> 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 defi

> 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.