4 ms·

> If you own a computer with the ability to send packets over TCP/IP, you're responsible for knowing what sending particular kinds of packets implies. Yes. >H

> If you own a computer with the ability to send packets over TCP/IP, you're responsible for knowing what sending particular kinds of packets implies. Yes. >Hacking a server you don't own is handling someone's property without permission. I meant handling in the most literal sense: manipulating something with your hands/body. Sending a message to someone/something isn't handling them/it in that sense. > When I host a web service, I grant the public permission for very particular kinds of access to it. I do not grant the public permission to try to break into it. Morally speaking, I do not require your permission to do something that doesn't physically involve you or your property. The only relevant physical involvements here are between you and your ISP, and me and my ISP. Anything else is abstraction. Under your permissions idea, I can go out and say "I grant the public permission to look at my face but not to say hello to me." > Your understanding of the world is incompatible with centuries of civil, criminal code, as well as millenia of common sense. Your understanding of the world is incompatible with freedom and justice. > Intent absolutely matters. Consider why mens rea is a thing. Something being a thing doesn't justify it morally. Slavery is a thing, you know? Murder is a thing, etc. > I take it you also don't take issue with people stealing the contents of vending machines, either? After all, there's no possible way to infer what the implied contract of a vending machine is! Sure, everyone with the intellectual maturity of a five year old understands that you're supposed to put money in, in exchange for its contents... But it's the owner's fault that if I happen to tilt it over a certain way, stuff comes out of it - without me putting any money in! I'm just manipulating it in a creative way! In a world with laws that make sense, it would be necessary to explicitly define the contract, because otherwise everyone would be handling someone else's property without permission. Simply state in the contract that people have to pay $x in order to take out their goods. If the contract says "use this machine at will and take its contents". Then yes, you can tilt it all you want, who would have thought?

zimpenfish 7y ago
> The only relevant physical involvements here are between you and your ISP, and me and my ISP. Forgive me, I may be wildly misunderstanding here, but are you saying that the hosted web service is fair game to you because you have no direct physical involvement with it? Because there's a middleman (your ISP talking to their ISP)?
httpsterio 7y ago
Manipulating something with your hands is a very arbitrary line to cross. What if you have gloves? What if you have prosthetic arms? What if you're remote controlling a robot to physically manipulate something on your behalf? Or is it the bare skin-to-material contact you'd make illegal? What if the person has a skin graft transplant on their hands? Like the guy above said, intent matters. That is why stuff like attempted murder is illegal. You might not physically touch the victim but if you intend on killing someone, but happen to fail, you are clearly in the wrong imo.
Quanttek 7y ago
Where does this arbitrary distinction between the physical and nonphysical realm come from? Who says that it would only be immoral to handle sth physically you don't have permission for? On what basis does this moral theory exclude the digital/nonphysical/nondirect way? Is someone remote operating a drone that kills a bunch of civilians not responsible? > Something being a thing doesn't justify it morally. Slavery is a thing, you know? Murder is a thing, etc. Instead of taking the contrarian route and coming up with wild theories, how about you first engage with any material from centuries of philosophy of law and jurisprudence? With any existing understandings? Your argument is extremely far out there and just demonstrates an utter lack of knowledge. It's not very respectful to then put the burden of "proof"/argument on all your discussion partners.

zimpenfish 7y ago

> The only relevant physical involvements here are between you and your ISP, and me and my ISP. Forgive me, I may be wildly misunderstanding here, but are you saying that the hosted web service is fair game to you because you have no direct physical involvement with it? Because there's a middleman (your ISP talking to their ISP)?

httpsterio 7y ago

Manipulating something with your hands is a very arbitrary line to cross. What if you have gloves? What if you have prosthetic arms? What if you're remote controlling a robot to physically manipulate something on your behalf? Or is it the bare skin-to-material contact you'd make illegal? What if the person has a skin graft transplant on their hands? Like the guy above said, intent matters. That is why stuff like attempted murder is illegal. You might not physically touch the victim but if you intend on killing someone, but happen to fail, you are clearly in the wrong imo.

Quanttek 7y ago

Where does this arbitrary distinction between the physical and nonphysical realm come from? Who says that it would only be immoral to handle sth physically you don't have permission for? On what basis does this moral theory exclude the digital/nonphysical/nondirect way? Is someone remote operating a drone that kills a bunch of civilians not responsible? > Something being a thing doesn't justify it morally. Slavery is a thing, you know? Murder is a thing, etc. Instead of taking the contrarian route and coming up with wild theories, how about you first engage with any material from centuries of philosophy of law and jurisprudence? With any existing understandings? Your argument is extremely far out there and just demonstrates an utter lack of knowledge. It's not very respectful to then put the burden of "proof"/argument on all your discussion partners.