Hacker News Reader

Comment by drzaiusapelord | Hacker News Reader

Generally, it isnt the job of the state to protect the ignorant and the lazy. Sorry, but this kind of precedent is going to lead to even more draconian judgements over "computer trespassing" and "hacking." Computer crime laws aren't reasonable as-is and now with this new case law, they're arguably worse.

The ISM band exists within strict FCC control. There is no "don't sniff" provision and if there was, it would make promiscuous mode or applications like inssider illegal.

View on HN

It is exactly the job of the state, because the ignorant do not know how to protect themselves, or even that they are ignorant.

I dare say that every day you are protected by the state from those who would take advantage of your ignorance in many, many aspects of the world. The system works well enough that you don't even notice what you're ignorant of!

By this logic, ignorance should then be accepted as a defense to illegal activity, especially in today's world where, increasingly, everyday activity is a crime.

To be fair, he's never said anything about abstract defense or justification - rather, he's talking about government dealing with the consequences.

Edit: so I suppose the distinction's that that the first implies self-contradiction, and the other doesn't. Or perhaps the line is drawn when policy like that interferes with official judgment. Who knows.

This is also a disturbingly paternalist view of the role of the state, to me.

That's hardly an argument -- it's barely rising above just calling the state names.

The exact role of the state in protecting it's citizens requires nuanced debate. Saying "it's not the state's job" doesn't cut it.

Let's be fair. the_watcher posts a comment of fifteen words. It's too much to expect "nuanced debate" in a single sentence. I take it you were unconvinced by that sentence; do you believe your three sentences are much more persuasive? Can you imagine a viewpoint that approves most state-provided security services, yet still rejects the actions of the Attorneys General in this case?

Perhaps you're upset by the language? "Paternalist", to my eye, is a descriptive term that closely matches the circumstances under discussion. If you find that adjective has unfortunate connotations, by all means suggest another that has approximately the same definition.

So, by that logic, the "state" is obligated to provide security to homeowners who can not be bothered to lock their homes?

The state is generally obligated to provide security to homeowners who can not be bothered to lock their homes.

If someone enters your house without your permission and refuses to leave you may call the police. If there are any immediate threats to person or property the police response will usually be swift (though, of course, this depends on your local P.D.).

You have a security problem. You call the police. Now you have two security problems.

I'll stipulate that this isn't what we were taught in junior high civics, but it is the experience of many communities in the USA that security problems are best handled without the intervention of police.

This is how we end up with bans on soft drinks larger than 16 ounces.

Sorry, but I think Bloomberg is on the correct side of that issue, even if he won't win in court. It's becoming increasingly clear that large quantities of sugar are a long-term poison. Since there's no practical use for soft drinks other than "They taste good" (which is a personal-happiness argument, but a particularly juvenile and narrow-minded one), large softdrinks should be banned. If arsenic salts tasted really good, and they were not already banned, would you oppose efforts to get restaurants to stop serving that?

Just because a paternalistic state is usually bad doesn't mean that government shouldn't intervene in anything.

Ethanol is poison as well.

Mandated warning labels would be a better idea. Banning things is rarely necessary to achieve policy goals.

and on incandescent lamps...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com