5 ms·

> the laws of virtually every free democracy on the planet encapsulate the idea of some information being illegal. Illegal to disseminate, not to own. There sh

> the laws of virtually every free democracy on the planet encapsulate the idea of some information being illegal. Illegal to disseminate, not to own. There should be no punishment for being able to access or possessing information; Liability should squarely sit with the publisher, intentional or otherwise.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Most places have indecency laws which cover things like video of murders and extreme pornography; privacy laws that make acquisition and retention of data/imagery illegal; etc..
- letsgetphysITal 8y ago
  We (you) are conflating issues. Creating, distributing, profiting from, and possessing are all separate issues. Possession of information of any kind should not be illegal, as information is in and of itself not harmful; It's how you use it which should confer liability. If I download instructions on making a nuke, for example, that shouldn't be illegal. It should be illegal to make a nuke, to use a nuke, and to distribute them onward, but not to own them.
  - simonh 8y ago
    Most judicial systems would conclude that if for example you had extreme snuff porn on your computer, or the private personal records of another person, that there could be no legitimate procedure by which you could have obtained them. I don't think claiming that you extracted them from Pi, or 'could have done so' would be taken seriously as a defence. The law for all it's flaws is ultimately a practical discipline, not abstract logic. Unless you're against all laws in general, which is a thing for some people.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    >If I download instructions on making a nuke, for example, that shouldn't be illegal. It should be illegal to make a nuke, to use a nuke, and to distribute them onward, but not to own them. // According to your assessment here you're an accessory to a crime - a willing and necessary participant. You said (hypothetically) you downloaded it, but that distribution should be illegal. Distribution and reception are linked, you can't get it without the distribution. Demand for distribution fuels the supply. I absolutely would maintain the illegality of ownership of some types of information (mitigations aside) - child pornography, imagery of rape or assault are obvious ones. Freely allowing the supply and acquisition of details on making nukes is fine, because acquiring the components is difficult and can be controlled. My quandary is that I want to be liberal to allow curiosity and educational intent to be fulfilled; but realise that there are elements who abuse the free acquisition of information that enables great harm (how to make a fertiliser bomb, how to make ricin).
  - andrepd 8y ago
    Would you be okay with someone possessing nude photos of yourself? After all, "holding information isn't in itself harmful", as you state. What about, god forbid, pornography starring your underage child. Is it still "just information"?
    - pitay 8y ago
      Being a reasonable person, I don't see any reason I would care if someone has nude photos of myself, even if I was a child at the time the photos was taken. The photos are not harming me, nor will they be harmful to me in any sense other than random chance. I know there is a photo of me pissing into the sea when I was young, it doesn't bother me a bit.
      - andrepd 8y ago
        It's good that you don't care, but don't I (or anyone else) have a right to care and not want those photos? And I don't believe that you wholly don't care. I'm almost certain you must have some photos, or potentially may have some situations, if you were photographed, that are embarrassing and that you wouldn't want the general public (parents, coworkers, boss) to see.
        GyYZTfWBfQw 8y ago
        Did he say that you don't have the right to care? He did not. You can care, you may not want these photos to be where they are, and you may attempt to have them removed if it is possible, but you don't have the right to punish people for not caring, and you don't have the right to force people to care for the things you do. I personally hate being on photos, so I try to avoid it to my best ability. I also asked someone to have a photo of me removed from somewhere. This is all understandable. The problem occurs when you are trying to dictate other people's lives by threatening to use violence against them for not conforming to your beliefs, etc. No need to resort to violence, come on. I have a feeling you would attempt to beat me up for my tone alone because you perceive it to be hostile. Not cool. :P
    - letsgetphysITal 8y ago
  - caf 8y ago
    Interestingly enough, in the US, for the specific case of nuclear weapons design information, you don't even have to download it for it to be illegal. This class of information ("Restricted Data" as defined by the Atomic Energy Act) is "born secret" - even if you write it yourself, you're not allowed to have it. (It should be pointed out that it's not been shown that this would actually be upheld by the courts).
  - scbrg 8y ago
    If anybody is conflating things, it's you. And what you seem to be conflating is the meaning of the word "is", with that of the word "should". You might be quite right in that no information should be illegal to posses. That, however, does not make it so. There's plenty of information that is illegal to posses. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it less so.
  - Chriky 8y ago
    If possession is not illegal, why is distribution? You point makes no sense. Consider your argument with respect to privacy and data issues - obviously possession of information can be in and of itself harmful because it can be something that other people have a right to restrict your access to.
  - ythn 8y ago
    > Possession of information of any kind should not be illegal, as information is in and of itself not harmful; And how does one come to possess information without creating or receiving (distributing) it?

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

Most places have indecency laws which cover things like video of murders and extreme pornography; privacy laws that make acquisition and retention of data/imagery illegal; etc..

letsgetphysITal 8y ago
We (you) are conflating issues. Creating, distributing, profiting from, and possessing are all separate issues. Possession of information of any kind should not be illegal, as information is in and of itself not harmful; It's how you use it which should confer liability. If I download instructions on making a nuke, for example, that shouldn't be illegal. It should be illegal to make a nuke, to use a nuke, and to distribute them onward, but not to own them.
- simonh 8y ago
  Most judicial systems would conclude that if for example you had extreme snuff porn on your computer, or the private personal records of another person, that there could be no legitimate procedure by which you could have obtained them. I don't think claiming that you extracted them from Pi, or 'could have done so' would be taken seriously as a defence. The law for all it's flaws is ultimately a practical discipline, not abstract logic. Unless you're against all laws in general, which is a thing for some people.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  >If I download instructions on making a nuke, for example, that shouldn't be illegal. It should be illegal to make a nuke, to use a nuke, and to distribute them onward, but not to own them. // According to your assessment here you're an accessory to a crime - a willing and necessary participant. You said (hypothetically) you downloaded it, but that distribution should be illegal. Distribution and reception are linked, you can't get it without the distribution. Demand for distribution fuels the supply. I absolutely would maintain the illegality of ownership of some types of information (mitigations aside) - child pornography, imagery of rape or assault are obvious ones. Freely allowing the supply and acquisition of details on making nukes is fine, because acquiring the components is difficult and can be controlled. My quandary is that I want to be liberal to allow curiosity and educational intent to be fulfilled; but realise that there are elements who abuse the free acquisition of information that enables great harm (how to make a fertiliser bomb, how to make ricin).
- andrepd 8y ago
  Would you be okay with someone possessing nude photos of yourself? After all, "holding information isn't in itself harmful", as you state. What about, god forbid, pornography starring your underage child. Is it still "just information"?
  - pitay 8y ago
    Being a reasonable person, I don't see any reason I would care if someone has nude photos of myself, even if I was a child at the time the photos was taken. The photos are not harming me, nor will they be harmful to me in any sense other than random chance. I know there is a photo of me pissing into the sea when I was young, it doesn't bother me a bit.
    - andrepd 8y ago
      It's good that you don't care, but don't I (or anyone else) have a right to care and not want those photos? And I don't believe that you wholly don't care. I'm almost certain you must have some photos, or potentially may have some situations, if you were photographed, that are embarrassing and that you wouldn't want the general public (parents, coworkers, boss) to see.
      - GyYZTfWBfQw 8y ago
        Did he say that you don't have the right to care? He did not. You can care, you may not want these photos to be where they are, and you may attempt to have them removed if it is possible, but you don't have the right to punish people for not caring, and you don't have the right to force people to care for the things you do. I personally hate being on photos, so I try to avoid it to my best ability. I also asked someone to have a photo of me removed from somewhere. This is all understandable. The problem occurs when you are trying to dictate other people's lives by threatening to use violence against them for not conforming to your beliefs, etc. No need to resort to violence, come on. I have a feeling you would attempt to beat me up for my tone alone because you perceive it to be hostile. Not cool. :P
  - letsgetphysITal 8y ago
- caf 8y ago
  Interestingly enough, in the US, for the specific case of nuclear weapons design information, you don't even have to download it for it to be illegal. This class of information ("Restricted Data" as defined by the Atomic Energy Act) is "born secret" - even if you write it yourself, you're not allowed to have it. (It should be pointed out that it's not been shown that this would actually be upheld by the courts).
- scbrg 8y ago
  If anybody is conflating things, it's you. And what you seem to be conflating is the meaning of the word "is", with that of the word "should". You might be quite right in that no information should be illegal to posses. That, however, does not make it so. There's plenty of information that is illegal to posses. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it less so.
- Chriky 8y ago
  If possession is not illegal, why is distribution? You point makes no sense. Consider your argument with respect to privacy and data issues - obviously possession of information can be in and of itself harmful because it can be something that other people have a right to restrict your access to.
- ythn 8y ago
  > Possession of information of any kind should not be illegal, as information is in and of itself not harmful; And how does one come to possess information without creating or receiving (distributing) it?