News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]. Parent comment

Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ... by int_19h on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @04:24PM (#41999826)
Icky things were historically made illegal all the time, but most of those historical examples have not fared well in retrospect. Modern justice systems are generally predicated on some quantifiable harm for good reasons.

Given the extremely harsh penalties at play, I am not at all comfortable about punishing someone with a multi-year prison sentence for possession of a drawn or computer generated image. What exactly is the point, other than people getting off from making someone suffer for reasons they consider morally justifiable?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ... by jampekka on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @04:36PM (#41999967)
There's no room for sensible discussion like this in these matters. Not demanding draconian sentences for morally outraging crimes is morally outraging.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ... by programjames on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @05:48PM (#42000786)
I think their point was they think the law should be based off of harms, not necessarily "morals" (since no one can seem to decide on those).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ... by int_19h on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @07:29PM (#42001734)
GP is saying that people who want this to be a crime are morally outraged that someone else might disagree, and so it's impossible to have a reasonable debate with them about it. They're probably correct, but it never hurts to try.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ... by programjames on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @10:30PM (#42002856)
Oof, I fell victim to Poe's law
[ Parent | on HN ]