NZ goes even further, threatening 10 years prison for a “possession of a video”. Kiwis have gone bananas.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-16/nz-threatens-10-ye...
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-16/nz-threatens-10-ye...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine
> The following pronouncement of the void for vagueness doctrine was made by Justice Sutherland in Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926):
> [T]he terms of a penal statute [...] must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties… and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.
Shakespeare's typing monkeys come to mind.
On the other hand, perhaps if we think about everything at a more reasonable level, we can see why some digital things should be illegal, just as some physical things should be illegal.
What's next, illegal source code?
Maybe you should just start with illegal thoughts right off the bat?
I find that these kind of reductive arguments floated for digital subjects fall apart when you remove the computer from the equation.
The “illegal numbers” concept is something I find interesting. Just because a certain number can be used to decrypt BluRays, it’s illegal
128 bits is about the threshold where a "number" stops behaving like our intuition of a number, and starts being rare enough that you won't arrive at an "illegal" number by counting or chance, i.e. it is now a "file" for all practical purposes: https://qntm.org/number