5 ms·
There's a libertarian principle called minimal force. That is to say, libertarians believe that the initiation of force is immoral, and thus use of force again
by nirvana 15y ago
There's a libertarian principle called minimal force. That is to say, libertarians believe that the initiation of force is immoral, and thus use of force against the initiators is just, but only sufficient to mitigate the crime.
When someone steals your laptop, they are initiating force. In doing so, they give you the right to use methods, such as this software, to recover the laptop. But that right only extends to recovering the laptop, not to unnecessarily violate the privacy of the thief. While the thief does owe the laptop owner compensation for the crime, this is something that is determined via court, not by the victim of the crime.
So, yes, you have the right to hack into your laptop, turn on the webcam, collect evidence necessary to locate and recover the laptop, but you don't have the moral right to exploit the thief beyond that.
I remember the Defcon presentation had some privacy obscuring bits for the thief when he took nude shots of himself in the shower. That's appropriate. Shaming the theif by showing their face is reasonable, but only if you know they aren't an accidental victim. Sharing the thief's nude photos with the police or with any unnecessary third parties, where the they are not necessary for recovery, is a violation of privacy.
At least morally. Who knows whether a government in the US will hold the police accountable for any immoral actions.
- novas0x2a 15y agoI apologize if this seems like I'm attacking a strawman, that's not my intent. (If I did hit the strawman, please tell me how I've misunderstood...) The problem with this sort of ideology is it ignores deterrence as a force for stability. If the only acceptable response to an application of force is an equal, opposite force, then why shouldn't I steal someone's car for a week rather than rent a car? If the only punishment is that I am forced to pay for the "rental", then I'm afraid the logical thing to do is to steal a car from the nearest parking lot rather than go through the rigmarole of taking the shuttle to the rental car parking lot. You could counter-argue that the equal-opposite force would take that into account, but then, how do you calculate that? Does it cost exactly the same as a rental of an equivalent car would have? (In which case, no deterrence). Is there an additional charge for the theft? The calculation of opposite force starts to take on characteristics of our current civil legal system: calculation of the cost of a wrongdoing.
- drhodes 15y agoReputation and eventually ostracism. The thief would suffer public records indicating offenses against society. I bet the market would entertain many such reputation schemes. here's one that tracks bad drivers (I've no affiliation): http://www.zapatag.com/ http://www.zapatag.com/ Would a bank give a loan to a thief? It's up to the bank. It's hard to say how effective a social credit system would be.
- TruthElixirX 15y agoThe "rental" would include the damage you were dealt while not having that item.
- learc83 15y agoAdditional deterrent force is required, else people would always steal, and they'd be no worse off if they were caught than if they'd bought it in the first place. However, that retaliation is usually left to the courts in a society governed by laws. For example if someone steals from you, you can't just show up to their house and punch them.
- Zak 15y agoI think the principle includes a certain degree of deterrence as well as inconvenience to the victim. Calculating exactly the right punishment is, of course difficult. That's what courts are for.
- Retric 15y agoThat seems counter to the basic 'libertarian' idea of minimal government.
- jamesbkel 15y agoWell, most libertarian government structures call for precisely that. A police to enforce the law, a court system to provide fair rule and a small military intended for defense. [edit: Should add that although there are certainly disputes to how to fund said services, to the best of my knowledge it's largely agreed that some court system is required.]
- cabalamat 15y ago> you have the right to hack into your laptop, turn on the webcam, collect evidence necessary to locate and recover the laptop, but you don't have the moral right to exploit the thief beyond that Unless you do it in an amusing way, humiliating them in front of millions of internet users. This performs a public good by making people laugh, but more importantly by reducing the incentive to steal laptops. > Shaming the theif by showing their face is reasonable, but only if you know they aren't an accidental victim If it becomes well-publicised that people buying dodgy laptops can have their privacy violated, it will be harder for thieves to fence them. This will reduce future laptop thefts. > Sharing the thief's nude photos with the police or with any unnecessary third parties, where the they are not necessary for recovery, is a violation of privacy Yes, one that can bring considerable publicity, which as I've explained earlier can have the effect of reducing future thefts.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]