5 ms·

It's insane that they can get away with this with so little consequence.

jMyles 7y ago
edit: I misunderstood OP's comment; makes much more sense when I read it in the light suggested by anchpop below. ...that they can get away with copying a bytestream and decoding the result onto a screen? Which harms nobody? The insane part is that people, even on HN, have become convinced that someone can own knowledge to such exclusivity that copying bytes can be a crime.
- anchpop 7y ago
  The commenter was probably referring to the actions taken by LaLiga, not the bars illegally streaming.
  - jMyles 7y ago
    Riiiight. OK, that makes more sense. My bad. OK, so more on topic then: what's coming down the pipeline for hardware protection against this crap? Why don't we yet have small LEDs wired in series with microphone and camera on phones? It's crazy that my phone can record without my even realizing it.
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  So you wouldn't mind if I copied bytes of yours, such as private pictures, private documents, etc?
  - jMyles 7y ago
    Obviously it is my responsibility to keep those bytes away from you. If you come into possession of them in the absence of some kind of contractual obligation regarding how you'll handle them (ie a privacy policy to which you and I have jointly agreed), then yes of course you can do what you wish with them. Isn't this the same argument currently making its way through the public mindshare regarding WikiLeaks? Of course they had a right to distribute and comment on the contents of the State Dept. cables. The fact that the government claimed they were private (classified) can not overcome the basic thrust of freedoms of the press and speech.
    - oh_sigh 7y ago
      Ok, so you're walking down the street with a locked phone in your pocket. I send an Android Bluetooth 0-day payload to your phone. Nothing wrong with that, after all I'm just asking your phone if it wants to copy some bytes, and it says 'sure!'. Not my problem if your phone does something funky with those bytes. Now I have root, and copy off all of your pictures and private data onto my device. Nothing wrong with that, just copying some bytes, right? Finally, I have all of your data, no contractual obligations to you on how I use it. So I'll just copy some bytes over to Twitter or Instagram and publish your private photos to the world. That's all ok in your book, because all the time I'm just copying bytes? Your point is so reductivist that it is absurd. It's like declaring that any human action is just wiggling of fingers or flapping of vocal chords, and what can be so bad with wiggling fingers or flapping vocal cords?
      - jMyles 7y ago
        You've glossed over the important part. Yes, in a free society, it's my responsibility to be a ward against 0-days. This is the problem with unduly complex and / or closed source software and closed, proprietary hardware being in our pockets in the first place. To paint over these problems by restraining basic, fundamental speech (ie, you can repeat anything you know to anyone, specific contracts notwithstanding) is throwing away the baby instead of the bathwater.
        oh_sigh 7y ago
        Ok - so in your ideally free society, pedophiles should be able to share child pornography freely, assuming they didn't create it?
        jMyles 7y ago
        As a matter of maintaining mental health, I stop responding when threads devolve into "think of the children!" I hope you can understand.
        7y ago
  - stale2002 7y ago
    If I've published it in any way then go ahead! Seriously. If I publish something, I want others to see it. I don't really care if people see it because it was "pirated".
    - oh_sigh 7y ago
      If you publish a naked selfie to limited audience(your partner), you don't mind if anyone else sees it? And you want others to see it?
      - stale2002 7y ago
        That's not publishing man. It is quite obvious what I meant when I said publishing. Not really sure why you are acting in bad faith by purposefully misinterpreting what I said. But to give a clear definition of what publishing means, that any non idiot, non bad faith actor would have already known, what I meant by publishing is when I take some media and put it in a place where any large amount of people could access it. And if I publish something, then no, I have no problem with anyone accessing the information that I released for the purpose of a large amount of people to see.
        oh_sigh 7y ago
        How large of a private audience does one's performance need to have before your performance goes from a private to a public thing?
        stale2002 7y ago
        For me personally, I'd say maybe more than a couple hundred people. Anything that I show to more than a couple hundred people, I would have no problem releasing it to a billion people. Over a couple hundred people may as well be public, and Id have no problem if it became public.

edit: I misunderstood OP's comment; makes much more sense when I read it in the light suggested by anchpop below. ...that they can get away with copying a bytestream and decoding the result onto a screen? Which harms nobody? The insane part is that people, even on HN, have become convinced that someone can own knowledge to such exclusivity that copying bytes can be a crime.

anchpop 7y ago
The commenter was probably referring to the actions taken by LaLiga, not the bars illegally streaming.
- jMyles 7y ago
  Riiiight. OK, that makes more sense. My bad. OK, so more on topic then: what's coming down the pipeline for hardware protection against this crap? Why don't we yet have small LEDs wired in series with microphone and camera on phones? It's crazy that my phone can record without my even realizing it.
oh_sigh 7y ago
So you wouldn't mind if I copied bytes of yours, such as private pictures, private documents, etc?
- jMyles 7y ago
  Obviously it is my responsibility to keep those bytes away from you. If you come into possession of them in the absence of some kind of contractual obligation regarding how you'll handle them (ie a privacy policy to which you and I have jointly agreed), then yes of course you can do what you wish with them. Isn't this the same argument currently making its way through the public mindshare regarding WikiLeaks? Of course they had a right to distribute and comment on the contents of the State Dept. cables. The fact that the government claimed they were private (classified) can not overcome the basic thrust of freedoms of the press and speech.
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    Ok, so you're walking down the street with a locked phone in your pocket. I send an Android Bluetooth 0-day payload to your phone. Nothing wrong with that, after all I'm just asking your phone if it wants to copy some bytes, and it says 'sure!'. Not my problem if your phone does something funky with those bytes. Now I have root, and copy off all of your pictures and private data onto my device. Nothing wrong with that, just copying some bytes, right? Finally, I have all of your data, no contractual obligations to you on how I use it. So I'll just copy some bytes over to Twitter or Instagram and publish your private photos to the world. That's all ok in your book, because all the time I'm just copying bytes? Your point is so reductivist that it is absurd. It's like declaring that any human action is just wiggling of fingers or flapping of vocal chords, and what can be so bad with wiggling fingers or flapping vocal cords?
    - jMyles 7y ago
      You've glossed over the important part. Yes, in a free society, it's my responsibility to be a ward against 0-days. This is the problem with unduly complex and / or closed source software and closed, proprietary hardware being in our pockets in the first place. To paint over these problems by restraining basic, fundamental speech (ie, you can repeat anything you know to anyone, specific contracts notwithstanding) is throwing away the baby instead of the bathwater.
      - oh_sigh 7y ago
        Ok - so in your ideally free society, pedophiles should be able to share child pornography freely, assuming they didn't create it?
        jMyles 7y ago
        As a matter of maintaining mental health, I stop responding when threads devolve into "think of the children!" I hope you can understand.
        7y ago
- stale2002 7y ago
  If I've published it in any way then go ahead! Seriously. If I publish something, I want others to see it. I don't really care if people see it because it was "pirated".
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    If you publish a naked selfie to limited audience(your partner), you don't mind if anyone else sees it? And you want others to see it?
    - stale2002 7y ago
      That's not publishing man. It is quite obvious what I meant when I said publishing. Not really sure why you are acting in bad faith by purposefully misinterpreting what I said. But to give a clear definition of what publishing means, that any non idiot, non bad faith actor would have already known, what I meant by publishing is when I take some media and put it in a place where any large amount of people could access it. And if I publish something, then no, I have no problem with anyone accessing the information that I released for the purpose of a large amount of people to see.
      - oh_sigh 7y ago
        How large of a private audience does one's performance need to have before your performance goes from a private to a public thing?
        stale2002 7y ago
        For me personally, I'd say maybe more than a couple hundred people. Anything that I show to more than a couple hundred people, I would have no problem releasing it to a billion people. Over a couple hundred people may as well be public, and Id have no problem if it became public.