3 ms·

This simple "no you" reframing of the user being entitled misses that the two situations are totally asymmetric. 1. A user is "entitled" to use a product how t

This simple "no you" reframing of the user being entitled misses that the two situations are totally asymmetric. 1. A user is "entitled" to use a product how they see fit without being harassed 2. A maker is "entitled" to wield the power of the state to go after and (potentially) cause the fining and even imprisonment of a user who is using it "the wrong way". You might say that copyleft software licensing (which I agree with) is aligned with point 2, but I'd respond with the fact that copyleft primarily exists to subvert the system of copyright (point 2) from within, as it pertains to software. Even then, copyleft only restricts people who want to redistribute modified versions of the software, and explicitly not normal users.

kelseyfrog 3y ago
I get the desire to have a parsimonious system, but if you take these two axioms in vacuo, then you've nullified cyber security law[1]. Or in other words, if you didn't want to get hacked, you shouldn't have had any exploits. Maybe this is what you're going for? If not, you'll need more or different axioms. 1. 18 U.S. Code § 1030 - "access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
- FiniteField 3y ago
  No, that's not "what I'm going for", because I'm talking about using a thing that I own, within the law. I'm not advocating for abolishing all laws that make "using a thing in a certain way" illegal, I'm saying that we shouldn't bestow corporations the right of legal prosecution against anyone they believe is using a product that they own "unacceptably". Just as I don't want a hammer to come with a terms-of-usage agreement, I don't want a hammer company to be held liable for crimes committed with one of their hammers. Obviously all simple axioms have a breaking point (if a hammer company sold someone a hammer for the express purpose of murdering somebody with it) but under any reasonable applications I think these hold up absolutely fine and are much better than the axioms we have now.

kelseyfrog 3y ago

I get the desire to have a parsimonious system, but if you take these two axioms in vacuo, then you've nullified cyber security law[1]. Or in other words, if you didn't want to get hacked, you shouldn't have had any exploits. Maybe this is what you're going for? If not, you'll need more or different axioms. 1. 18 U.S. Code § 1030 - "access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

FiniteField 3y ago
No, that's not "what I'm going for", because I'm talking about using a thing that I own, within the law. I'm not advocating for abolishing all laws that make "using a thing in a certain way" illegal, I'm saying that we shouldn't bestow corporations the right of legal prosecution against anyone they believe is using a product that they own "unacceptably". Just as I don't want a hammer to come with a terms-of-usage agreement, I don't want a hammer company to be held liable for crimes committed with one of their hammers. Obviously all simple axioms have a breaking point (if a hammer company sold someone a hammer for the express purpose of murdering somebody with it) but under any reasonable applications I think these hold up absolutely fine and are much better than the axioms we have now.