Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheAceOfHearts | Hacker News Reader

I dislike how they immediately lump "hackers, drugs and porn" together as bad things.

Hackers and others within that category are great. Thanks to hackers you can get full access to devices that would otherwise be locked down. Thanks to hackers you can take full control of your media content, playing it without constraints and on any device.

Drugs are a huge market, let's tax it. Most people buying drugs are likely harmless members of society. We're wasting time and money chasing down buyers, sellers, and service managers. There's an absurd amount of people in jail for engaging in fully benign activities.

Porn is a huge industry which pretty much everyone likes. A few rotten apples don't mean you have a rotten tree. Oh, we also waste a lot of money chasing down prostitutes and the like. I'm sure many sex workers would love to continue what they're doing without having to worry about the risk of cops showing up.

View on HN

> Hackers and others within that category are great. Thanks to hackers you can get full access to devices that would otherwise be locked down. Thanks to hackers you can take full control of your media content, playing it without constraints and on any device.

You're ignoring a lot of the other things hackers do. Like, you know, break into systems they don't own for profit. On the dark web, you've got DDoS as a service and botnet as a service sites.

> break into systems they don't own

What is wrong with that? The owners of these systems should have made sure that they don't run shitty and (vulnerable/old versions of their) programs.

> On the dark web, you've got DDoS as a service and botnet as a service sites.

These things exist on the normal web as well.

What kind of Machiavellian logic is that? I'm able to hack you, therefore there's nothing wrong with doing so? What about in the physical world? If you don't know how to defend yourself, is there anything wrong with me mugging you?

> I'm able to hack you, therefore there's nothing wrong with doing so?

Yes

> What about in the physical world?

Actions in the physical world actually harm people, something which is not true for the virtual world and can be trivially be avoided.

> Actions in the physical world actually harm people, something which is not true for the virtual world

I can drain your bank accounts by hacking you, how is that not actual harm?

> and can be trivially be avoided

Leaving aside the argument about whether securing yourself is "trivial", that doesn't make it OK! If you leave your door unlocked, that doesn't mean it's OK for me to come in and steal your TV.

> I can drain your bank accounts by hacking you, how is that not actual harm?

One would need to be extremely irresponsible in order to let themselves be hacked. I would consider it as a punishment and a lesson more than anything.

In any case, this does not directly cause harm in the real world - you would not be able to make money disappear out of your home for example.

> If you leave your door unlocked, that doesn't mean it's OK for me to come in and steal your TV.

It's only the combination of the two (virtual world + can be trivially be avoided) that makes it OK.

I am baffled by the ignorance of your views here.

It is not trivial to secure digital systems. If anything, it’s far harder to ensure digital systems are secure, because of the number of moving parts. I can be fairly confident that if I pack my physical money into a safe, a vulnerability is not going to be discovered that allows an arbitrary person thousands of miles away to empty it without my knowledge. Quite the opposite is true of digital systems!

I could easily stake out your house, and figure out when you leave for work, and then break into your home.

Breaking into people's homes is trivially easy.

So DDoSing a hospital is OK because the computers don't have feelings?

Computers are used by humans for a purpose. If you harm the computer there is a decent chance tncauses problems (inconvenience and up) to people.

> So DDoSing a hospital is OK because the computers don't have feelings?

No, we were talking about hacking, not things like DDoSing.

I would support the stance that DDoSing should be illegal because it only causes harm and can't be defended against easily.

> No, we were talking about hacking, not things like DDoSing.

What exactly do you think they're talking about when they write "hackers"? They're talking about DDOSers and data ransomers. Criminals, not some romantic bringers of justice, or something.

DDoSing is not hacking by any definition.

It's for sale on the dark web right next to other hacking tools. It wouldn't surprise me if laypeople think it's the exact same thing.

What is wrong with that? The owners of these systems should have made sure that they don't run shitty and (vulnerable/old versions of their) programs.

Bullshit argument. It’s trivial to break into most houses, for example, but it’s hardly regarded as an acceptable practice.

I thought breaking into systems they don't own for profit was something done by large nation-states and their proxies?

The porn that's a bad thing is child porn, rape porn, and violence porn.

Really none of these should be called porn+. They are various forms of abuse imagery and are both crimes and evidence of crimes.

+ (Assuming the rape and violence are real not just actors)

> They are various forms of abuse imagery and are both crimes and evidence of crimes.

They can be that and still be porn to some people.

Those are the bad apples.

Bad apples means tiny minority. The proportion of porn being exchanged on Tor marketplaces that involves children or abuse is not tiny.

You mean child abuse, rape and violence. Sexual kinks are too often the scapegoat used.

The act of creating them is bad, the porn itself is not. It's just data that harms nobody.

Think about what you are claiming ... by consuming child/rape/violent porn for example, you indirectly encourage the production of new data.

How so?

By indicating you want it and being a participant in the market for it. There are people who, knowing you are like them and enjoy that sort of thing, will make it for you. To make you happy. It's that sick.

> There are people who, knowing you are like them and enjoy that sort of thing, will make it for you. To make you happy.

I doubt that anyone would make child pornography in order to satisfy someone else. I would be pretty sure that one would do it either for a huge financial gain, personal satisfaction, or both. The people who upload it for free would still rape children even if they were not able to upload it anywhere. Considering that I would say that this argument is even worse than saying that the media should stop reporting terrorist attacks to disencourage the terrorists from performing terrorist acts (assuming that they do it for personal fame or to scare people).

The first could be solved by catching people who are buying and selling. However none of these can be solved by catching people who simply watch or distribute but do not create nor buy child pornography - catching them would be arresting them for a thoughtcrime.

>By indicating you want it and being a participant in the market for it.

Does it count as being in the market if no exchange of money takes place? Is Github a market, for example? If not, this would seem to invalidate the idea at least when the material is found by chance or provided free.

>There are people who, knowing you are like them and enjoy that sort of thing, will make it for you.

That's true, but if you're using this as an argument against all the material then I think I should step in and say that it does not apply to all the material, or at least, you haven't provided evidence that it does. I don't doubt it happens, but to use this as a general argument seems to fall flat on its face.

The "good porn" analogues are people who record themselves because they like the attention. But I think this is a minority.

Generally you have to pay or provide some child porn of your own to access those sites. And they have forums for them, talking about the best way to find a child to molest, etc.

Plus there's the torment of the victim, knowing that there are people out there to this day jerking off to video of the worst experience of their lives.

I'm someone familiar with how it works, though obviously I do not search for the material myself - but it depends where one goes. I2P is known for its torrent capability and the torrents can be freely obtained. Tor has various forums that are free to sign up for. Freenet has many, many sites from what I can tell are freesites for this content.

I simply don't buy the idea that the majority of CP advertised on the dark web is only available for pay or exchange; I'm sure a lot of it is, but this "market effect" thing is unsubstantiated as far as I can tell, even though many would like to believe it's a good argument against something heinous, that doesn't mean we should just accept it.

>Plus there's the torment of the victim, knowing that there are people out there to this day jerking off to video of the worst experience of their lives.

This I can understand and actually I regard it as a bigger motivator to the illegalisation of possession. However often they don't know, and could you reassure them that it's not happening if you put an effort toward eradicating only their images? And if they don't know, doesn't that also eradicate this argument in those cases too? What if they don't have a problem with it, or rather, they are neutral about it? The harm would have to be found, and if there is no harm, the argument collapses in that case. Of course the argument also does not apply to pornography in which the victims are dead or unconscious etc. which would seem to, considering only this argument, make such material permissible.

Is it wrong to rape someone who is unconscious, who would never know what you did? What if you rape them then murder them? Sure, the murder is unethical, but should you still be held accountable for the rape?

Also consider the viewer of the child pornography. They have no way of knowing if the victim is aware of the video, or the victim's opinion about the video. So if they go forward and view it without caring if harm was caused, isn't that wrong?

>Is it wrong to rape someone who is unconscious, who would never know what you did?

Perhaps I was too hasty. Of course it's wrong, even if they didn't know. But in this case, the actual harm you're claiming exists (and I agree that it can exist) is knowledge itself. The knowledge is a side effect; if this side effect can be stopped from manifesting itself, then the harm is no longer done.

i.e rape involves harm not through knowledge but by matter of fact, by its very definition. This is not the case with the crime of possessing child pornography.

With regard to death, I'm not sure what your point is - your argument for harm caused by knowledge does not hold up when the victim of the harm is dead. Of course that dosen't mean that it's OK to kill the victim, but if that were to happen, it would eliminate the crime of harm by knowledge.

>So if they go forward and view it without caring if harm was caused, isn't that wrong?

Not if there was no harm caused.

I'm becoming more skeptical of this argument. If knowledge that something is happening constitutes sufficient harm, then would it follow that somebody laughing at you in another coutry, which you know to be happening somehow (such as being told by a friend), can be considered as harm?

I'm afraid I've lost the thread of this a bit. What exactly are you advocating? Are you proposing a change in the law? Or are we strictly in the land of ethics?

Yes, I am proposing a change that such material should not be illegal to possess. As to distribution, I have not made up my mind.

Ask a child abuse survivor what they think of child porn. Consuming a product whose manufacture involved coercion of participants is not a neutral moral choice.

> Consuming a product whose manufacture involved coercion of participants is not a neutral moral choice.

I would claim that it is as long as it harms nobody and as long as it does not benefit the creator.

The overwhelming majority of child porn sites either require payment or require one to provide some child porn of their own as a barrier to entry. In either case, the creator is benefiting.

You haven't met a victim before. For them, the knowledge that their abuse is being watched by people for sexual pleasure all around the world years after it happened is a profound source of psychological trauma. It harms them.

> I overwhelming majority of child porn sites either require payment

I honestly doubt that but even then the money would go to the site owners, not to child rapists directly. Anyhow, as I said in another post we could simply also hold accountable these who pay for it - after all the act of paying for it would cause the harm, not the data by itself.

> one to provide some child porn of their own as a barrier to entry

Create their own or just post some of what they have collected? Only the first one causes harm.

> the knowledge that their abuse is being watched by people for sexual pleasure all around the world years after it happened is a profound source of psychological trauma

I fail to see how they would know that they are being watched or how watching it being illegal eases their thoughts.

> It harms them.

No, only physical actions like rape could harm them, distributing data on the dark web does not.

> Only the first one causes harm.

Untrue. We know from interviews of the children, now adults, featured in the images of child sexual abuse that the distribution of those images in itself causes harm.

> No, only physical actions like rape could harm them, distributing data on the dark web does not.

Clearly bollocks.

> that the distribution of those images in itself causes harm.

How do they know that the distribution of these images took place? How did that even affect them in their life?

I honestly doubt that this is the case - and even then it would be only an argument against distributing it, not watching it.

Do you think that people who survived child abuse are unable to use the internet or read media? It's easy to find information about specific examples of child pornography by reading public records of court cases, and people who have survived child abuse are just as likely to make use of the dark web or be aware of porn related maters as anyone else.

People who have been through such experiences typically have extensive and long-running contacts with the legal and law enforcement systems, and at the ry least tend to maintain an awareness of their original abuser's custodial situation.

Just as there are networks of people who like child porn, there are networks of people who monitor its production and distribution. A few unfortunate people go on to become consumers or perpetrators of abuse in turn because they are drawn seek out imagery of what happened to them.

Be aware too that in many cases access to child porn collections are not traded for money, but for the submission of new material, so the distribution of it directly incentivizes further abuse.

>> It harms them.

> No, only physical actions like rape could harm them, distributing data on the dark web does not.

Does that mean that mental / emotional trauma from being robbed at gunpoint is not harm if a physical assault does not occur?

I have been robbed at gunpoint. I was robbed by someone who I met through a third party (not randomly on the street, but at my home). Police arrested the robber after I called 911, but he was released for reasons not easily summarized.

One month later, I pulled into a gas station and saw the perpetrator in the parking lot. I immediately drove home and had a panic attack.

By your argument, no harm was caused. The psychological impact, however, was very real to me.

Edit: formatting.

You were harmed in the real world by being robbed at gunpoint. This is nothing like what I am arguing.

I think you're going about this wrong. The difference is what harm is "valid"; if I laugh at you and humiliate you, it may indeed make you upset and traumatized, and I think it may be morally or ethically wrong for me to do that - but should that mean that there is a law against that?

At some point we draw the line, and in almost all other respects the line is drawn elsewhere - in that mere knowledge of an act occuring is not sufficient to make that act illegal.

The equivalent here would be the fact that the robber is in the gas station, I think? Should the robber not be allowed to be anywhere where he may even be seen by you? In the same way, even though the abuse of the child was problematic, should someone who views the abuse be disallowed from doing so? And further, there is even more disconnect here, making your analogy much weaker - what does the victim know of the instance in which someone views that recording?

All of these apologias seem to depend on the argument that the abuse victim doesn't know when someone else watches the video, and therefore suffers no injury.

Now, they may not know in real time, but yeah they can find out. The contents of child-porn collections are documented in the legal proceedings of court cases, for example. People who consume child porn have social networks of their own, and discuss and comment upon that material in the same way that enthusiasts do anything else on the internet. And as I've mentioned, access to child porn collections/communities is often purchased by the submission of new material, both to bind the would-be viewer with ties of shared criminal liability and to feed the demand for novelty. Thus, the commoditization of child porn incentivizes the production of more of it.

How can you suggest that the existence of child pornigraphy harms nobody? If you had been raped, I doubt you would feel OK about people trading pictures and video of your suffering. People who were raped as children are generally Not OK with the commercialization of their abuse. The harm and lack of consent that inheres in its manufacture is perpetuated by its reproduction.

So, you only buy products that were manufactured entirely by independently wealthy people? Maybe this is why artisanal hipster kitsch is so popular.

Equating wage labor and child rape is neither correct nor funny.

Ah, an attempt at some good old monkeysphere shaming!

I didn't equate them - you created a discriminator which placed them in the same category. The reasonable interpretation is that your statement bites off too much, and is thus invalid.

If you consider child rape and industrial employment to be in the same category then you're not anyone I need to take seriously.

Ah, another attempt at monkeysphere bullying.

But really? So do you personally reject the concept of the universal set, or do you just not take yourself seriously?

Do you deny that they're both in the category of "things that happen" ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com