Comment by chroma | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chroma | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I don't see an explicit governmental condonement of the contents of that link.

> You still haven't made a case for why possessing such information should be a bona fide crime (as opposed to being evidence of a real crime). You've merely asserted it should be illegal, with only scary innuendo to back it up.

SILEX makes it possible to enrich uranium in secret for mere millions of dollars. It was privately discovered, but the process was classified by the government. If the exact details spread, it could be a global catastrophe. I'm totally fine with this information being restricted, as the harm of censorship is outweighed by the risk of nuclear proliferation. The US government seems to agree.

> So where are these trolls now, given they can act with impunity through TOR?

They don't post links to child porn because such things aren't hosted on the open web. Right now, the worst things trolls can link to are disgusting or gory images. If the law was different, they could link to worse things.

> The problem isn't being framed, it's the ridiculousness of strict-liability non-mens-rea possession, especially of something that can be so easily obtained.

There are plenty of physical goods that meet the same criteria and are just as illegal. I think only a borderline anarchist would disagree with many of those laws. For example: Thanks to 3D printing, it is very easy to obtain a full-auto sear for an AR-15. Such a piece of metal is –by itself– completely harmless. It can't do anything dangerous unless it's installed into a compatible rifle. Yet mere possession of an unlicensed full-auto sear will get you up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

That's right: Possession of a tiny piece of metal is the difference between a completely legal existence and a decade in prison. And that has been the case in the US since 1934. When put that way, it may seem unfair. But that tiny piece of metal could easily be used to cause immense harm, and it has no other use. Just like some data.

Now, if you're willing to bite the bullet and say that possession of full-auto sears should be legal, I'm fine with that. I'll disagree, but I'll admire your consistency. On the other hand: If you don't think such devices should be legal to possess, then I think your support for possession of arbitrary digital goods is rather hypocritical.

> If the exact details spread, it could be a global catastrophe. I'm totally fine with this information being restricted

And yet such criminalization won't stop someone actually determined to use it. If your security relies on preventing the spread of readily-available information, you've already lost. Your argument only seems practical for this situation because the only entities in possession of said information are already doing the work to keep it secret.

> Right now, the worst things trolls can link to are disgusting or gory images

Or uh, illegal images they upload themselves (obfuscated enough to get around whatever secret programmatic filters the hosting sites have been forced to implement via "consent" decree), or non-linked data: urls.

> Yet mere possession of an unlicensed full-auto sear will get you up to 10 years in prison

Which obviously conflicts with the 2nd amendment, itself created with foresight of hysterical attempts to ban weapons. There's no constitutional amendment spelling out the right to own hammers, not because it isn't a natural right, but because the founders didn't envision a scenario of widespread hammer ownership being criminalized by a corrupt government (and hammers subsequently being needed to violently overthrow said government).

I'm sure you can find many similar examples of possession being criminalized - it's the dumbest, most simplistic way to go after "bad people" (base tribalism) instead of the harder route of policing and prosecuting actual bad behavior (rule of law). That its application is a foregone conclusion merely shows how totalitarian our society has become.

Well, that was interesting. I certainly can't call you inconsistent.

Now I'm just curious: Is there any scenario in which you think possession of a physical or digital asset should result in imprisonment? That is: Is possession of a fuel-air bomb OK? My mere possessing it doesn't harm anyone, only my use of it would. What about possession of a nuclear weapon, or some device that could exterminate all life on earth? If information hazards[1] exist, would possessing them still be legal? If mind uploading becomes possible, should it be legal to run a million uploads in agony? After all, it's just data on your own hardware. I realize some of these scenarios seem far-fetched, but I'm trying to find the limits of your beliefs.

It seems to me that laws regarding possession must be contingent on the possible harms allowed by physics and biology. If certain machines or pieces of information can be readily used to cause mass suffering, then the cost-benefit analysis suggests punishing those who possess them.

To use an analogy: Possessing certain things is like brandishing a weapon. If you point a gun at someone, technically you haven't caused any physical harm. It's just that you're very likely to harm someone. There's even a decent chance you could cause harm by accident. So to with the possession of certain dangerous items. The danger might be more remote, but the potential harm might be far greater. That's the rationale for restriction.

1. http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/blit.htm

(Not OP, but I agree) Possession isn't a crime and calling it as such is imparting intent in a way which isn't rigorously general: what about a High School counselor who confiscates hard drugs (b/c why do we care about weed) from a troubled student? What you're asking is that an inherently flawed system classify and judge intent based what is perceived about a situation involving something that could be dangerous, and then assign punishment based on that. What if the counselor was a twenty five year old male or an elderly lady? What if they were black? If the smartest among us can only barely decide without bias, how can we expect the average man or woman to do so? Nonetheless, let us define possession of a possibly dangerous Thing as a crime.

The only time intent can be proven is once the act, presumably a harmful one for the sake of my argument, is committed; but then there is no justice to be had anyway because entropy is lost, thus only revenge and/or correction is left. But back to my counter argument, the possibility for harm is a flimsy definition of a crime and runs against the principle of reasonable doubt; cars are pretty harmful, I myself drive past children I could deliberately run over and probably kill on my way to class (college) everyday (I'm not going to do this; but then again you only have my word...) and thousands of people die in them and by them every year; my point is that guns/cars have other legitimate uses and the same could be said of things everyone already has possession of.

Also, your previous arguments that owned hardware which is at least somewhat controlled by the owner (otherwise, who controls it "owns" it), thereby implants guilt onto the owner is also, well, incorrect. While true that the individual or organisation are generally responsible for the operation or neglect of their hardware, in the case of hardware whose explicit purpose is to service requests to uncontrollable and external parties and is thus to a certain extent designed to be deliberately neglected, can't be held responsible for crimes for which they had no participation in: I am not responsible for the crimes of someone who stole my car beforehand (the involvement of theft makes this example a bit shaky, I'll admit, but my point is to convey the separation of responsibility between owner and controller, in that as the owner I didn't encourage the controller, the thief etc, to steal my car). That said, imparting a bit of responsibility onto owners is still a Good Thing (see workers comp.), because it incentivizes safer workplaces/hardware: the difference is that in the aforementioned case, barring proof of intent or neglect, it's not a proper crime, it's just monetary damages (ie civil).

Just to be clear, we agree that something like smallpox should stay locked up. But then every sane and rational person should agree with that: they would have to live (note sane and rational) in the same world with smallpox on the loose. But then if it did get out, due to it's infectious and self-replicating nature, the result would be disastrous. In any case, such eventuality would either be the work of an insane or troubled person (whose actions aren't rational anyway, thus can't be called 'our' fault, presuming attempts to prevent the release were made) or an accident. In all cases, punishment isn't the answer (except in the accidental case, the answer is instead institutionalization). Nonetheless, the solution to prevention of eventuality in this case is access limiting. Thus it is an acceptable solution. (I consider this to be a satisfactory rationale). But even quarantined diseases are still studied!

One last thing: brandishing a weapon is a crime by way of implied speech: it is threat. Thus brandishing a weapon is an action, and is thus not just possession. Which means it doesn't count.

TL/DR: The condition (possession -> guilt) is false. Punishment for such possession is unwarranted. Control is implicitly limited by sane and rational owners in the case of dangerous Things (perhaps with the help of others).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com