino 10y ago
        > Creating smallpox given any amount of any information[...] That's why I used "enable", but point taken. > But information so powerful that merely having it should be worth automatic prison time? I don't think any prison time should be "automatic", but I do think that there's information that you should not be allowed to possess. In my view that doesn't include your examples, because that sort of scientific and technical knowledge, as you correctly point out, doesn't make a lot of sense to criminalize. It does however include another human's private information that they did not consent to. What that entails exactly, is not clearly definable in all cases and I believe is open for argumentation, but I firmly believe depictions of sexual exploitation falls well within that area. The general rationale that I have for this, is that someone else possessing my private information gives that other person power over me. That is bad, in my view, because it creates inequality. Now, one could argue that a society in where all information about everybody is available to everyone. But clearly, we don't live in such a society.
        Karunamon 10y ago
        The general rationale that I have for this, is that someone else possessing my private information gives that other person power over me. How do you figure? If someone has on their person a thumb drive containing your.. by way of example: PII, bank account info, and browsing history for the last week - but isn't giving it to anyone else, using it in any way, heck, they might not even know they have it: How, exactly, do they have power over you? Be specific. We can, and should criminalize those two things, but we're not talking about use or transmission, we're talking about existence. For a sobering thought experiment, consider how many times someone may stumble across video or images of sexual exploitation, and then make the rational decision to scrub their history and cache rather than report it because doing the right thing opens them up to life-ruining liability.
        yosamino 10y ago
        > but we're not talking about use or transmission, we're talking about existence. A part of me wants to apologize, because I wasn't using that narrow of a definition, and under it, I think you are correct. The other part of me likes arguing on the internet. You're of course correct, that just by mere existance information is not power, nor is it anything else, nor is anything else. But to tune one parameter of an issue to an extreme that make the entire issue absurd, is not a useful way to have a conversation about a real life issue. The point being, that of course existance implies the possibility of use and transmission. Clearly, nothing is dangerous just by existing without the possibilitiy of interaction with it's environment, not guns, not anthrax, not information, and clearly not humans. But the whole point about something "being illegal", whatever it is, is that there it the possibility for it to interact with the system it's a part of.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    You're forgetting Stuxnet, a computer virus that had the ability to physically kill people as it destroyed the equipment they were working on. You're forgetting cyber attacks that can shut down medical equipment or power systems, leading to deaths. You're forgetting attacks on bluetooth systems in cars that can remotely shut them down or control their steering. You seem to be of the opinion that just because things are digital means they can never be dangerous. Your opinion is very wrong. A collection of bits on a hard drive is very much able to kill people.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      Stuxnet and Bluetooth vulns, merely sitting on someone's hard drive, not deployed against a target, not being executed, are absolutely inert and are of no harm to anyone under any circumstance conceivable. Criminalizing the use and transmission of some kinds of information makes sense. I've yet to hear a convincing argument why mere possession should be criminalized, especially given the incentive it induces in otherwise law-abiding people to hide, rather than report. Browse the wrong web page, and you are immediately guilty, the actions you take afterward to hide it or not the difference in how the rest of your life ends. That is not an action that a normal person should ever have to take.
      - freehunter 10y ago
        Oh okay I didn't realize you were redefining what "dangerous" means. Makes sense, I completely understand your point now and I agree 100%. Nuclear bombs aren't actually dangerous, so everyone should be allowed to have them. It's only dangerous if you actually use it as a weapon. Smallpox isn't dangerous unless you're infecting people, we should give everyone a vial of smallpox to wear on a chain around their neck. Children should be given hand grenades in school, I mean they're not dangerous unless you pull the pin. We would just teach them not to do that. I completely agree with you. Weapons are just atoms. We shouldn't criminalize the possession of WMDs, only the use and transmission of them. The fact that I'm stockpiling mustard gas in my apartment is of no concern to my neighbors and the police have no right to question me until I actually release the nerve gas into my city. I'm glad we've cleared that up.
  - andrepd 10y ago
    You are the one being reductionist. Child pornography, documents proving corruption, Stuxnet, those are all "bits on a hard drive" that can cause real damage, as in life or death even. That's like saying a gun or a nuclear bomb is just an arrangement of atoms.

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.
    - yosamino 10y ago
      > Creating smallpox given any amount of any information[...] That's why I used "enable", but point taken. > But information so powerful that merely having it should be worth automatic prison time? I don't think any prison time should be "automatic", but I do think that there's information that you should not be allowed to possess. In my view that doesn't include your examples, because that sort of scientific and technical knowledge, as you correctly point out, doesn't make a lot of sense to criminalize. It does however include another human's private information that they did not consent to. What that entails exactly, is not clearly definable in all cases and I believe is open for argumentation, but I firmly believe depictions of sexual exploitation falls well within that area. The general rationale that I have for this, is that someone else possessing my private information gives that other person power over me. That is bad, in my view, because it creates inequality. Now, one could argue that a society in where all information about everybody is available to everyone. But clearly, we don't live in such a society.
      - Karunamon 10y ago
        The general rationale that I have for this, is that someone else possessing my private information gives that other person power over me. How do you figure? If someone has on their person a thumb drive containing your.. by way of example: PII, bank account info, and browsing history for the last week - but isn't giving it to anyone else, using it in any way, heck, they might not even know they have it: How, exactly, do they have power over you? Be specific. We can, and should criminalize those two things, but we're not talking about use or transmission, we're talking about existence. For a sobering thought experiment, consider how many times someone may stumble across video or images of sexual exploitation, and then make the rational decision to scrub their history and cache rather than report it because doing the right thing opens them up to life-ruining liability.
        yosamino 10y ago
        > but we're not talking about use or transmission, we're talking about existence. A part of me wants to apologize, because I wasn't using that narrow of a definition, and under it, I think you are correct. The other part of me likes arguing on the internet. You're of course correct, that just by mere existance information is not power, nor is it anything else, nor is anything else. But to tune one parameter of an issue to an extreme that make the entire issue absurd, is not a useful way to have a conversation about a real life issue. The point being, that of course existance implies the possibility of use and transmission. Clearly, nothing is dangerous just by existing without the possibilitiy of interaction with it's environment, not guns, not anthrax, not information, and clearly not humans. But the whole point about something "being illegal", whatever it is, is that there it the possibility for it to interact with the system it's a part of.
- freehunter 10y ago
  You're forgetting Stuxnet, a computer virus that had the ability to physically kill people as it destroyed the equipment they were working on. You're forgetting cyber attacks that can shut down medical equipment or power systems, leading to deaths. You're forgetting attacks on bluetooth systems in cars that can remotely shut them down or control their steering. You seem to be of the opinion that just because things are digital means they can never be dangerous. Your opinion is very wrong. A collection of bits on a hard drive is very much able to kill people.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    Stuxnet and Bluetooth vulns, merely sitting on someone's hard drive, not deployed against a target, not being executed, are absolutely inert and are of no harm to anyone under any circumstance conceivable. Criminalizing the use and transmission of some kinds of information makes sense. I've yet to hear a convincing argument why mere possession should be criminalized, especially given the incentive it induces in otherwise law-abiding people to hide, rather than report. Browse the wrong web page, and you are immediately guilty, the actions you take afterward to hide it or not the difference in how the rest of your life ends. That is not an action that a normal person should ever have to take.
    - freehunter 10y ago
      Oh okay I didn't realize you were redefining what "dangerous" means. Makes sense, I completely understand your point now and I agree 100%. Nuclear bombs aren't actually dangerous, so everyone should be allowed to have them. It's only dangerous if you actually use it as a weapon. Smallpox isn't dangerous unless you're infecting people, we should give everyone a vial of smallpox to wear on a chain around their neck. Children should be given hand grenades in school, I mean they're not dangerous unless you pull the pin. We would just teach them not to do that. I completely agree with you. Weapons are just atoms. We shouldn't criminalize the possession of WMDs, only the use and transmission of them. The fact that I'm stockpiling mustard gas in my apartment is of no concern to my neighbors and the police have no right to question me until I actually release the nerve gas into my city. I'm glad we've cleared that up.
- andrepd 10y ago
  You are the one being reductionist. Child pornography, documents proving corruption, Stuxnet, those are all "bits on a hard drive" that can cause real damage, as in life or death even. That's like saying a gun or a nuclear bomb is just an arrangement of atoms.