5 ms·

> I suspect that sexting will be redefined as non-criminal behaviour or as a minor offense, within the next couple of decades, simply because the alternative is

by derleth 14y ago

> I suspect that sexting will be redefined as non-criminal behaviour or as a minor offense, within the next couple of decades, simply because the alternative is to eventually criminalize a very large chunk of the population. People were saying precisely the same thing about marijuana having to be legalized by now because so many people in the 1970s were using it. What happened? Ultimately, having laws most people are guilty of breaking is a valuable tool of social control. As long as selective enforcement is practical, having something on nearly everyone can be a huge tool. So the future of blackmail will be like what we have now: Some people get away with things that utterly end others, based on a combination of gender, social class, and who they're trying to appeal to. I doubt the laws surrounding this will meaningfully change.

jorleif 14y ago
> having laws most people are guilty of breaking is a valuable tool of social control Not to dispute anything you are saying, this seems to be a preferred tool n some authoritarian countries. The downside is that it places a huge drain on economic activity, since one has to "keep up a good relation" with the government officials at all times. Needless to say, policy more in line with democratic ideals should be more efficient in the long run.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
objclxt 14y ago
I think Charles is probably wrong on this point, although not necessarily for the reasons you state. Simply because a law is violated by the majority of the population doesn't ipso facto make it a bad law (although in some cases this is certainly true). For example, many people break speeding limits, but we also accept that in some cases speed limits are justified. It's a matter of degrees. 'Sexting' laws are similar to age of consent laws. For example, a 13 year old girl (or boy) sending indecent images of themselves to someone many years older than them is clearly a problem. Two 13 year olds sending indecent pictures to each other may be morally concerning to some, but it's not going to bother the law.
- GFischer 14y ago
  "in some cases speed limits are justified". But many believe they're not. In my case, I believe most speed limits were set for a prior age, and modern cars can safely handle more than the obsolete speed limits now. There are endless discussions here on speed limits, and they are mostly negative about their effects: http://www.google.com/#q=speed+limits+site:news.ycombinator.com http://www.google.com/#q=speed+limits+site:news.ycombinator.... fleitz - "Interestingly, most accidents occur below the speed limit and increasing speed limits decrease accidents" "in Montana after a Judge invalidated their speeding laws as unconstitutional the number of accidents dropped" http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana.htm http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana.htm "Speed limits on roads are almost always political decisions, not engineering ones. How else do you explain the straight as an arrow, flat as a pane of glass, brand-spanking-new, 60mph limit roads crisscrossing the american midwest" The best speed limits I've seen were on German highways - they were variable speed limits based on road conditions (that actually made sense !!! ).
  - eru 14y ago
    > The best speed limits I've seen were on German highways - they were variable speed limits based on road conditions (that actually made sense !!! ). And people are still breaking them.
- Symmetry 14y ago
  You're wrong about that last as a matter of law (at least in the US). Anyone creating a sexual image of a subject who is 17 or younger is guilty of creating child pornography, no matter what the circumstances are. I'm sure that if Congress had considered the case of 17-year-olds taking pictures of themselves they would have written the law differently, but they didn't. One would also hope that prosecutors would exercise discretion about prosecuting these cases, but while some might others certainly don't.
  - randallsquared 14y ago
    One would also hope that prosecutors would exercise discretion about prosecuting these cases, but while some might others certainly don't. Draconian enforcement might be better in the long run, since the laws would get changed.
SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
> People were saying precisely the same thing about marijuana having to be legalized by now because so many people in the 1970s were using it. What happened? It's being legalised, slowly. That's what's happening.
GFischer 14y ago
"marijuana having to be legalized by now" At least in my country, bad example :) http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/09/world/americas/uruguay-marijuana-proposal/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/09/world/americas/uruguay-mar... it's also approved for medical use in California, not prosecuted in Portugal, and legalized in the Netherlands (with some caveats). These laws are still a hard sell, but not unthinkable as they might have been in the 70's. Lawmakers are slower than we'd like, but eventually I believe they will be redefined. More likely, it will just not be prosecuted (much like I believe marijuana use is nowadays).
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
>> As long as selective enforcement is practical This is I think the key. Technology gives us the ability to catch everyone. Speeding is the obvious example, but Facebook, lifeloggers, mobile GPS will help us auto-catch far wider ranges of crimes. So if we can catch everyone, and log that data, but only prosecute, for sake of argument, those of Hispanic or Afro-Caribbean descent, will the democratic process choose: 1. prosecute everyone 2. decriminalise 3. keep the status quo, deal with the rioting severely, send a large proportion of your populace to prison. None of those are great choices, and vary depending on the crime. But I suspect 3. is always going to be a socially unacceptable - but it is the status quo now (5% of US Blacks in prison vs 0.7% Whites - what happens when that equalises ? Which way will it go - 5% of the whole of USA?) Interesting.
- pessimizer 14y ago
  If logging everyone reduces the powerful to those choices, they'll just figure out a way not to have themselves logged. Fast-track lines at the airport? Super PACs? Setting the price point really high for tracking-free versions of services through regulation or selective investment, and leaving the rest to advertising-supported life-quantization vendors for those same services? Trying to trap people who have leverage in a bind is a losing proposition. You can't trap people in a bind unless you have leverage.
  - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
    Surely the difference between a functioning democracy and a totalitarian regime is trapping people in a bind (otherwise called one law for all). I am just saying that yet another threat to functioning democracies is coming round the corner, and weirdly, speeding cameras are the canary in the mine. Wait till the iris scanner that lets you in the office building also does blood alcohol / cannabis testing.
    - pessimizer 14y ago
      I'm just predicting that the executives will enter through a different door.
gizmo686 14y ago
"People were saying precisely the same thing about marijuana having to be legalized by now because so many people in the 1970s were using it. What happened?" We elected a criminal into the presidency.
jhcoaps2 14y ago
> People were saying precisely the same thing about marijuana having to be legalized by now because so many people in the 1970s were using it. What happened? Republicans realized that if they continued vilifying the living hell out of anybody who talked about drug law reform, they could continue stripping minorities of their rights. And because they were good at it, the Democrats can't get elected unless they agree to continue the drug war. The drug war is a disenfranchisement campaign that happens to line a lot of people's pockets, nothing more.
rdtsc 14y ago
> Ultimately, having laws most people are guilty of breaking is a valuable tool of social control. And that is another good benchmark of an oppressive regime. A system that makes sure there are so many laws or they are so ambiguous that anyone is always guilty of something. Then they just record it all. All the times you sped by the speed camera, all the little discrepancies in your tax record, all the times you bought out of state but didn't pay sales tax to your state, all the websites you visited, everything you possibly posted online. One day you become dissatisfied with something and choose to exercise your freedom to protest. Then someone approaches and invites you to have a a chit chat. They show you all your files and all the laws you broke and suggest that if anyone starts looking into it, it could be years of jail time, stiff penalties, or perpetual court dates and then ask the question "are you sure you want to exercise your freedom?" With current technologies, and current set of laws, and government disposition towards recording everything (see NSA's new data center) this becomes reality right here right now in US.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
chimeracoder 14y ago
> As long as selective enforcement is practical, having something on nearly everyone can be a huge tool. Which is why the biggest enemy of an unfair law is total enforcement. The reason marijuana was quickly exempted from the Rockefeller drug laws of the 1970s is that too many rich white kids ended up with long prison sentences, so the PTAs of all organizations lobbied to change the mandatory minimums. I wrote about this a while back[1], because this same principle is what alarmed me the most about SOPA: if you really think this [child porn/filesharing/etc.] is a problem, then that means the law should apply to Google, Youtube, and even the White House petition website as much as it applies to indie blogs and torrent trackers. http://varnull.adityamukerjee.net/post/17216925880/online-piracy-the-new-war-on-drugs http://varnull.adityamukerjee.net/post/17216925880/online-pi...

by derleth 14y ago

jorleif 14y ago

> having laws most people are guilty of breaking is a valuable tool of social control Not to dispute anything you are saying, this seems to be a preferred tool n some authoritarian countries. The downside is that it places a huge drain on economic activity, since one has to "keep up a good relation" with the government officials at all times. Needless to say, policy more in line with democratic ideals should be more efficient in the long run.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

objclxt 14y ago

I think Charles is probably wrong on this point, although not necessarily for the reasons you state. Simply because a law is violated by the majority of the population doesn't ipso facto make it a bad law (although in some cases this is certainly true). For example, many people break speeding limits, but we also accept that in some cases speed limits are justified. It's a matter of degrees. 'Sexting' laws are similar to age of consent laws. For example, a 13 year old girl (or boy) sending indecent images of themselves to someone many years older than them is clearly a problem. Two 13 year olds sending indecent pictures to each other may be morally concerning to some, but it's not going to bother the law.

GFischer 14y ago
"in some cases speed limits are justified". But many believe they're not. In my case, I believe most speed limits were set for a prior age, and modern cars can safely handle more than the obsolete speed limits now. There are endless discussions here on speed limits, and they are mostly negative about their effects: http://www.google.com/#q=speed+limits+site:news.ycombinator.com http://www.google.com/#q=speed+limits+site:news.ycombinator.... fleitz - "Interestingly, most accidents occur below the speed limit and increasing speed limits decrease accidents" "in Montana after a Judge invalidated their speeding laws as unconstitutional the number of accidents dropped" http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana.htm http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana.htm "Speed limits on roads are almost always political decisions, not engineering ones. How else do you explain the straight as an arrow, flat as a pane of glass, brand-spanking-new, 60mph limit roads crisscrossing the american midwest" The best speed limits I've seen were on German highways - they were variable speed limits based on road conditions (that actually made sense !!! ).
- eru 14y ago
  > The best speed limits I've seen were on German highways - they were variable speed limits based on road conditions (that actually made sense !!! ). And people are still breaking them.
Symmetry 14y ago
You're wrong about that last as a matter of law (at least in the US). Anyone creating a sexual image of a subject who is 17 or younger is guilty of creating child pornography, no matter what the circumstances are. I'm sure that if Congress had considered the case of 17-year-olds taking pictures of themselves they would have written the law differently, but they didn't. One would also hope that prosecutors would exercise discretion about prosecuting these cases, but while some might others certainly don't.
- randallsquared 14y ago
  One would also hope that prosecutors would exercise discretion about prosecuting these cases, but while some might others certainly don't. Draconian enforcement might be better in the long run, since the laws would get changed.

SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago

> People were saying precisely the same thing about marijuana having to be legalized by now because so many people in the 1970s were using it. What happened? It's being legalised, slowly. That's what's happening.

GFischer 14y ago

"marijuana having to be legalized by now" At least in my country, bad example :) http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/09/world/americas/uruguay-marijuana-proposal/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/09/world/americas/uruguay-mar... it's also approved for medical use in California, not prosecuted in Portugal, and legalized in the Netherlands (with some caveats). These laws are still a hard sell, but not unthinkable as they might have been in the 70's. Lawmakers are slower than we'd like, but eventually I believe they will be redefined. More likely, it will just not be prosecuted (much like I believe marijuana use is nowadays).

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

>> As long as selective enforcement is practical This is I think the key. Technology gives us the ability to catch everyone. Speeding is the obvious example, but Facebook, lifeloggers, mobile GPS will help us auto-catch far wider ranges of crimes. So if we can catch everyone, and log that data, but only prosecute, for sake of argument, those of Hispanic or Afro-Caribbean descent, will the democratic process choose: 1. prosecute everyone 2. decriminalise 3. keep the status quo, deal with the rioting severely, send a large proportion of your populace to prison. None of those are great choices, and vary depending on the crime. But I suspect 3. is always going to be a socially unacceptable - but it is the status quo now (5% of US Blacks in prison vs 0.7% Whites - what happens when that equalises ? Which way will it go - 5% of the whole of USA?) Interesting.

pessimizer 14y ago
If logging everyone reduces the powerful to those choices, they'll just figure out a way not to have themselves logged. Fast-track lines at the airport? Super PACs? Setting the price point really high for tracking-free versions of services through regulation or selective investment, and leaving the rest to advertising-supported life-quantization vendors for those same services? Trying to trap people who have leverage in a bind is a losing proposition. You can't trap people in a bind unless you have leverage.
- lifeisstillgood 14y ago
  Surely the difference between a functioning democracy and a totalitarian regime is trapping people in a bind (otherwise called one law for all). I am just saying that yet another threat to functioning democracies is coming round the corner, and weirdly, speeding cameras are the canary in the mine. Wait till the iris scanner that lets you in the office building also does blood alcohol / cannabis testing.
  - pessimizer 14y ago
    I'm just predicting that the executives will enter through a different door.

gizmo686 14y ago

"People were saying precisely the same thing about marijuana having to be legalized by now because so many people in the 1970s were using it. What happened?" We elected a criminal into the presidency.

jhcoaps2 14y ago

> People were saying precisely the same thing about marijuana having to be legalized by now because so many people in the 1970s were using it. What happened? Republicans realized that if they continued vilifying the living hell out of anybody who talked about drug law reform, they could continue stripping minorities of their rights. And because they were good at it, the Democrats can't get elected unless they agree to continue the drug war. The drug war is a disenfranchisement campaign that happens to line a lot of people's pockets, nothing more.

rdtsc 14y ago

> Ultimately, having laws most people are guilty of breaking is a valuable tool of social control. And that is another good benchmark of an oppressive regime. A system that makes sure there are so many laws or they are so ambiguous that anyone is always guilty of something. Then they just record it all. All the times you sped by the speed camera, all the little discrepancies in your tax record, all the times you bought out of state but didn't pay sales tax to your state, all the websites you visited, everything you possibly posted online. One day you become dissatisfied with something and choose to exercise your freedom to protest. Then someone approaches and invites you to have a a chit chat. They show you all your files and all the laws you broke and suggest that if anyone starts looking into it, it could be years of jail time, stiff penalties, or perpetual court dates and then ask the question "are you sure you want to exercise your freedom?" With current technologies, and current set of laws, and government disposition towards recording everything (see NSA's new data center) this becomes reality right here right now in US.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

chimeracoder 14y ago

> As long as selective enforcement is practical, having something on nearly everyone can be a huge tool. Which is why the biggest enemy of an unfair law is total enforcement. The reason marijuana was quickly exempted from the Rockefeller drug laws of the 1970s is that too many rich white kids ended up with long prison sentences, so the PTAs of all organizations lobbied to change the mandatory minimums. I wrote about this a while back[1], because this same principle is what alarmed me the most about SOPA: if you really think this [child porn/filesharing/etc.] is a problem, then that means the law should apply to Google, Youtube, and even the White House petition website as much as it applies to indie blogs and torrent trackers. http://varnull.adityamukerjee.net/post/17216925880/online-piracy-the-new-war-on-drugs http://varnull.adityamukerjee.net/post/17216925880/online-pi...