News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Defining Property. Parent comment

Re:Defining Property by Erwin on Monday March 12, 2012 @04:27PM (#3695313)
Are "private" bits special and privileged still? If one user entrusts another with a risque digital picture but that digital picture is now distributed to a million third parties, did any violation occur?

If individuals are allowed special protection for that, why can't I be afforded protection on my computer program?

If there are still to be secrets where the access is legally controlled by an "owner" due to privacy or trade secrets, why should this ownership not extend to any sort of digital work?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Defining Property by dissident on Tuesday March 13, 2012 @12:29AM (#3697037)
I'm only aware of laws that dictate the effort put into obtaining private information, not the knowledge or dissemination of it. I can't steal your phone and grab the picture, but if you give it to me under no certain terms, I can do what I want. Where is this mystical protection you speak of?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Defining Property by InclinedPlane on Monday March 12, 2012 @05:52PM (#3695795)
Privacy and property are not the same thing.

If Rick Santorum has genital warts, as an example, then he doesn't own the phrase "Rick Santorum has genital warts" nor does it become property even though using that phrase could be a violation of his privacy and could even violate certain laws (such as HIPAA).

[ Parent | on HN ]