> There are things which I'm not allowed to take photographs of ... But photography isn't illegal per se. You don't need a license to have and legally use a ca

> There are things which I'm not allowed to take photographs of ... But photography isn't illegal per se. You don't need a license to have and legally use a camera. Taking some pictures may constitute a crime, but it won't be simply having the camera and clicking the shutter button. > There is data I'm not allowed to be given or store, like a random stranger's medical records. Not really. If I give you my medical PII you've committed no crime. Even if you store it you only may be liable. > There are communications I am not allowed to make, such as the sequence of bits in copyrighted material] If you intend to interact with the media it encodes then yes, but if you're a dev and I send you a test vector you can't be expected to know what those bits encode. > > You can't make any law you want, and keep a free society. You can't tell people they can't train neural nets on public data You can't tell people they can't add public numbers. Training an AI is all math and in theory could be done on paper. Having laws that would proactively make training an AI on public data illegal would make our society not free. Public data wouldn't mean anything, because the public wouldn't be able to read it. Training an AI is so vague that making notes about a text could qualify. If the courts tried to enforce such a law non-selectively it would criminalize everyone. > You're allowed to be an anarchist and say those things should be legal Anarchists don't believe more things should be legal, they think there should be less or no laws. It's quite different. Laws are supposed to recognize and punish damages, not to broadly prohibit new technologies that sound scary when they were invented.