Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

(Truth be told I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, but the fact that you'd send this guy to prison for exposing rapists who would otherwise get away with their crimes is pretty concerning.)

It's tough, and while I think he should get massive mitigation due to the fact that he exposed a pair of child rapists, that doesn't mean that what he did was acceptable.  The truth is, if you allow individual citizens to invade people's privacy in this way you cannot stop the government from doing so (under your proposed system an FBI agent can just break into your digitally held data off his own bat if he suspects you of being a criminal, even without any kind of actual evidence, and that isn't really any different from giving him the official power to do so).

[scriver]

In other words, breaking into your house and going through all your stuff shouldn't be a crime unless they steal something. I guess you're also completely fine with the patriot act and your government reading all your mail and listening to all your calls and having all your records. After all, they're just copying data.

The government is different. They're large and proven untrustworthy to possess such power. The Patriot Act and reading everyone's mail and calls has always been unconstitutional.

And the mass of people isn't a group that's "large and proven untrustworthy to possess such power"?

There is a difference in that the individual being spied upon does not possess a copy of the digital data. Digital data is spread almost infinitely easier than non-digital data.

(Truth be told I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here, but the fact that you'd send this guy to prison for exposing rapists who would otherwise get away with their crimes is pretty concerning.)

I don't see why them not having a "copy of the digital data" would even matter. They have a copy of the physical data - they were there.

And no, I don't think what he did deserves prison, if it were up to me I'd sentence him to payments, and/or parole, and/or computer deprivation. As I pointed out, I think American sentences are fucked up.

[Sheb]

If he did hack though. For all we know, he sent a PM to the rapists on FB and then had a look on their wall. If you're stupid enough to put evidence of a rape you committed on a social media, you probably didn't think of protecting it. And we all know Facebook's tendency to flog your data to everyone.

[scriver]

Of course it presumes he actually did hack their accounts and it wasn't just a repeat of "stupid criminals brags about robbing store on facebook".

[Morrigi]

Bending the law for the good of society to bring in real criminals is infinitely preferable to letting them walk free. The government and its laws are intended to serve society, and if they fail to do so they should be changed and, if necessary, cast aside.

The persecution (yes, persecution) of good Samaritans like this guy makes me sick. In my opinion, he did what was right and his actions harmed no one. He is being prosecuted for a crime in which the only victims were the ones who victimized another to a far greater extent. I remind you that the People have rights. The government does not.

[Sheb]

I wonder what the jury will say if this ever come to court. It's hard imagining them standing against the guy.

[Morrigi]

I don't see why hacking should be a crime. If you can't safeguard your data, that's your problem, not the state's. Data isn't like physical property, it can be copied indefinitely.

'If you can't safeguard the stuff in your house, that's your problem'
'If you can't safeguard yourself, that's your problem'

The 'Data isn't physical property' argument is kinda irrelevant here.

If someone made copies of, say, your TV and computer while leaving the originals intact, would you call that theft?

[Sheb]

That's dumb, my TV ain't personal and plenty of people have copies of it.

[Loud Whispers]

If someone made copies of, say, your TV and computer while leaving the originals intact, would you call that theft?

No, but they would know too much about me.

[Leafsnail]

It's not a matter of theft, it's a matter of invasion of privacy.

[misko27]

If someone made copies of, say, your TV and computer while leaving the originals intact, would you call that theft?

No, but they would know too much about me.

They will be able to Custom-tailor Advertisements to me! The Horror!


More seriously, while some people corporations could use some of that info, it would be pretty useless elsewhere.


Data, however, is a lot more expansive, and can't really be taken from someone anyway. If you had say, a secret recipe for Peanut Butter Sandwich, someone taking it from you is physically pointless, but once they have the information, you're life could be damaged (assuming you sell sandwiches). But even otherwise, there is some expectation of a right to privacy in personal manners.

[Vector]

I assume that you don't have any secret knowledge people could use against you.  Like being gay.  Or transgendered.

[Descan]

Or an atheist (or non-Moslem) in Saudi Arabia.

Or a communist in 1950s America.

Or an "intellectual" in China or Cambodia.

:I

[10ebbor10]

Or you know, just your general Identity. Identity theft exists, and you'd be surprised how far you'd get just with someone's facebook profile.

[Scelly9]

Or you know, just your general Identity. Identity theft exists, and you'd be surprised how far you'd get just with someone's facebook profile.

Your tax info. A lot of people do taxes on their computer without protecting themselves.