Re:The law depends on compute power
by AnthonyMouse on Sunday July 31, 2016 @09:33AM
(#12196903)
> When I say "there are dealers on the corner", I don't want you to buy drugs.
> When someone else says the exact same thing, he might want you to buy drugs.
> He and I are treated differently by the law.
And that's where the whole thing falls apart. Because it means there are circumstances that allow someone to tell people where they can buy drugs, so the person who wants to tell everyone where to buy drugs can pretend to be doing it for the same reason you are.
I can come up with some plausible valid intentions for doing the xor thing, but lets use the real case. DMCA 1201 prohibits trafficking in circumvention tools. Intent doesn't matter, because there are very obvious legitimate non-infringing uses for "circumvention tools" and nothing about the tool changes based on the intent of the user, so allowing circumvention tools for non-infringing uses would allow them to be widespread (which they are anyway, but never mind that now). However, prohibiting circumvention tools for non-infringing uses may be unconstitutional.[1] So intent has to matter but if intent matters then in practice that law can't be effective. Which means we shouldn't have that law.
> I'm not talking about convicting someone wihtout proof. On the contrary, I'm saying that the fact that we cannot prove every murder does not mean that the murder statute is fatally flawed and must be repealed.
The problem isn't with statutes where you can't prove every instance, the problem is with statutes where every perpetrator can make themselves look like an innocent person and the only way to convict them is to make an assumption that would also convict the innocent people.
> When someone else says the exact same thing, he might want you to buy drugs.
> He and I are treated differently by the law.
And that's where the whole thing falls apart. Because it means there are circumstances that allow someone to tell people where they can buy drugs, so the person who wants to tell everyone where to buy drugs can pretend to be doing it for the same reason you are.
I can come up with some plausible valid intentions for doing the xor thing, but lets use the real case. DMCA 1201 prohibits trafficking in circumvention tools. Intent doesn't matter, because there are very obvious legitimate non-infringing uses for "circumvention tools" and nothing about the tool changes based on the intent of the user, so allowing circumvention tools for non-infringing uses would allow them to be widespread (which they are anyway, but never mind that now). However, prohibiting circumvention tools for non-infringing uses may be unconstitutional.[1] So intent has to matter but if intent matters then in practice that law can't be effective. Which means we shouldn't have that law.
[1] https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit-takes-dmca-se...
> I'm not talking about convicting someone wihtout proof. On the contrary, I'm saying that the fact that we cannot prove every murder does not mean that the murder statute is fatally flawed and must be repealed.
The problem isn't with statutes where you can't prove every instance, the problem is with statutes where every perpetrator can make themselves look like an innocent person and the only way to convict them is to make an assumption that would also convict the innocent people.