6 ms·

The law is not an algorithm that can be applied to tell you whether something is legal or not. Both intent and context come into it heavily. If the majority of

by rlpb 13y ago

The law is not an algorithm that can be applied to tell you whether something is legal or not. Both intent and context come into it heavily. If the majority of rsync shares contain private data, such that your search engine is effectively a private data search engine and can't really be used for anything else without continuously stumbling across more private data, then it could easily be considered radically different from Google's situation.

lutusp 13y ago
> The law is not an algorithm that can be applied to tell you whether something is legal or not. That may be true in practice, but that's what the law is supposed to be -- an unambiguous social signaling system, that applies to all persons equally, without vagueness or the possibility of terminological confusion. If a given law can be shown to be vague or confusing, it can be declared unconstitutional. Whether it will be declared unconstitutional depends on whether anyone is willing to fight about it in court. But the principle of public law is -- yes! -- that it is an "algorithm that can be applied to tell you whether something is legal or not." A failure in this role represents a failure in the legal system itself. > Both intent and context come into it heavily. Absolutely false. Someone who breaks the law can't argue that their intent or the context makes any difference. That might affect the punishment, but it doesn't affect the question of guilt.
- IanCal 13y ago
  > Absolutely false. Someone who breaks the law can't argue that their intent or the context makes any difference. That might affect the punishment, but it doesn't affect the question of guilt. How would you explain the difference between murder and manslaughter then? If someone dies on the operating table because the surgeon accidentally nicks an artery that's different from them actively trying to kill someone. The act is identical, only the intent is different. Intent is, and should be, a deciding factor in whether or not someone is guilty of a crime.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    >How would you explain the difference between murder and manslaughter then? Circumstances, which can only affect the punishment, not the judgment that a crime has taken place. But I already said this.
    - IanCal 13y ago
      Did you stop reading there? > If someone dies on the operating table because the surgeon accidentally nicks an artery that's different from them actively trying to kill someone. The act is identical, only the intent is different. In one case, there was a crime, in the other there wasn't. > Circumstances, which can only affect the punishment, not the judgment that a crime has taken place. But I already said this. The circumstances which change the crime committed. Not just punishment.
      - lutusp 13y ago
        I shouldn't have made my original claim without thinking about the fact that there really are crimes that are defined by what is in a person's mind, apart from their actions. One thought, acceptable. Another thought, crime. Thought crime. So I was being naive and you are right. And George Orwell was right.
        GhotiFish 13y ago
        I, uh, don't know about that, but I will say that thought and intent are not the same. Thinking about murdering someone and not taking any action to that effect, then actually killing that person; VS taking action to do it, strike me as different. It's possible that they are legally the same, but I doubt the court can do much to prove thought without a confession. IANAL
        lutusp 13y ago
        > I, uh, don't know about that, but I will say that thought and intent are not the same. True, but it's to some extent splitting hairs, because intent is often (but not always) constructed from thoughts. > Thinking about murdering someone and not taking any action to that effect, then actually killing that person; VS taking action to do it, strike me as different. Most courtroom battles on these issues revolve around trying to reconstruct intent based on things that actually happened and that can be presented as testimony. Premeditation, for example -- the difference between degrees of murder in many states -- might be inferred by a person's actions leading up to a crime, and afterward. > It's possible that they are legally the same, but I doubt the court can do much to prove thought without a confession. It's commonplace for prosecutions to proceed on the basis of a record of actions that are used to infer thoughts and intents.
- andrewflnr 13y ago
  What the law "should" be is very little comfort if you land in jail anyway. Makes it worse, in fact. I agree with you on what the law should be, but it doesn't matter here, unless you're prepared for an enormous fight. By the way, have you heard of "hate crimes"? Those are a real thing, according to the law, anyway.
- aidenn0 13y ago
  > Someone who breaks the law can't argue that their intent or the context makes any difference. Huh? The law takes intent into account all the time. (Criminal Defamation, for example).
- sitkack 13y ago
  Intent is a huge founding tenet in English law (which American law is derived). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law He would be liable for exposing private data, because of the kind of data he found wouldn't be reasonably published.
  - 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
    But IIUC US Federal law generally ignores intent -- in a bad way for the accused. A lack of bad intent isn't a mitigating factor. Prosecutorial discretion is tricky enough to begin with. But also mix in disregarding intent, and season with charging people multiple times for the same act? Federal prosecutors can be little Putins.
    - sitkack 13y ago
      Rip Aaron Swartz
- GhotiFish 13y ago
  >> Both intent and context come into it heavily. >Absolutely false. seriously? I thought most laws literally have "intent" as a requirement written into them. With the OP's service dedicated to explicitly revealing unintentionally insecure rsync servers, I can only imagine the plethora of horrid cyber security laws he would be vulnerable to.
yeahbutbut 13y ago
Is it really private if the owners made the data publicly available?
- VBprogrammer 13y ago
  I know bringing things from the real world into the digital realm often results in badly overstretched metaphors. Allow me this one; are your belongings really yours if you forget to lock the door?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - yeahbutbut 13y ago
    > Allow me this one; are your belongings really yours if you forget to lock the door? Practically, it depends on where you live. In major urban areas: no they're gone and they probably aren't coming back. Insurance might replace some of them. In the sticks? Most people don't lock their doors, even if they shut them. > I know bringing things from the real world into the digital realm often results in badly overstretched metaphors. Except this metaphor is already stretched beyond breaking. An index isn't even a copy. Copying a set of publicly available read-only files is not theft (you still have your copy I haven't deprived you of it). But we're not even talking about copying your files, just the names you've assigned to them. And in his proposed form, even allowing you to remove the names from our index. Pretty kind treatment for a copy that you've given me when I asked for it.
  - infinite8s 13y ago
    Your belongings are really only yours to the extent that social contract (ie the law) defines them as such or you are able to prevent other people from taking them. Everything else is an illusion.
  - sneak 13y ago
    > forget to lock the door oh god this again
  - sp332 13y ago

by rlpb 13y ago

lutusp 13y ago

> The law is not an algorithm that can be applied to tell you whether something is legal or not. That may be true in practice, but that's what the law is supposed to be -- an unambiguous social signaling system, that applies to all persons equally, without vagueness or the possibility of terminological confusion. If a given law can be shown to be vague or confusing, it can be declared unconstitutional. Whether it will be declared unconstitutional depends on whether anyone is willing to fight about it in court. But the principle of public law is -- yes! -- that it is an "algorithm that can be applied to tell you whether something is legal or not." A failure in this role represents a failure in the legal system itself. > Both intent and context come into it heavily. Absolutely false. Someone who breaks the law can't argue that their intent or the context makes any difference. That might affect the punishment, but it doesn't affect the question of guilt.

IanCal 13y ago
> Absolutely false. Someone who breaks the law can't argue that their intent or the context makes any difference. That might affect the punishment, but it doesn't affect the question of guilt. How would you explain the difference between murder and manslaughter then? If someone dies on the operating table because the surgeon accidentally nicks an artery that's different from them actively trying to kill someone. The act is identical, only the intent is different. Intent is, and should be, a deciding factor in whether or not someone is guilty of a crime.
- lutusp 13y ago
  >How would you explain the difference between murder and manslaughter then? Circumstances, which can only affect the punishment, not the judgment that a crime has taken place. But I already said this.
  - IanCal 13y ago
    Did you stop reading there? > If someone dies on the operating table because the surgeon accidentally nicks an artery that's different from them actively trying to kill someone. The act is identical, only the intent is different. In one case, there was a crime, in the other there wasn't. > Circumstances, which can only affect the punishment, not the judgment that a crime has taken place. But I already said this. The circumstances which change the crime committed. Not just punishment.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      I shouldn't have made my original claim without thinking about the fact that there really are crimes that are defined by what is in a person's mind, apart from their actions. One thought, acceptable. Another thought, crime. Thought crime. So I was being naive and you are right. And George Orwell was right.
      - GhotiFish 13y ago
        I, uh, don't know about that, but I will say that thought and intent are not the same. Thinking about murdering someone and not taking any action to that effect, then actually killing that person; VS taking action to do it, strike me as different. It's possible that they are legally the same, but I doubt the court can do much to prove thought without a confession. IANAL
        lutusp 13y ago
        > I, uh, don't know about that, but I will say that thought and intent are not the same. True, but it's to some extent splitting hairs, because intent is often (but not always) constructed from thoughts. > Thinking about murdering someone and not taking any action to that effect, then actually killing that person; VS taking action to do it, strike me as different. Most courtroom battles on these issues revolve around trying to reconstruct intent based on things that actually happened and that can be presented as testimony. Premeditation, for example -- the difference between degrees of murder in many states -- might be inferred by a person's actions leading up to a crime, and afterward. > It's possible that they are legally the same, but I doubt the court can do much to prove thought without a confession. It's commonplace for prosecutions to proceed on the basis of a record of actions that are used to infer thoughts and intents.
andrewflnr 13y ago
What the law "should" be is very little comfort if you land in jail anyway. Makes it worse, in fact. I agree with you on what the law should be, but it doesn't matter here, unless you're prepared for an enormous fight. By the way, have you heard of "hate crimes"? Those are a real thing, according to the law, anyway.
aidenn0 13y ago
> Someone who breaks the law can't argue that their intent or the context makes any difference. Huh? The law takes intent into account all the time. (Criminal Defamation, for example).
sitkack 13y ago
Intent is a huge founding tenet in English law (which American law is derived). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law He would be liable for exposing private data, because of the kind of data he found wouldn't be reasonably published.
- 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
  But IIUC US Federal law generally ignores intent -- in a bad way for the accused. A lack of bad intent isn't a mitigating factor. Prosecutorial discretion is tricky enough to begin with. But also mix in disregarding intent, and season with charging people multiple times for the same act? Federal prosecutors can be little Putins.
  - sitkack 13y ago
    Rip Aaron Swartz
GhotiFish 13y ago
>> Both intent and context come into it heavily. >Absolutely false. seriously? I thought most laws literally have "intent" as a requirement written into them. With the OP's service dedicated to explicitly revealing unintentionally insecure rsync servers, I can only imagine the plethora of horrid cyber security laws he would be vulnerable to.

yeahbutbut 13y ago

Is it really private if the owners made the data publicly available?

VBprogrammer 13y ago
I know bringing things from the real world into the digital realm often results in badly overstretched metaphors. Allow me this one; are your belongings really yours if you forget to lock the door?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- yeahbutbut 13y ago
  > Allow me this one; are your belongings really yours if you forget to lock the door? Practically, it depends on where you live. In major urban areas: no they're gone and they probably aren't coming back. Insurance might replace some of them. In the sticks? Most people don't lock their doors, even if they shut them. > I know bringing things from the real world into the digital realm often results in badly overstretched metaphors. Except this metaphor is already stretched beyond breaking. An index isn't even a copy. Copying a set of publicly available read-only files is not theft (you still have your copy I haven't deprived you of it). But we're not even talking about copying your files, just the names you've assigned to them. And in his proposed form, even allowing you to remove the names from our index. Pretty kind treatment for a copy that you've given me when I asked for it.
- infinite8s 13y ago
  Your belongings are really only yours to the extent that social contract (ie the law) defines them as such or you are able to prevent other people from taking them. Everything else is an illusion.
- sneak 13y ago
  > forget to lock the door oh god this again
- sp332 13y ago