4 ms·
Like most things, there isn't a magical number, and the notion that there should be (or that there is, but not codified) is a dream that tech people would have
by claudiawerner 8y ago
Like most things, there isn't a magical number, and the notion that there should be (or that there is, but not codified) is a dream that tech people would have to imagine how the world works. They think they outsmart the law with various technicalities and hypothetical solutions - but in the end it comes down to a judge's interpretation, and no amount of "well actually"ing will get you around that.
So you might think "a 16x16 image can be illegal?! ridiculous!" - well tough, the law doesn't care about how many pixels the image contains, despite a hacker's incredulity.
- losvedir 8y agoRelated: The excellent What colour are your bits? [0] [0] https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
- klipt 8y agoWell as a non pedophile I have no desire to possess child porn, but I also don't want to be framed or blackmailed over innocent data that becomes illegal under some technicality like "when xor'd with the blackmailer's carefully constructed data this becomes child porn" - because the latter could happen to anyone?
- claudiawerner 8y agoThat's an issue that's mostly irrelevant to the law, though. Even if you were to receive XOR'd data (or something encrypted), simple possession wouldn't be illegal if you reasonably weren't aware that it could be interpreted that way, or (as someone else pointed out) at least in the UK you didn't have the "knowledge or tools" for such a decryption. Intent obviously matters here, among a host of other factors. That was really my point all along - viewing this as detached from the actual workings of the law and situations is a fun mind game for hackers, but is ultimately irrelevant when it comes to human judges interpreting human laws.