3 ms·

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

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.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Do you have any rebuttal that isn't an obvious reduction-to-the-absurd fallacy? Or you are you seriously making the equivalence that information on a hard drive is equivalent in danger, scope, or really anything else to a nuclear fucking bomb? Smallpox and nukes are not "inert" even when sitting unused. At least try to continue this discussion in something resembling good faith?
  - freehunter 10y ago
    You didn't start it in good faith so I haven't seen any reason to try to steer it in that direction. You argued that bits on a hard drive could never hurt anyone. I provided examples showing the opposite. You responded by saying that those examples can only hurt someone if they're being used, to which I reminded you that any weapon can only hurt someone if it's being used. It's not reduction to absurdity, it's the exact and obvious truth. Stuxnet is completely harmless until it blows up a centrifuge in an Iranian nuclear facility. Which is its only designed purpose it has. And there is no way to argue that you weren't planning to commit a crime with those bits and bytes. We used a cyber weapon to physically stop someone from developing a nuclear weapon and it worked. How's that for "bits on a hard drive"? Now tell me: how many times have we used a nuclear weapon against another human in the past 50 years? Even though we have thousands of them scattered across the country, and thousands more across the world, they haven't hurt a single soul since WWII. Sounds pretty god-damn inert to me. Meanwhile people are using "just bits on a hard drive" as weapons constantly. Not just being used by the military like with nuclear weapons. Civilians attacking governments, civilians attacking civilians, governments attacking civilians, governments attacking governments. Every single day. So no, I'm not arguing that information on a hard drive is equivalent to a nuclear fucking bomb. I'm saying it's worse.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      You didn't start it in good faith Right. We're done here.
      - freehunter 10y ago
        I guess it's easier to say the argument is unfair than to admit you're wrong.
        Karunamon 10y ago
        There is nothing to be gained by having a discussion with someone who insists that you are discussing in bad faith.

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.

Karunamon 10y ago
Do you have any rebuttal that isn't an obvious reduction-to-the-absurd fallacy? Or you are you seriously making the equivalence that information on a hard drive is equivalent in danger, scope, or really anything else to a nuclear fucking bomb? Smallpox and nukes are not "inert" even when sitting unused. At least try to continue this discussion in something resembling good faith?
- freehunter 10y ago
  You didn't start it in good faith so I haven't seen any reason to try to steer it in that direction. You argued that bits on a hard drive could never hurt anyone. I provided examples showing the opposite. You responded by saying that those examples can only hurt someone if they're being used, to which I reminded you that any weapon can only hurt someone if it's being used. It's not reduction to absurdity, it's the exact and obvious truth. Stuxnet is completely harmless until it blows up a centrifuge in an Iranian nuclear facility. Which is its only designed purpose it has. And there is no way to argue that you weren't planning to commit a crime with those bits and bytes. We used a cyber weapon to physically stop someone from developing a nuclear weapon and it worked. How's that for "bits on a hard drive"? Now tell me: how many times have we used a nuclear weapon against another human in the past 50 years? Even though we have thousands of them scattered across the country, and thousands more across the world, they haven't hurt a single soul since WWII. Sounds pretty god-damn inert to me. Meanwhile people are using "just bits on a hard drive" as weapons constantly. Not just being used by the military like with nuclear weapons. Civilians attacking governments, civilians attacking civilians, governments attacking civilians, governments attacking governments. Every single day. So no, I'm not arguing that information on a hard drive is equivalent to a nuclear fucking bomb. I'm saying it's worse.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    You didn't start it in good faith Right. We're done here.
    - freehunter 10y ago
      I guess it's easier to say the argument is unfair than to admit you're wrong.
      - Karunamon 10y ago
        There is nothing to be gained by having a discussion with someone who insists that you are discussing in bad faith.