4 ms·

[ Ignoring the morality of making ideas illegal... ] This demonstrates the difference between data (i.e. the number itself) and information (the interpretation

[ Ignoring the morality of making ideas illegal... ] This demonstrates the difference between data (i.e. the number itself) and information (the interpretation of data and use cases derived from that interpretation). What is "illegal" here is certain kinds of encryption and security software. A prime number is not the same thing as encryption and security software. But you can specify processes which allow encryption and security software to be uniquely identified by a prime number. The interpretation combined with the data is what's important, not the data in isolation.

_-_-_- 13y ago
You could slippery slope that argument ad infinitum, though. Even the interpretation combined with the data mean nothing if you don't have intent. And even with intent you have to have a computer. And even with intent and computer it has to be reasonable that you could use the computer. Let's imagine I am laying in my bed by the computer completely unable to speak or move. I can only breathe. But, I intended to copy a rights-protected DVD and then fell ill for 10 years while I had everything in place to do it sitting right there beside me? Are you going to charge me as I think there in a semi-comatose state? What if I was copying a copy-protected DVD, but in got stuck in the process, while I laid in my bed in a coma? What if the coma started immediately before the computer started executing the copy, and my pet mouse stepped on the keyboard, starting the copy? What if both the pet mouse and I had the intent to copy the DVD? What if the pet mouse's friend was watching in a nearby corner and had egged the pet mouse to touch the keyboard knowing that the copy-protection would be circumvented, but the pet mouse had no intent to circumvent, but I did, and I fell into a coma prior to the enter key being pressed by the mouse? What if the mouse spontaneously combusted atop the keyboard, pressing that key that the other mouse and I intended to be pressed, and the other mouse was an illegal, but had applied for citizenship of both the U.S. and Britain simultaneously while holding a non-resident visa for Australia while vacationing in the states, and was smoking a cigar in an area clearly marked as non-smoking?
- mkmkmmmmm 13y ago
  Haha, you don't need intent, you just need to joke about doing it online. Conspiracy to commit.
SilasX 13y ago
All true, but there are cases where the jump from the primality to the lawbreaking is really really short. For example, if the authorities compromise a CA/ISP/website's private key, they'll be prohibited from "tipping off" others that the corresponding public key is insecure. But (in the case of RSA), that knowledge is equivalent to "the authorities know that the factors of X are Y and Z" or even "X = Y times Z". Yep, announcing a number's factors can be illegal. That seems like a more interesting, non-convoluted kind of "illegal prime".
- IanCal 13y ago
  Putting the number 07574635453 on a website can be illegal. Putting the number 35.672 on a website can be illegal. Terrible isn't it! I could be sent to jail for sending someone "1101001100111110110111001111101111110100111011101100111111010011011111101011110100111011001101100111100111011111110101"! No, since the first could be in the context of me releasing personal information, and the second could be the quarterly earnings before they're released publicly. Or someones wages, or someones password, or the location of a witness in hiding, or the binary representation of a libellous claim, or harassment (but I only sent 0s and 1s in a message on facebook your honour!), or a million other things that we all agree are illegal. It's an incredibly boring, and over-repeated statement that you can represent information as numbers and therefore you can have ILLEGAL NUMBERS! What will the poor maths teachers do? > Yep, announcing a number's factors can be illegal. If you do so with the intent of breaking encryption I'm sure there are situations where it would be illegal. Intent, as is so often ignored when legal matters come up, is incredibly important.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    And if the intent is to watch legally purchased DVDs on a legally purchased computer with a legally purchased DVD drive running my choice of operating system, and I'm a 14 year old Norwegian kid, clearly prosecution is warranted.
    - IanCal 13y ago
      Are you accusing me of suggesting that is the case?
Natsu 13y ago
The interpretation of the data exists solely in our minds. Would that not make it, quite literally, thoughtcrime?
- dllthomas 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
  - baddox 13y ago
    That's not exactly what's going on in this thought experiment. If a crime is committed without mens rea, then it's still something bad that happened, like if a person kills another person but it was due to negligence rather than out of malice (and thus might not be murder legally). We don't think of that idea as "thoughtcrime," because the act itself (homicide) is fairly universally recognized as a crime (and a "bad thing") regardless of the thoughts behind it. But with intellectual property, that isn't the case. Most people would not consider publishing the nth prime to be a crime or a bad thing, but the law will treat it as a crime if the publisher happens to know that the nth prime is useful for breaking encryption (even if it's just to decrypt media you have bought legally). That's why, at least to me, negligent homicide doesn't feel like thoughtcrime, but intellectual property violation does.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      I agree it's not precisely mens rea; my point was simply that criminality has always depended in part on what was going on in people's heads. Note that it's not just IP. Imagine constructing a prime from which one could decode child pornography. For that matter, imagine finding a prime whose ascii representation was a death threat: publishing that would be legal; sending it to someone with the expectation that they read it as ascii would be illegal. The question is what is really going on, and a part of that is what's in people's heads. Law isn't voodoo, it's how we regulate actual behavior of actual people. "Thought crime", in its Orwellian context, is entirely different. I can think whatever thoughts I want opposing the copyright monopoly or even opposing prohibition of child pornography - in fact, in some scopes, I've thought both of these kinds of thoughts - and not be guilty of any crime.
A1kmm 13y ago
I think that it is better to think about it in terms of the 'colour of bits'. Bit colour can be thought of as an invisible property that follows a bit around whenever that bit is computed in a way that depends on another coloured bit. Suppose n_1 is picked randomly (from a distribution that doesn't take into account any 'coloured' bits). Suppose n_2 is computed from illegally obtained data. Now suppose that numerically, n_1 == n_2. Mathematically, n_1 and n_2 are indistinguishable, but in the eyes of the law, n_1 is not coloured and therefore legal, while n_2 is illegal. In practice, courts cannot see the colour of bits, so they have to infer the colour. If you claim that some data on your hard disk was randomly generated, but it is exactly the same as, say, a 100 GB copyrighted movie file. The probability of randomly generating such a small file (unless your distribution is stacked towards that file - which doesn't count as being uncoloured) is so small that it is not credible that you coincidentally generated it randomly, so the court will likely infer that the bits in that file are coloured. Another more complex example: suppose I give you four bitstrings, A, B, C, and D. Let ^ represent bitwise XOR. Suppose that A is a representation of the complete public domain works of Arthur Conan Doyle, A^B is a public domain representation of War & Peace, B^C is a copyrighted novel (and the person distributing the strings doesn't have permission to distribute it). C^D is a public domain representation of the bible. Which bitstrings are illegal? To decide, a court will need to infer how you generated the strings. A is clearly not illegal because it matches a public domain work exactly. B is completely determined by A and the contents of War & Peace. To compute C, you would take a copyrighted work and xor it with B, so that makes C illegal to distribute without permission because it was derived from a copyrighted work. To compute D, you need C and the bible, and since C is coloured, D is also coloured.
baddox 13y ago
But only data (i.e. the number itself, as bits) is transmitted over the Internet, not interpretations.

_-_-_- 13y ago

You could slippery slope that argument ad infinitum, though. Even the interpretation combined with the data mean nothing if you don't have intent. And even with intent you have to have a computer. And even with intent and computer it has to be reasonable that you could use the computer. Let's imagine I am laying in my bed by the computer completely unable to speak or move. I can only breathe. But, I intended to copy a rights-protected DVD and then fell ill for 10 years while I had everything in place to do it sitting right there beside me? Are you going to charge me as I think there in a semi-comatose state? What if I was copying a copy-protected DVD, but in got stuck in the process, while I laid in my bed in a coma? What if the coma started immediately before the computer started executing the copy, and my pet mouse stepped on the keyboard, starting the copy? What if both the pet mouse and I had the intent to copy the DVD? What if the pet mouse's friend was watching in a nearby corner and had egged the pet mouse to touch the keyboard knowing that the copy-protection would be circumvented, but the pet mouse had no intent to circumvent, but I did, and I fell into a coma prior to the enter key being pressed by the mouse? What if the mouse spontaneously combusted atop the keyboard, pressing that key that the other mouse and I intended to be pressed, and the other mouse was an illegal, but had applied for citizenship of both the U.S. and Britain simultaneously while holding a non-resident visa for Australia while vacationing in the states, and was smoking a cigar in an area clearly marked as non-smoking?

mkmkmmmmm 13y ago
Haha, you don't need intent, you just need to joke about doing it online. Conspiracy to commit.

SilasX 13y ago

All true, but there are cases where the jump from the primality to the lawbreaking is really really short. For example, if the authorities compromise a CA/ISP/website's private key, they'll be prohibited from "tipping off" others that the corresponding public key is insecure. But (in the case of RSA), that knowledge is equivalent to "the authorities know that the factors of X are Y and Z" or even "X = Y times Z". Yep, announcing a number's factors can be illegal. That seems like a more interesting, non-convoluted kind of "illegal prime".

IanCal 13y ago
Putting the number 07574635453 on a website can be illegal. Putting the number 35.672 on a website can be illegal. Terrible isn't it! I could be sent to jail for sending someone "1101001100111110110111001111101111110100111011101100111111010011011111101011110100111011001101100111100111011111110101"! No, since the first could be in the context of me releasing personal information, and the second could be the quarterly earnings before they're released publicly. Or someones wages, or someones password, or the location of a witness in hiding, or the binary representation of a libellous claim, or harassment (but I only sent 0s and 1s in a message on facebook your honour!), or a million other things that we all agree are illegal. It's an incredibly boring, and over-repeated statement that you can represent information as numbers and therefore you can have ILLEGAL NUMBERS! What will the poor maths teachers do? > Yep, announcing a number's factors can be illegal. If you do so with the intent of breaking encryption I'm sure there are situations where it would be illegal. Intent, as is so often ignored when legal matters come up, is incredibly important.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  And if the intent is to watch legally purchased DVDs on a legally purchased computer with a legally purchased DVD drive running my choice of operating system, and I'm a 14 year old Norwegian kid, clearly prosecution is warranted.
  - IanCal 13y ago
    Are you accusing me of suggesting that is the case?

Natsu 13y ago

The interpretation of the data exists solely in our minds. Would that not make it, quite literally, thoughtcrime?

dllthomas 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
- baddox 13y ago
  That's not exactly what's going on in this thought experiment. If a crime is committed without mens rea, then it's still something bad that happened, like if a person kills another person but it was due to negligence rather than out of malice (and thus might not be murder legally). We don't think of that idea as "thoughtcrime," because the act itself (homicide) is fairly universally recognized as a crime (and a "bad thing") regardless of the thoughts behind it. But with intellectual property, that isn't the case. Most people would not consider publishing the nth prime to be a crime or a bad thing, but the law will treat it as a crime if the publisher happens to know that the nth prime is useful for breaking encryption (even if it's just to decrypt media you have bought legally). That's why, at least to me, negligent homicide doesn't feel like thoughtcrime, but intellectual property violation does.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I agree it's not precisely mens rea; my point was simply that criminality has always depended in part on what was going on in people's heads. Note that it's not just IP. Imagine constructing a prime from which one could decode child pornography. For that matter, imagine finding a prime whose ascii representation was a death threat: publishing that would be legal; sending it to someone with the expectation that they read it as ascii would be illegal. The question is what is really going on, and a part of that is what's in people's heads. Law isn't voodoo, it's how we regulate actual behavior of actual people. "Thought crime", in its Orwellian context, is entirely different. I can think whatever thoughts I want opposing the copyright monopoly or even opposing prohibition of child pornography - in fact, in some scopes, I've thought both of these kinds of thoughts - and not be guilty of any crime.

A1kmm 13y ago

I think that it is better to think about it in terms of the 'colour of bits'. Bit colour can be thought of as an invisible property that follows a bit around whenever that bit is computed in a way that depends on another coloured bit. Suppose n_1 is picked randomly (from a distribution that doesn't take into account any 'coloured' bits). Suppose n_2 is computed from illegally obtained data. Now suppose that numerically, n_1 == n_2. Mathematically, n_1 and n_2 are indistinguishable, but in the eyes of the law, n_1 is not coloured and therefore legal, while n_2 is illegal. In practice, courts cannot see the colour of bits, so they have to infer the colour. If you claim that some data on your hard disk was randomly generated, but it is exactly the same as, say, a 100 GB copyrighted movie file. The probability of randomly generating such a small file (unless your distribution is stacked towards that file - which doesn't count as being uncoloured) is so small that it is not credible that you coincidentally generated it randomly, so the court will likely infer that the bits in that file are coloured. Another more complex example: suppose I give you four bitstrings, A, B, C, and D. Let ^ represent bitwise XOR. Suppose that A is a representation of the complete public domain works of Arthur Conan Doyle, A^B is a public domain representation of War & Peace, B^C is a copyrighted novel (and the person distributing the strings doesn't have permission to distribute it). C^D is a public domain representation of the bible. Which bitstrings are illegal? To decide, a court will need to infer how you generated the strings. A is clearly not illegal because it matches a public domain work exactly. B is completely determined by A and the contents of War & Peace. To compute C, you would take a copyrighted work and xor it with B, so that makes C illegal to distribute without permission because it was derived from a copyrighted work. To compute D, you need C and the bible, and since C is coloured, D is also coloured.

baddox 13y ago

But only data (i.e. the number itself, as bits) is transmitted over the Internet, not interpretations.