filc:You just have to ignore Baawa's open hostility, though you will find he's usually right.
It's a strange world we live in when not being touchy-feely is considered hostile behavior.
malicious callers who phone to breath heavily down the phonelines for sexual thrills, are told by the owners of the phones that they are not allowed to call back .
when they call back , breathing heavy again, i think they are trespassing/violating property.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Knight_of_BAAWA: teuch:Answer me this if you can: If someone telephones a bank over and over again, trying to guess somebodies bank password, should they be arrested an prosecuted for trespassing?No, that would be fraud. You really need to learn what words mean. I suggest a dictionary.
teuch:Answer me this if you can: If someone telephones a bank over and over again, trying to guess somebodies bank password, should they be arrested an prosecuted for trespassing?
teuch:And if a computer does it, how is that not fraud?
But to answer your question outside of your anthropomorphizing, the person could be charged with the torts of trespassing and theft if simply exploiting a security hole, and fraud with that if attempting to pose as a specific user.
I'm wondering how it is you can't think of this yourself.
nirgrahamUK:malicious callers who phone to breath heavily down the phonelines for sexual thrills, are told by the owners of the phones that they are not allowed to call back . when they call back , breathing heavy again, i think they are trespassing/violating property.
teuch:Can someone tell me why a computer calling another computer is different to a person calling another person?
One operates in the apperatus of a tool. A computer cannot use data against someone in a harmful manner. Similarly a shovel cannot magically rise off the ground and destroy your windows.
I get your analogy between phone calling and computers talking. The flaw in your analogy is that a telephone call requires human intervention. They don't occur on their own and a computer connecting to another network does not do so on it's own either. There are also agreements you made with the telephone company before you decided to use it's service.
Another analogy back to the lock and key is this. A key hole is like a server. It has an open port and is listening for the right key shape(shared secrets anyone?). When the right key shape makes a connection it opens.
If a thief finds this key shape is he any less of a thief? A keyhole is nothing more then a server waiting connections.
Knight_of_BAAWA: filc:You just have to ignore Baawa's open hostility, though you will find he's usually right.I'm not hostile; I'm no-nonsense. Ever watch "Pulp Fiction" and how the Winston Wolf character is direct, to-the-point, and such? That is how I am. Hostile? No. Simply because I do not do touchy-feely nonsense does not mean that I'm hostile. It's a strange world we live in when not being touchy-feely is considered hostile behavior.
I've never seen the movie. All I know is that tone of voice on a web-forum is often easily misconstrued. I know your response to that would be that it's my problem. I come to expect that from you so it's not biggy.
Knight_of_BAAWA: A computer isn't doing though in the sense of having a will. Please do not anthropomorphize the tool. Such thinking will only get you into intellectual trouble. But to answer your question outside of your anthropomorphizing, the person could be charged with the torts of trespassing and theft if simply exploiting a security hole, and fraud with that if attempting to pose as a specific user. I'm wondering how it is you can't think of this yourself.
A computer isn't doing though in the sense of having a will. Please do not anthropomorphize the tool. Such thinking will only get you into intellectual trouble.
Anthropomorphizing? How am I doing that?
Instead of the person doing, the computer is programmed to do it, based on the instructions that it has been given. Because it is a tool, it must have somebody driving that tool. Computers communicate with other computers based on the instructions given, their owners are responsible for how they behave.
Torts of trespassing? I have explicitly mentioned previously that I do not think it is a criminal tresspass. I take it that you agree.
teuch:A computer can only address the packets, like a letter, and hope they get to where they're going. Not like taking a dog of a leash??
So if a neighbor down the street ships you a bomb through the mail or a letter with anthrax in it he's not guilty of anything?
teuch: Computers communicate with other computers based on the instructions given, their owners are responsible for how they behave.
Similarly in my shovel analogy, the shovel that bashed out your windows only behaved based on the owners actions and not on it's own. Computers as well only behave based on their owners actions, they are tools and if used to breach the network of someone's it's trespassing.
Knight_of_BAAWA:A computer isn't doing though in the sense of having a will. Please do not anthropomorphize the tool. Such thinking will only get you into intellectual trouble. But to answer your question outside of your anthropomorphizing, the person could be charged with the torts of trespassing and theft if simply exploiting a security hole, and fraud with that if attempting to pose as a specific user. I'm wondering how it is you can't think of this yourself.
teuch:Anthropomorphizing? How am I doing that?
teuch:Instead of the person doing, the computer is programmed to do it
teuch:based on the instructions that it has been given. Because it is a tool, it must have somebody driving that tool. Computers communicate with other computers based on the instructions given, their owners are responsible for how they behave.
teuch:Torts of trespassing? I have explicitly mentioned previously that I do not think it is a criminal tresspass. I take it that you agree.
filc:So if a neighbor down the street ships you a bomb through the mail or a letter with anthrax in it he's not guilty of anything?
What? He is guilty of something a hell of a lot more serious than trespass.
filc:Similarly in my shovel analogy, the shovel that bashed out your windows only behaved based on the owners actions and not on it's own. Computers as well only behave based on their owners actions, they are tools and if used to breach the network of someone's it's trespassing.
Again I have to ask, breaching the network? How is that defined? It is easy with a large shovel. Can a ping be said to be trespass? etc. etc. as asked in previous posts.
All I'm asking for is a definition of some terms and the argument for application. All I'm getting is accusations of me supporting rapists and bombers and absurd analogies.
you seem to be fixated on some objective physical 'size' of the trespass. like you are judging whether something is a trespass by how much of a footprint the act leaves.
bomb crater. trespass you say.
standing on the grass, no trespass you say.
now; even if a poly-centric legal order places lax re-imbursement/compensation orders (or none at all) for relatively 'objectively weak attacks', this does not mean that they are not trespasses. furthermore, just about every example that has been discussed, it seems to me is likely to have a positive compensation corresponding to it.
don't be wowed by scale. if your elephant tramples the neighbours garden. if your pet ant goes there for picnics (and is not invited by the landowner) it is a trespass, however small-scale..
Knight_of_BAAWA:Programmed BY WHOM?
Whoever has physical access, usually the owner. The code that runs on a machine in their responsibility IMHO.
Knight_of_BAAWA:In the sense that I do not believe that anything should be "criminalized" as qua "crime against the state". There are only torts--crimes against individuals and their property
Why did you not bring this up in the discussion earlier instead of saying GTFO?
teuch:Again I have to ask, breaching the network? How is that defined?
teuch:Whoever has physical access, usually the owner. The code that runs on a machine in their responsibility IMHO.
teuch:Why did you not bring this up in the discussion earlier
nirgrahamUK:you seem to be fixated on some objective physical 'size' of the trespass. like you are judging whether something is a trespass by how much of a footprint the act leaves.
Where did you get that from? If nobody can define trespass, then it cannot be codified into law without it being extremely vague and subject to state abuse.
Knight_of_BAAWA:So how about translating that concept by yourself for a computer network.
Because I don't believe it can be done. That's why I asked.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Because not only didn't I have to, but you were on such a wrong page that it didn't even matter.
You didn't have to? Why? How does an ad hominem attack on me forward your argument, and your view of criminal justice does not?
What are you on here for, then, if only to abuse? If you are not willing to put up rational arguments, then don't post.
do you understand that computers communicate, not on a spiritual plane?. they are physical, and the causal relations that obtain are understandable through the science of physics. this is no different from bats and balls. your 'packets' are realised in physical substrate. substrate that you can take responsibility for, since ...they are your packets. if you can understand trespass in the mundane realm, of large objects you can reach out and touch. then you should be able to get an understanding of trespass, on a micro-micro-scopic level. since you are connected to those micro-changes, by your large clumsy tappings on keyboards and the like. just imagine your rampaging elephant leaving your front door, and shrinking as it goes into the neighbours garden. now the neighbour might rightfully be upset about your trespass, only assuming that he has microscoping pets of his own in the garden, that are easily upset by your polluting/trespassing elephant.
your problem is scale.
teuch:Because I don't believe it can be done. That's why I asked.
teuch:You didn't have to?
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed. In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument. Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.
From: The ad hominem fallacy fallacy
As for putting up rational arguments, I would ask where yours are. All I have seen from you is a foot-stomping tantrum because you don't understand how a computer network operates. As you don't understand it, you say "I don't believe trespass can be done". Well it can. Take a little time and actually learn about something before spouting off, ok? Just a nickel's worth of free advice.
nirgrahamUK:your problem is scale.
Do you realize that computers communicate through a language, and that the words of that language can be transformed in many ways between computers. Only the information remains. Like English, I could write a message, pass it to another person they could shout it out to the next person etc. etc.: the meaning of the message remains the same, the information hasn't changed; the form is different.
If that message reaches its recipient (after writing, yelling, engraving onto wood) and it turns out to be a scam: it is the motive of the sender that is in question, not whether or not the message itself infringement of the letter itself and residual atoms are trespassing.
And do you realize that computers are physical entities? That networks have physical items such as cables, routers, hubs/switches? That an uninvited access to the network is trespass?
Knight_of_BAAWA:As you don't understand it, you say "I don't believe trespass can be done". Well it can.
How should criminal trespass be defined? I cannot define it. I don't believe you can either, because you don't recognize the validity of criminal law.
teuch: because you don't recognize the validity of criminal law.
following the thread of discussion / knowing your opponent FAIL.
Knight_of_BAAWA:If you are so unwilling to accept that a network of computers is owned by a specific entity, and attempting to gain access to that network when you were not given access is trespass
Do you not read my posts? I accept computers can be owned. I do not accept that attempting to access it is trespass. I've yet to hear why it is, except hacking = trespass. A link to someone who has worked on it would be good. Or an argument that doesn't end with
Knight_of_BAAWA:You are either purposefully ignorant or disingenuous.
nirgrahamUK: teuch: because you don't recognize the validity of criminal law. following the thread of discussion / knowing your opponent FAIL.
Correct me then. The quote was:
In the sense that I do not believe that anything should be "criminalized" as qua "crime against the state". There are only torts--crimes against individuals and their property
teuch:There are only torts--crimes against individuals and their property
and provider of law and security are legitimate private organisations/businesses forming a polycentric legal order.
as opposed to the monopoly state legal order; which is legal positivism, and which imagines that crimes against private citizens are primarily crimes against society/state
teuch: nirgrahamUK: so what, that is what they are there for. now when your packets get to the destination you ordered them to go to. a destination that they arent allowed to go. why isnt that your fault. hell, if you let your dog off its leash and it tramps around a neighbours garden. you have trespassed. or polluted. whatever. A computer can only address the packets, like a letter, and hope they get to where they're going. Not like taking a dog of a leash??
nirgrahamUK: so what, that is what they are there for. now when your packets get to the destination you ordered them to go to. a destination that they arent allowed to go. why isnt that your fault. hell, if you let your dog off its leash and it tramps around a neighbours garden. you have trespassed. or polluted. whatever.
so what, that is what they are there for. now when your packets get to the destination you ordered them to go to. a destination that they arent allowed to go. why isnt that your fault.
hell, if you let your dog off its leash and it tramps around a neighbours garden. you have trespassed. or polluted. whatever.
A computer can only address the packets, like a letter, and hope they get to where they're going. Not like taking a dog of a leash??
But, but, but, but, but, but using your logic, this is an incorrect analogy because letters are physical.
teuch: filc:Similarly in my shovel analogy, the shovel that bashed out your windows only behaved based on the owners actions and not on it's own. Computers as well only behave based on their owners actions, they are tools and if used to breach the network of someone's it's trespassing. Again I have to ask, breaching the network? How is that defined? It is easy with a large shovel. Can a ping be said to be trespass? etc. etc. as asked in previous posts...
Again I have to ask, breaching the network? How is that defined? It is easy with a large shovel. Can a ping be said to be trespass? etc. etc. as asked in previous posts...
nirgrahamUK: your problem is scale.
teuch: nirgrahamUK:your problem is scale. Do you realize that computers communicate through a language, and that the words of that language can be transformed in many ways between computers. Only the information remains. Like English, I could write a message, pass it to another person they could shout it out to the next person etc. etc.: the meaning of the message remains the same, the information hasn't changed; the form is different. If that message reaches its recipient (after writing, yelling, engraving onto wood) and it turns out to be a scam: it is the motive of the sender that is in question, not whether or not the message itself infringement of the letter itself and residual atoms are trespassing.
Knight_of_BAAWA: And do you realize that computers are physical entities? That networks have physical items such as cables, routers, hubs/switches? That an uninvited access to the network is trespass?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
teuch:Do you not read my posts?
Daniel:But, but, but, but, but, but using your logic, this is an incorrect analogy because letters are physical.
See the latter post about information transforming.
Daniel:Do you realize that when you speak Engrish, you causing atoms of air to move, and for the other persons ear to vibrate?
They are not the same atoms.. they may hold the same information.
It is only the information that get to the recipient, not the original atoms.
Knight_of_BAAWA:f you are trying to create some idiotic strawman vis-a-vis simple access to an open network where you are allowed free entry, you're barking up the wrong damned tree, and I suggest you kill that noise right now.
No! A thousand times, No! I am not defending "simple access to an open network where you are allowed free entry".
I am saying information, not letters or atoms just the information, does not in and of itself constitute trespass.
teuch: Daniel:But, but, but, but, but, but using your logic, this is an incorrect analogy because letters are physical. See the latter post about information transforming. Daniel:Do you realize that when you speak Engrish, you causing atoms of air to move, and for the other persons ear to vibrate? They are not the same atoms.. they may hold the same information. It is only the information that get to the recipient, not the original atoms.
/facepalm. Let's try this:
If I hit you with my fist, is that battery? What if I throw a basketball at your door and cause your door to hit you across the forehead, is that battery?
nirgrahamUK: teuch:There are only torts--crimes against individuals and their property and provider of law and security are legitimate private organisations/businesses forming a polycentric legal order. as opposed to the monopoly state legal order; which is legal positivism, and which imagines that crimes against private citizens are primarily crimes against society/state
OK, Thank You! I am new to mises in general, and have been trying to get my head around the terminology used.
I have been trained to recognize criminal law, the source being legislation (state monopoly of power), and civil (tort) law, and that there is no 'criminality' in tort law, only finding facts and determining remedy.
teuch:How should criminal trespass be defined?
teuch:No! A thousand times, No! I am not defending "simple access to an open network where you are allowed free entry".
Daniel: /facepalm. Let's try this: If I hit you with my fist, is that battery? What if I throw a basketball at your door and cause your door to hit you across the forehead, is that battery?
Facepalm? What is the point of your strawman?
I am talking about information being transmitted.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Then you're either ignorant or disingenuous. Which is it?
I'm not interested in engaging you any further.
teuch: Daniel: /facepalm. Let's try this: If I hit you with my fist, is that battery? What if I throw a basketball at your door and cause your door to hit you across the forehead, is that battery? Facepalm? What is the point of your strawman? I am talking about information being transmitted.
So you are saying that, when two computers communicate, there is nothing physical going on?