> Creating smallpox given any amount of any information[...]
That's why I used "enable", but point taken.
> But information so powerful that merely having it should be worth automatic prison time?
I don't think any prison time should be "automatic", but I do think that there's information that you should not be allowed to possess. In my view that doesn't include your examples, because that sort of scientific and technical knowledge, as you correctly point out, doesn't make a lot of sense to criminalize.
It does however include another human's private information that they did not consent to. What that entails exactly, is not clearly definable in all cases and I believe is open for argumentation, but I firmly believe depictions of sexual exploitation falls well within that area.
The general rationale that I have for this, is that someone else possessing my private information gives that other person power over me. That is bad, in my view, because it creates inequality. Now, one could argue that a society in where all information about everybody is available to everyone. But clearly, we don't live in such a society.
The general rationale that I have for this, is that someone else possessing my private information gives that other person power over me.
How do you figure? If someone has on their person a thumb drive containing your.. by way of example: PII, bank account info, and browsing history for the last week - but isn't giving it to anyone else, using it in any way, heck, they might not even know they have it:
How, exactly, do they have power over you? Be specific.
We can, and should criminalize those two things, but we're not talking about use or transmission, we're talking about existence.
For a sobering thought experiment, consider how many times someone may stumble across video or images of sexual exploitation, and then make the rational decision to scrub their history and cache rather than report it because doing the right thing opens them up to life-ruining liability.
> but we're not talking about use or transmission, we're talking about existence.
A part of me wants to apologize, because I wasn't using that narrow of a definition, and under it, I think you are correct.
The other part of me likes arguing on the internet.
You're of course correct, that just by mere existance information is not power, nor is it anything else, nor is anything else. But to tune one parameter of an issue to an extreme that make the entire issue absurd, is not a useful way to have a conversation about a real life issue.
The point being, that of course existance implies the possibility of use and transmission.
Clearly, nothing is dangerous just by existing without the possibilitiy of interaction with it's environment, not guns, not anthrax, not information, and clearly not humans.
But the whole point about something "being illegal", whatever it is, is that there it the possibility for it to interact with the system it's a part of.
But to tune one parameter of an issue to an extreme that make the entire issue absurd, is not a useful way to have a conversation about a real life issue.
We are talking about the legal system, which can and does make that fine grained of a distinction. Creating, transmitting, or being in possession of certain kinds of data are all specific, individual crimes.
The absurdity of the issue under discussion is the entire point.
That's why I used "enable", but point taken.
> But information so powerful that merely having it should be worth automatic prison time?
I don't think any prison time should be "automatic", but I do think that there's information that you should not be allowed to possess. In my view that doesn't include your examples, because that sort of scientific and technical knowledge, as you correctly point out, doesn't make a lot of sense to criminalize.
It does however include another human's private information that they did not consent to. What that entails exactly, is not clearly definable in all cases and I believe is open for argumentation, but I firmly believe depictions of sexual exploitation falls well within that area.
The general rationale that I have for this, is that someone else possessing my private information gives that other person power over me. That is bad, in my view, because it creates inequality. Now, one could argue that a society in where all information about everybody is available to everyone. But clearly, we don't live in such a society.