41 ms·

There isn't any question or moral ambiguity here. Replace the code with an undercover cop and re-try the thought experiment.

by nilved 13y ago

ThomPete 13y ago
Replace it with a kid and retry it and you will find its setting up a false premise.
jerf 13y ago
Code is not an undercover cop. Undercover cops have cost restrictions that prevent their casual use. An undercover cop is also still a real person who may still be having a crime committed against them. There's too many differences for this argument to hold. It is, at best, a good start of an argument, but one that needs to address the practical differences between a program and a human, in terms of cost, morality, sentience, etc. And I think at the end of that process you'd find that you can't just treat code as an undercover cop, and it wasn't actually that great a starting point after all.
kinghajj 13y ago
While in both scenarios a crime is technically committed (I would guess something like "using a computer with the intent of accessing/distributing child pornography,") can't you appreciate how it bothers some to think that one could be convicted without any victim? Lets use a computer analogy: what if I put up a server running running an SSH-like service that would present a false shell and allow commands to be entered, and even give reasonable-yet-bogus responses, and I put up the username/password information on a pastebin and post it everywhere. Should anyone who connects to it and attempts to run "rm -rf /" be convicted of a crime for intended to destroy computer data, even when their action actually has no effect?
- joosters 13y ago
  Crime is a combination of intentions, actions and results. Just because no-one is harmed doesn't mean there's no crime. If I try and murder someone and fail (perhaps I'm a poor shot?) then I'm hardly an innocent. I'd recommend the webcomic 'The illustrated guide to law' to everyone, especially many of the commentators on here. It is disturbing to read some of these posts. http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=173 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=173
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Seconding this recommendation; the whole series is lengthy and consistently pretty great.
  - kinghajj 13y ago
    I know there is a crime committed here, my first line was "While in both scenarios a crime is technically committed..." And of course I don't question the general case that attempting to commit crimes should itself be a crime, I was merely pointing out that applying that reasoning can sometimes lead to questionably-just outcomes.

There isn't any question or moral ambiguity here. Replace the code with an undercover cop and re-try the thought experiment.

by nilved 13y ago

There isn't any question or moral ambiguity here. Replace the code with an undercover cop and re-try the thought experiment.

ThomPete 13y ago

Replace it with a kid and retry it and you will find its setting up a false premise.

jerf 13y ago

Code is not an undercover cop. Undercover cops have cost restrictions that prevent their casual use. An undercover cop is also still a real person who may still be having a crime committed against them. There's too many differences for this argument to hold. It is, at best, a good start of an argument, but one that needs to address the practical differences between a program and a human, in terms of cost, morality, sentience, etc. And I think at the end of that process you'd find that you can't just treat code as an undercover cop, and it wasn't actually that great a starting point after all.

kinghajj 13y ago

While in both scenarios a crime is technically committed (I would guess something like "using a computer with the intent of accessing/distributing child pornography,") can't you appreciate how it bothers some to think that one could be convicted without any victim? Lets use a computer analogy: what if I put up a server running running an SSH-like service that would present a false shell and allow commands to be entered, and even give reasonable-yet-bogus responses, and I put up the username/password information on a pastebin and post it everywhere. Should anyone who connects to it and attempts to run "rm -rf /" be convicted of a crime for intended to destroy computer data, even when their action actually has no effect?

joosters 13y ago
Crime is a combination of intentions, actions and results. Just because no-one is harmed doesn't mean there's no crime. If I try and murder someone and fail (perhaps I'm a poor shot?) then I'm hardly an innocent. I'd recommend the webcomic 'The illustrated guide to law' to everyone, especially many of the commentators on here. It is disturbing to read some of these posts. http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=173 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=173
- tptacek 13y ago
  Seconding this recommendation; the whole series is lengthy and consistently pretty great.
- kinghajj 13y ago
  I know there is a crime committed here, my first line was "While in both scenarios a crime is technically committed..." And of course I don't question the general case that attempting to commit crimes should itself be a crime, I was merely pointing out that applying that reasoning can sometimes lead to questionably-just outcomes.