3 ms·

Can we not just make a worm that does this thereby rendering everyone guilty? Better: target devices in Westminster exclusively so their own names turn up on

Can we not just make a worm that does this thereby rendering everyone guilty? Better: target devices in Westminster exclusively so their own names turn up on the list. I personally like how they've attempted to distinguish downloading and reading as if when you browse to a website it doesn't download the HTML and store it in a temp cache on your local disk. This suggests that today the difference between innocent and guilty is the directory path of an illicit file. :D

throwaway613834 9y ago
Downloading is saving something that's online for later offline use. I think that's pretty easy to tell apart from reading something online?
- Quarrelsome 9y ago
  the temp cache still exists offline. This means that if I wanted to store "illicit" files I'd just store them in my temp cache under a plausibly temp-cachy sounding file name. Effectively the crime is distinguished by the directory path. In both cases the effect on your machine is identical. It loads the content to disk, then into memory and then displays it in your viewer/browser.
  - throwaway613834 9y ago
    What I was trying to say was that the intention and the reason for the action that make a difference.
    - Quarrelsome 9y ago
      and what I was trying to say is that the intention and reason are derived from merely the directory path of a file.
      - throwaway613834 9y ago
        Okay. So what's wrong with that? It's like saying the difference between protected and unprotected speech can be the location of the speech in question. Yeah, it very much can be. What's wrong with that?
        Quarrelsome 9y ago
        its not reliable? It can easily be forged/hidden/framed? Again it confers power to those that understand how systems work. I'm not complaining, it benefits me but we continue to drift toward a class-based system where the technical class gains ever increasing benefits over the rest of the plebs. We're sleepwalking into an increasingly stratified society.
        albertgoeswoof 9y ago
        Because path of the file is not determined by the user in all cases. This means the prosecutor will have to prove that the user deliberately stored it for later consumption. For example, if a web browser has a semi-permanent cache by default for all pdf files, and the browser downloads a pdf to this cache, it's not possible to determine if the user "downloaded" it (ie. deliberately, to access later or repeatedly) or "streamed" it (ie. accidentally accessed it and closed it after viewing the content) The fundamental issue is that politicians and the general public do not understand how software works. Many applications access and store data by default which the user has not implicitly asked them to do. If the law is determined so broadly, it can put any user with an application that accesses content without somehow validating that it is legal (how you do that without accessing it I do not know) into a grey area which the state can choose to exploit/prosecute with if needed.
  - hkmurakami 9y ago
    I remember the simpler times when I could simply drag over media files from IE's temp folder into permanent storage!
- ryanmaclean 9y ago
  Unfortunately quite a bit more complicated on the back end of things when you need to report on it. Both loading a webpage and downloading it have a similar request pattern. Take, for example, a PDF file which loads seamlessly in Chrome. If this is something you can currently distinguish, I’d be very interested in hearing more!
  - throwaway613834 9y ago
    (a) Why do you need to identify it on the backend? Wouldn't someone who's arrested presumably have their laptop confiscated? (b) Why does something being illegal imply that you have to be able to distinguish it from something legal in every instance? They could just only apply it when they can make a case that it was done in an illegal manner. It's not like we don't already have laws where intention makes a strong difference, despite the fact that you can't always establish intentions.
tomclive 9y ago
Downloading "terrorist" (and even propaganda) material is already illegal but in this new Crackdown they are aiming to break down the differentiation between streaming and downloading. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crackdown-on-terror-videos-to-close-streaming-loophole-xrmbgjw78 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crackdown-on-terror-video...
peteretep 9y ago
The UK has a very effective check and balance in the Crown Prosecution Service, who can simply decide it's not in the public interest to prosecute a crime. Compare and contrast to elected and political prosecutors in the US trying to make a career.

throwaway613834 9y ago

Downloading is saving something that's online for later offline use. I think that's pretty easy to tell apart from reading something online?

Quarrelsome 9y ago
the temp cache still exists offline. This means that if I wanted to store "illicit" files I'd just store them in my temp cache under a plausibly temp-cachy sounding file name. Effectively the crime is distinguished by the directory path. In both cases the effect on your machine is identical. It loads the content to disk, then into memory and then displays it in your viewer/browser.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  What I was trying to say was that the intention and the reason for the action that make a difference.
  - Quarrelsome 9y ago
    and what I was trying to say is that the intention and reason are derived from merely the directory path of a file.
    - throwaway613834 9y ago
      Okay. So what's wrong with that? It's like saying the difference between protected and unprotected speech can be the location of the speech in question. Yeah, it very much can be. What's wrong with that?
      - Quarrelsome 9y ago
        its not reliable? It can easily be forged/hidden/framed? Again it confers power to those that understand how systems work. I'm not complaining, it benefits me but we continue to drift toward a class-based system where the technical class gains ever increasing benefits over the rest of the plebs. We're sleepwalking into an increasingly stratified society.
      - albertgoeswoof 9y ago
        Because path of the file is not determined by the user in all cases. This means the prosecutor will have to prove that the user deliberately stored it for later consumption. For example, if a web browser has a semi-permanent cache by default for all pdf files, and the browser downloads a pdf to this cache, it's not possible to determine if the user "downloaded" it (ie. deliberately, to access later or repeatedly) or "streamed" it (ie. accidentally accessed it and closed it after viewing the content) The fundamental issue is that politicians and the general public do not understand how software works. Many applications access and store data by default which the user has not implicitly asked them to do. If the law is determined so broadly, it can put any user with an application that accesses content without somehow validating that it is legal (how you do that without accessing it I do not know) into a grey area which the state can choose to exploit/prosecute with if needed.
- hkmurakami 9y ago
  I remember the simpler times when I could simply drag over media files from IE's temp folder into permanent storage!
ryanmaclean 9y ago
Unfortunately quite a bit more complicated on the back end of things when you need to report on it. Both loading a webpage and downloading it have a similar request pattern. Take, for example, a PDF file which loads seamlessly in Chrome. If this is something you can currently distinguish, I’d be very interested in hearing more!
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  (a) Why do you need to identify it on the backend? Wouldn't someone who's arrested presumably have their laptop confiscated? (b) Why does something being illegal imply that you have to be able to distinguish it from something legal in every instance? They could just only apply it when they can make a case that it was done in an illegal manner. It's not like we don't already have laws where intention makes a strong difference, despite the fact that you can't always establish intentions.

tomclive 9y ago

Downloading "terrorist" (and even propaganda) material is already illegal but in this new Crackdown they are aiming to break down the differentiation between streaming and downloading. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crackdown-on-terror-videos-to-close-streaming-loophole-xrmbgjw78 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crackdown-on-terror-video...

peteretep 9y ago

The UK has a very effective check and balance in the Crown Prosecution Service, who can simply decide it's not in the public interest to prosecute a crime. Compare and contrast to elected and political prosecutors in the US trying to make a career.