4 ms·

No, all I am saying is that you cannot equate "breaking and entering" to "decrypting a file". The two are fundamentally different. If you want to deal with crim

No, all I am saying is that you cannot equate "breaking and entering" to "decrypting a file". The two are fundamentally different. If you want to deal with crimes pertaining to decryption, you deal with them after the fact based on the actions and their broader context. So in this case, the action is "publishing". Whether publishing is legal or not is governed by different laws.

whateveracct 8y ago
I think it's more analogous to the following than publishing: If someone steals a safe, and then brings it to me to unlock and I know they stole it originally, I am in violation of the law and clearly committing a criminal act.
- bubblethink 8y ago
  If someone steals your safe, you don't have the safe any more, do you ? Does the person from whom you steal a file still have the file ? See why analogies don't work ?
  - whateveracct 8y ago
    Ah I see. So if I have information in digital form and someone gets it via unauthorized access to my hardware, it isn't criminal because I still have my information. LOL
belltaco 8y ago
So if someone steals, er, I mean copies your private information without permission like SSN, bank information, mothers maiden name, debit card numbers, etc. they never committed a crime unless they use or publishes them? I don't think so. >you deal with them after the fact based on the actions and their broader context. So in this case, the action is "publishing". Whether publishing is legal or not is governed by different laws. That's done only as a convenience of law enforcement. Just like if you download a Hollywood movie torrent without purchasing it, you're still committing a crime even though law enforcement won't come after you because it takes too many resources.
- bubblethink 8y ago
  >Just like if you download a Hollywood movie torrent without purchasing it, you're still committing a crime even though law enforcement won't come after you because it takes too many resources. No, that's not how DMCA, flawed as it may be, works. The illegal part that can be proven is uploading, not downloading. They get your IP when you upload a chunk in the swarm, which serves as evidence. That's a crucial difference. If you are only a leecher who never uploads a single bit, you would not get a notice. Uploading (or publishing) copyrighted content is governed by a set of laws. Publishing news articles is governed by a different set.

whateveracct 8y ago

I think it's more analogous to the following than publishing: If someone steals a safe, and then brings it to me to unlock and I know they stole it originally, I am in violation of the law and clearly committing a criminal act.

bubblethink 8y ago
If someone steals your safe, you don't have the safe any more, do you ? Does the person from whom you steal a file still have the file ? See why analogies don't work ?
- whateveracct 8y ago
  Ah I see. So if I have information in digital form and someone gets it via unauthorized access to my hardware, it isn't criminal because I still have my information. LOL

belltaco 8y ago

So if someone steals, er, I mean copies your private information without permission like SSN, bank information, mothers maiden name, debit card numbers, etc. they never committed a crime unless they use or publishes them? I don't think so. >you deal with them after the fact based on the actions and their broader context. So in this case, the action is "publishing". Whether publishing is legal or not is governed by different laws. That's done only as a convenience of law enforcement. Just like if you download a Hollywood movie torrent without purchasing it, you're still committing a crime even though law enforcement won't come after you because it takes too many resources.

bubblethink 8y ago
>Just like if you download a Hollywood movie torrent without purchasing it, you're still committing a crime even though law enforcement won't come after you because it takes too many resources. No, that's not how DMCA, flawed as it may be, works. The illegal part that can be proven is uploading, not downloading. They get your IP when you upload a chunk in the swarm, which serves as evidence. That's a crucial difference. If you are only a leecher who never uploads a single bit, you would not get a notice. Uploading (or publishing) copyrighted content is governed by a set of laws. Publishing news articles is governed by a different set.