4 ms·

E.g. I have the personal liberty to host card game for money at my house. But if I require a house take, now I'm running a gambling business.

jMyles 11mo ago
That's not a difference in scope; it's a difference in kind. And even the latter is fraught with hazards to liberty.
- pseudalopex 11mo ago
  Observing and recording is a difference in kind. Recording and processing is a difference in kind. Processing and selling is a difference in kind. And quantity has a quality all its own.
  - jMyles 11mo ago
    > Observing and recording is a difference in kind. Not if you believe in a right of general-purpose computing. Your brain records everything you observe. If you can use a computer for any purpose you choose, then you can use it to record what you can see and hear.
    - pseudalopex 11mo ago
      Human memory is not recording in common or legal language. And laws now reflect the difference. Copyright for example.
      - jMyles 11mo ago
        ...I mean, sure, I'll argue that copyright laws are illegitimate on this basis. And it's beyond obvious at this point that the internet doesn't abide by this "law".
        pseudalopex 11mo ago
        Not wanting laws to reflect a difference does not mean a difference does not exist. > And it's beyond obvious at this point that the internet doesn't abide by this "law". What law? Copyright? Why the punctuation? And what did you intend this to imply?
        jMyles 11mo ago
        > Not wanting laws to reflect a difference does not mean a difference does not exist. The point is: the difference is a legal fiction which necessarily prohibits general-purpose computing. If I can capture photons with my eyes, but then I try to do it with a machine, and you say, "hey, you can't use a machine for that!" then you are telling me that I can't engage in general purpose computing. > What law? Copyright? Why the punctuation? And what did you intend this to imply? Yes, I don't think copyright laws are a legitimate role for state power in the information age. And if the argument is, "well, look copyright laws require prohibitions on collecting or copying data or any other general purpose computing process", then that only makes the case stronger, not weaker. If a law requires the state to intrude into your personal, intimate computing process - whether the biological process in your brain or an electronic one in your computer - then that's a very strong indication that the law is not a legitimate intervention on behalf of the rights of others.
        pseudalopex 11mo ago
        > The point is: the difference is a legal fiction The point was it was not. > If I can capture photons with my eyes, but then I try to do it with a machine, and you say, "hey, you can't use a machine for that!" then you are telling me that I can't engage in general purpose computing. Observing, recording, and processing are different words with different meanings. Repeating your assertion they are the same did not make it more persuasive. > Yes, I don't think copyright laws are a legitimate role for state power in the information age. And if the argument is, "well, look copyright laws require prohibitions on collecting or copying data or any other general purpose computing process", then that only makes the case stronger, not weaker. Copyright laws regulated copying always. There are arguments for copyright abolition worth considering. It is impossible to separate activities almost everyone but you can separate and separates is not.
    - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      > Not if you believe in a right of general-purpose computing Uh, sure. If we make up a right, there is a problem. Currently, this right doesn't exist. We make plenty of laws without presuming it exists. Plenty of people are trying and failing to pursue voters that it should exist, and I generaly commend them. But it's weird to the point of bordring on intentional distraction to try and pot this specific issue on the basis of a demand that doesn't apply to anything else.
      - jMyles 11mo ago
        If you can look at the world and conclude that a right to make something and use it as you see fit, in private and without harming others, does not exist, then I guess we just have a dramatically different perspective of the world in which we've arrived. > But it's weird to the point of bordring (sic) on intentional distraction to try and pot this specific issue on the basis of a demand that doesn't apply to anything else. You've assumed bad intentions and... I don't know what else to say. If I can see something with my eyes, save it in my brain, recall it later in a drawing, but can't do those same things with a computer, then the implications for the right of general-purpose computing (and for that matter, free thought) are just absolutely obvious.
        jakelazaroff 11mo ago
        We are commenting on an article where the process you describe leads to harming others, are we not? You can make it sound as robotic as you'd like, but at the end of the day we're still talking about corporations surveilling people on a massive scale and selling the data to be used against them. It's sort of like saying "what, so I can't assemble a simple contraption of metal and explosive powder, and use it as I see fit?" to elide the fact that what you're actually talking about is shooting a gun. The details matter!
        jMyles 11mo ago
        Well, the question is: where is the actual harm? If the case is that the movements of people are plainly observable, but that observing them advances the ability of an organizing like CBP to victimize them, then it seems to me that the logical conclusion is to abolish CBP. Which I think is actually a far more logical position and also a far more popular one among Americans, though many are now afraid to say it out loud. > It's sort of like saying "what, so I can't assemble a simple contraption of metal and explosive powder, and use it as I see fit?" to elide the fact that what you're actually talking about is shooting a gun. Shooting? Or building? Of course you have a right to fabricate a gun in your own home. Is this in dispute (at least, in the USA)? Equally obvious, you do not have a right to discharge it in a way that endangers others.
    - 3form 11mo ago
      Right of general-purpose computing doesn't allow you to do things that would be illegal for other reasons.
      - jMyles 11mo ago
        Of course. But seeing is not illegal. It's the violent kidnapping part that it's illegal. But for some reason we're afraid to hold CBP accountable for that, so instead we want to make it illegal for everyone to see.
        3form 11mo ago
        Seeing with your eyes is not, but recording might be. Using technology to see might be. And that doesn't necessarily infringe on your general computing rights, at least as understood by law, should there be any that grants you such.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > That's not a difference in scope; it's a difference in kind At a certain point, difference in scale becomes difference in kind. This is fundamental to the universe to the point of thermodynamics. (To the example, how do you think it would go if you regularly hosted hundres of card games in respect of which you didn't take a cut?)

jMyles 11mo ago

That's not a difference in scope; it's a difference in kind. And even the latter is fraught with hazards to liberty.

pseudalopex 11mo ago
Observing and recording is a difference in kind. Recording and processing is a difference in kind. Processing and selling is a difference in kind. And quantity has a quality all its own.
- jMyles 11mo ago
  > Observing and recording is a difference in kind. Not if you believe in a right of general-purpose computing. Your brain records everything you observe. If you can use a computer for any purpose you choose, then you can use it to record what you can see and hear.
  - pseudalopex 11mo ago
    Human memory is not recording in common or legal language. And laws now reflect the difference. Copyright for example.
    - jMyles 11mo ago
      ...I mean, sure, I'll argue that copyright laws are illegitimate on this basis. And it's beyond obvious at this point that the internet doesn't abide by this "law".
      - pseudalopex 11mo ago
        Not wanting laws to reflect a difference does not mean a difference does not exist. > And it's beyond obvious at this point that the internet doesn't abide by this "law". What law? Copyright? Why the punctuation? And what did you intend this to imply?
        jMyles 11mo ago
        > Not wanting laws to reflect a difference does not mean a difference does not exist. The point is: the difference is a legal fiction which necessarily prohibits general-purpose computing. If I can capture photons with my eyes, but then I try to do it with a machine, and you say, "hey, you can't use a machine for that!" then you are telling me that I can't engage in general purpose computing. > What law? Copyright? Why the punctuation? And what did you intend this to imply? Yes, I don't think copyright laws are a legitimate role for state power in the information age. And if the argument is, "well, look copyright laws require prohibitions on collecting or copying data or any other general purpose computing process", then that only makes the case stronger, not weaker. If a law requires the state to intrude into your personal, intimate computing process - whether the biological process in your brain or an electronic one in your computer - then that's a very strong indication that the law is not a legitimate intervention on behalf of the rights of others.
        pseudalopex 11mo ago
        > The point is: the difference is a legal fiction The point was it was not. > If I can capture photons with my eyes, but then I try to do it with a machine, and you say, "hey, you can't use a machine for that!" then you are telling me that I can't engage in general purpose computing. Observing, recording, and processing are different words with different meanings. Repeating your assertion they are the same did not make it more persuasive. > Yes, I don't think copyright laws are a legitimate role for state power in the information age. And if the argument is, "well, look copyright laws require prohibitions on collecting or copying data or any other general purpose computing process", then that only makes the case stronger, not weaker. Copyright laws regulated copying always. There are arguments for copyright abolition worth considering. It is impossible to separate activities almost everyone but you can separate and separates is not.
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > Not if you believe in a right of general-purpose computing Uh, sure. If we make up a right, there is a problem. Currently, this right doesn't exist. We make plenty of laws without presuming it exists. Plenty of people are trying and failing to pursue voters that it should exist, and I generaly commend them. But it's weird to the point of bordring on intentional distraction to try and pot this specific issue on the basis of a demand that doesn't apply to anything else.
    - jMyles 11mo ago
      If you can look at the world and conclude that a right to make something and use it as you see fit, in private and without harming others, does not exist, then I guess we just have a dramatically different perspective of the world in which we've arrived. > But it's weird to the point of bordring (sic) on intentional distraction to try and pot this specific issue on the basis of a demand that doesn't apply to anything else. You've assumed bad intentions and... I don't know what else to say. If I can see something with my eyes, save it in my brain, recall it later in a drawing, but can't do those same things with a computer, then the implications for the right of general-purpose computing (and for that matter, free thought) are just absolutely obvious.
      - jakelazaroff 11mo ago
        We are commenting on an article where the process you describe leads to harming others, are we not? You can make it sound as robotic as you'd like, but at the end of the day we're still talking about corporations surveilling people on a massive scale and selling the data to be used against them. It's sort of like saying "what, so I can't assemble a simple contraption of metal and explosive powder, and use it as I see fit?" to elide the fact that what you're actually talking about is shooting a gun. The details matter!
        jMyles 11mo ago
        Well, the question is: where is the actual harm? If the case is that the movements of people are plainly observable, but that observing them advances the ability of an organizing like CBP to victimize them, then it seems to me that the logical conclusion is to abolish CBP. Which I think is actually a far more logical position and also a far more popular one among Americans, though many are now afraid to say it out loud. > It's sort of like saying "what, so I can't assemble a simple contraption of metal and explosive powder, and use it as I see fit?" to elide the fact that what you're actually talking about is shooting a gun. Shooting? Or building? Of course you have a right to fabricate a gun in your own home. Is this in dispute (at least, in the USA)? Equally obvious, you do not have a right to discharge it in a way that endangers others.
  - 3form 11mo ago
    Right of general-purpose computing doesn't allow you to do things that would be illegal for other reasons.
    - jMyles 11mo ago
      Of course. But seeing is not illegal. It's the violent kidnapping part that it's illegal. But for some reason we're afraid to hold CBP accountable for that, so instead we want to make it illegal for everyone to see.
      - 3form 11mo ago
        Seeing with your eyes is not, but recording might be. Using technology to see might be. And that doesn't necessarily infringe on your general computing rights, at least as understood by law, should there be any that grants you such.
JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
> That's not a difference in scope; it's a difference in kind At a certain point, difference in scale becomes difference in kind. This is fundamental to the universe to the point of thermodynamics. (To the example, how do you think it would go if you regularly hosted hundres of card games in respect of which you didn't take a cut?)