4 ms·

Very much depends on the concept of ownership, doesn't it? ;) I mean, you own it, but so does everyone else. I think the traditional(?) concept of ownership yo

Very much depends on the concept of ownership, doesn't it? ;) I mean, you own it, but so does everyone else. I think the traditional(?) concept of ownership you are referring to, that allows people to "delete" information is very unnatural and feels akin to trying to reverse entropy. You can't unring a bell, and you can't delete data from the world.

nnq 8y ago
The human concepts of ownership implies a very important right that people tend to overlook: the right to DESTROY it, to undo it, to "take back what you said". This is important, because for physical artifacts having the right to destroy/demolish means having the right to create new things in its place (if I inherit a historical monument castle and I can't f demolish it to a pile of sand by my liking, than that's a scam, I don't really own it; also I might want to demolish it for aesthetic/informational reasons too, to "wipe" a part of its history from the human collective knowledge base). And for informational artifacts, the right to "undo" or "take back" is also important, because the fact that what you say/publish is there to haunt you forever will have a chilling effect... lots of interesting things will go unsaid unwritten. You have to burn books/libraries/things from time to time, otherwise everyone becomes afraid to write new books or build new things! And on a physical level death has the same liberating effect. You know you're gonna die sometime anyway, so you can enjoy that cigarette, it increasing your risk of an incurable cancer by 1e-3 percent will not have consequences that will haunt you forever... Death and destruction are necessary for true freedom, at least for the kind of freedom I want to have. Things like block-chain/graphs combined with content adressability bring significant limitations to FREEDOM. Endless responsibility and accountability for everything you've done and said would make life of all creative and disruptive people a living hell. Heck, if you're not free from at least some of the consequences of your actions, then why do anything at all, why even carry on living. And on: > You can't unring a bell, and you can't delete data from the world. Yes you can, if you kill someone, a part of the information that is in their head and haven't been shared with anyone yet will be lost forever. That's a good thing imo. If everyone who's heard the bell is dead and hasn't told about it to anyone... has the bell truly rung? The information that it has is irrecoverable now. And you can thank your friend entropy for that impossibility to recover this data and for the liberating effect that this can sometimes have ;)
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  > DESTROY ... and I can't f demolish it to a pile of sand by my liking, than that's a scam, I don't really own it There are other definitions of ownership more akin to stewardship. Some circumstances recognise others interests and therefore limit rights and elevate responsibilities. This, arguably, sensible.
- danShumway 8y ago
  > than that's a scam, I don't really own it Legally speaking then, you don't own information about yourself like your address or past actions. The government won't let you erase that information. The only way to make your friends and family forget it is to kill them, which is obviously highly illegal. Even with efforts like Right to Be Forgotten, Europe isn't positing that you actually own information about yourself in the same way that you're doing here. Right to Be Forgotten is a) balanced against public interest, and b) only applies to information access and indexing. Right to Be Forgotten doesn't mean that you can demand a newspaper burn all copies of an article it wrote about you. The reality is that "ownership" means different things in different contexts. There's not a single definition. When we talk about "owning" data or Intellectual Property, we don't mean it in the same way that you "own" a wrench. How can you own something that is inside my head?
  - nnq 8y ago
    > How can you own something that is inside my head? If I put it there, I own it, and I should be able to destroy all proof that it's not purely a fabrication of your imagination. (Sure, you can still know it and use it to guide your decision, but it shouldn't be legally valid any more, and there should be no way for you to convince others it's true.) Yeah, obviously if it's in the heads of other people too, it would be more accounts in favor of that information being authentic, increasing the probability that I am lying about that in a legal situation. But key thing would be that it's a probability. I can destroy the certainty. That could swing depending on context, maybe I'm more trustworthy than the group of people arguing for the authenticity of that piece of information. Obviously there's great deal of criminal activities that can be protected by going too far with this, so it's a question of "tweaking the dial" until we get the right amount of informational "light" and "darkness". As Jung said, there are some who need light, and some who thrive in the shadows...
stevenicr 8y ago
Anyone aware of any PFS / perfect forward secrecy that is baked into this or similar projects like briar, scuttlebut, ipfs, zeronet, kinds of things? I guessing it would be less likely an issue if your friends / associates have a downloaded copy of your messages for the past year if each week a different key pair was made to decipher a section of the data store or something.

nnq 8y ago

The human concepts of ownership implies a very important right that people tend to overlook: the right to DESTROY it, to undo it, to "take back what you said". This is important, because for physical artifacts having the right to destroy/demolish means having the right to create new things in its place (if I inherit a historical monument castle and I can't f demolish it to a pile of sand by my liking, than that's a scam, I don't really own it; also I might want to demolish it for aesthetic/informational reasons too, to "wipe" a part of its history from the human collective knowledge base). And for informational artifacts, the right to "undo" or "take back" is also important, because the fact that what you say/publish is there to haunt you forever will have a chilling effect... lots of interesting things will go unsaid unwritten. You have to burn books/libraries/things from time to time, otherwise everyone becomes afraid to write new books or build new things! And on a physical level death has the same liberating effect. You know you're gonna die sometime anyway, so you can enjoy that cigarette, it increasing your risk of an incurable cancer by 1e-3 percent will not have consequences that will haunt you forever... Death and destruction are necessary for true freedom, at least for the kind of freedom I want to have. Things like block-chain/graphs combined with content adressability bring significant limitations to FREEDOM. Endless responsibility and accountability for everything you've done and said would make life of all creative and disruptive people a living hell. Heck, if you're not free from at least some of the consequences of your actions, then why do anything at all, why even carry on living. And on: > You can't unring a bell, and you can't delete data from the world. Yes you can, if you kill someone, a part of the information that is in their head and haven't been shared with anyone yet will be lost forever. That's a good thing imo. If everyone who's heard the bell is dead and hasn't told about it to anyone... has the bell truly rung? The information that it has is irrecoverable now. And you can thank your friend entropy for that impossibility to recover this data and for the liberating effect that this can sometimes have ;)

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
> DESTROY ... and I can't f demolish it to a pile of sand by my liking, than that's a scam, I don't really own it There are other definitions of ownership more akin to stewardship. Some circumstances recognise others interests and therefore limit rights and elevate responsibilities. This, arguably, sensible.
danShumway 8y ago
> than that's a scam, I don't really own it Legally speaking then, you don't own information about yourself like your address or past actions. The government won't let you erase that information. The only way to make your friends and family forget it is to kill them, which is obviously highly illegal. Even with efforts like Right to Be Forgotten, Europe isn't positing that you actually own information about yourself in the same way that you're doing here. Right to Be Forgotten is a) balanced against public interest, and b) only applies to information access and indexing. Right to Be Forgotten doesn't mean that you can demand a newspaper burn all copies of an article it wrote about you. The reality is that "ownership" means different things in different contexts. There's not a single definition. When we talk about "owning" data or Intellectual Property, we don't mean it in the same way that you "own" a wrench. How can you own something that is inside my head?
- nnq 8y ago
  > How can you own something that is inside my head? If I put it there, I own it, and I should be able to destroy all proof that it's not purely a fabrication of your imagination. (Sure, you can still know it and use it to guide your decision, but it shouldn't be legally valid any more, and there should be no way for you to convince others it's true.) Yeah, obviously if it's in the heads of other people too, it would be more accounts in favor of that information being authentic, increasing the probability that I am lying about that in a legal situation. But key thing would be that it's a probability. I can destroy the certainty. That could swing depending on context, maybe I'm more trustworthy than the group of people arguing for the authenticity of that piece of information. Obviously there's great deal of criminal activities that can be protected by going too far with this, so it's a question of "tweaking the dial" until we get the right amount of informational "light" and "darkness". As Jung said, there are some who need light, and some who thrive in the shadows...

stevenicr 8y ago

Anyone aware of any PFS / perfect forward secrecy that is baked into this or similar projects like briar, scuttlebut, ipfs, zeronet, kinds of things? I guessing it would be less likely an issue if your friends / associates have a downloaded copy of your messages for the past year if each week a different key pair was made to decipher a section of the data store or something.