5 ms·

This is reminiscent of Gnu's "Right to read". http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html What is the so

by maeon3 13y ago

This is reminiscent of Gnu's "Right to read". http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html What is the solution if a person uses a printer to print devices that are used for what most people consider criminal behavior? For example, someone printing high performing secret remote detonating bomb materials for political enemy rallies. After they serve the prison sentence. Do you let them own an open source printer again and let them use it without restriction? With the power to print "anything" at low cost comes a tremendous power to kill thousands, even millions of people easily. How do you find the balance between freedom to let people print anything their hearts desire, and restrictions to stop the evil people from using that tremendous power for great evil?

logicallee 13y ago
In that both are a pretty shitty story illustrating a great point!! :)
betterunix 13y ago
Change a few words and see if it still makes sense: what is the solution if a person uses their garage to make things for criminal purposes? If they get out of prison, do you still allow them to have a garage?
- freehunter 13y ago
  See that's not the same though, unless the garage directly led to making the crime possible. Change a few words and see if it still makes sense: what if the person used their life for criminal purposes? If they get out of prison do you still allow them to have life? A garage is a place, not a tool.
  - MindTwister 13y ago
    What about changing it then... If I build a detonator using a soldering iron and spare parts from a radio, should I be banned from ever owning a soldering iron... or a radio
    - ansgri 13y ago
      The main difference is in the scale: you can't solder a thousand detonators before the police notices you. With a fast printing technology, you can.
      - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
        Your argument goes the other way. If someone with a printer can do the malicious thing quickly then prohibiting ownership of the printer is useless, because someone prohibited from owning it could just borrow one from someone not so prohibited for a very short period of time, do the crime, and return it without being detected. You might as well just prohibit the act of making detonators, because you'll never catch one without the other. Prohibiting ownership of the printers will just prevent those trying to reform themselves from using their skill in using printers to make legitimate things that benefit society.
  - hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
    It's exactly the same thing. What defines a crime is intention. For instance, firing a gun is not a crime per se. Or in the case of the United States, even building one isn't illegal, since no one made a law to make it so. [1] On the other hand, attempt to shoot, shooting or killing someone, are all possibly crimes, depending if there's intention and the circumstances (e.g., self-defense). So in your example, if someone makes materials for political enemies, first you need to prove intention or connection to the crimes committed by these parties (I'm assuming you don't mean illegal/controlled materials here). Then, when this person is sentenced, the judge can rule about restricting access to these materials anymore (for instance, restricting him from getting a job in industry). It's the same case as hackers sentenced for years away from computers. [1] http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believe-are-actually-legal.html http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believ...
    - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
      >It's the same case as hackers sentenced for years away from computers. Which always was, and remains, complete nonsense. If someone steals a car, you don't prohibit them from driving their own car to work after they return to society. The analogy the proponents of this nonsense will present is that it's more like lawyers being disbarred or bankers being prohibited from working in the financial industry. But that analogy fails, because prohibiting you from using a computer is not the analog of prohibiting you from being a lawyer or a banker, it's the analog of denying access to the court system or the ability to use money.
tomsthumb 13y ago
What does printing have to do with the legality of possessing something? If it's illegal to have then it's illegal to have. Does it fundamentally matter how you got it? On what basis can you really restrict peoples capacity to do something illegal using generally benign tools? You can't. Not without some serious shenanigans. I can bludgeon you to death with a stout leather shoe you know. No one is outlawing loafers next Tuesday.
nitrogen 13y ago
After they serve the prison sentence. Do you let them own an open source printer again and let them use it without restriction? According to one of the extra features on a well-known activist documentary about health care, in Norway a man convicted of murdering his family with a chainsaw was rehabilitated in part by employing him as a (well-supervised) logger, presumably to ensure his mind is well-trained in correct and incorrect uses of chainsaws. So "serve the prison sentence" is the wrong way to look at it. Instead we should be saying, "After they've been rehabilitated and reintegrated into society," with the focus on rehabilitation to prevent recidivism, rather than retribution to satisfy our primitive lust for revenge.

by maeon3 13y ago

logicallee 13y ago

In that both are a pretty shitty story illustrating a great point!! :)

betterunix 13y ago

Change a few words and see if it still makes sense: what is the solution if a person uses their garage to make things for criminal purposes? If they get out of prison, do you still allow them to have a garage?

freehunter 13y ago
See that's not the same though, unless the garage directly led to making the crime possible. Change a few words and see if it still makes sense: what if the person used their life for criminal purposes? If they get out of prison do you still allow them to have life? A garage is a place, not a tool.
- MindTwister 13y ago
  What about changing it then... If I build a detonator using a soldering iron and spare parts from a radio, should I be banned from ever owning a soldering iron... or a radio
  - ansgri 13y ago
    The main difference is in the scale: you can't solder a thousand detonators before the police notices you. With a fast printing technology, you can.
    - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
      Your argument goes the other way. If someone with a printer can do the malicious thing quickly then prohibiting ownership of the printer is useless, because someone prohibited from owning it could just borrow one from someone not so prohibited for a very short period of time, do the crime, and return it without being detected. You might as well just prohibit the act of making detonators, because you'll never catch one without the other. Prohibiting ownership of the printers will just prevent those trying to reform themselves from using their skill in using printers to make legitimate things that benefit society.
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  It's exactly the same thing. What defines a crime is intention. For instance, firing a gun is not a crime per se. Or in the case of the United States, even building one isn't illegal, since no one made a law to make it so. [1] On the other hand, attempt to shoot, shooting or killing someone, are all possibly crimes, depending if there's intention and the circumstances (e.g., self-defense). So in your example, if someone makes materials for political enemies, first you need to prove intention or connection to the crimes committed by these parties (I'm assuming you don't mean illegal/controlled materials here). Then, when this person is sentenced, the judge can rule about restricting access to these materials anymore (for instance, restricting him from getting a job in industry). It's the same case as hackers sentenced for years away from computers. [1] http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believe-are-actually-legal.html http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believ...
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    >It's the same case as hackers sentenced for years away from computers. Which always was, and remains, complete nonsense. If someone steals a car, you don't prohibit them from driving their own car to work after they return to society. The analogy the proponents of this nonsense will present is that it's more like lawyers being disbarred or bankers being prohibited from working in the financial industry. But that analogy fails, because prohibiting you from using a computer is not the analog of prohibiting you from being a lawyer or a banker, it's the analog of denying access to the court system or the ability to use money.

tomsthumb 13y ago

What does printing have to do with the legality of possessing something? If it's illegal to have then it's illegal to have. Does it fundamentally matter how you got it? On what basis can you really restrict peoples capacity to do something illegal using generally benign tools? You can't. Not without some serious shenanigans. I can bludgeon you to death with a stout leather shoe you know. No one is outlawing loafers next Tuesday.

nitrogen 13y ago

After they serve the prison sentence. Do you let them own an open source printer again and let them use it without restriction? According to one of the extra features on a well-known activist documentary about health care, in Norway a man convicted of murdering his family with a chainsaw was rehabilitated in part by employing him as a (well-supervised) logger, presumably to ensure his mind is well-trained in correct and incorrect uses of chainsaws. So "serve the prison sentence" is the wrong way to look at it. Instead we should be saying, "After they've been rehabilitated and reintegrated into society," with the focus on rehabilitation to prevent recidivism, rather than retribution to satisfy our primitive lust for revenge.