Hacking as a First Amendment Right

[prototypal]

I am a computer programmer, freedom enthusiast, and a big fan of Mises.org. I wonder if the community could help me think through an idea I have been having: that computer hacking is protected under the First Amendment.

Let me begin with an analogy.

You create a bomb and hook it up to a radio receiver. You set the bomb so that it will only explode when it receives a radio signal on a certain frequency, and then leave it in your living room. At some point, somebody transmits a signal on that frequency and your house is destroyed. Has the transmitter destroyed your property, or have you set up your property to be destroyed?

This analogy is meant to underscore an important fact about computers that is often misunderstood: computers always do exactly what you tell them to, and only what you tell them to. When a computer user encounters a “bug” in a program, that is because the person who created the program instructed the computer to do something wrong. Likewise, if your computer is “hacked”, what has happened is that you, in fact, have set up your computer to do something that you actually do not want it to do, namely allowing access to an unauthorized user.

There is no concept of a computer being “broken into” in a virtual sense. Breaking into a computer simply means you have transmitted a signal that reaches that computer, that makes the computer do something it was instructed to do, but that the owner of the computer actually does not want it to do. The owner has definitely instructed the computer to do what you ask it–otherwise the computer would not do it.

It’s also important to remember that a computer can only be “hacked” if it is connected to the same network as a “hacker”. What that means is that the owner of the computer has instructed their computer to receive signals from others on the network and interpret them.

Therefore, the act of “breaking into” somebody’s computer can be seen as a form of expression. They are simply using property they own (their computer) to transmit signals over a network they have been allowed access to (the internet). The owner of the computer being hacked has full physical control over his computer–his property rights have not been violated. He has simply done a silly thing in instructing his computer to interpret the signals of the “hacker” in such a way that the hacker is able to view or manipulate information the owner wishes to keep private.

Of course, this does not mean that hacking needs to be permitted or allowed. Access to the internet is achieved by contracting with an Internet Service Provider (ISP). ISPs allow customers to access their network, which in turn allows access to other networks that the ISP is connected to. ISPs have the freedom to restrict certain activities over their networks, and so should be the policemen who detect hackers and restrict them. Governments have proven extremely ineffective at this, anyways.

I noticed there was another thread on this topic, and it was suggested that “hacking = trespassing”. But again, I don’t think property rights are violated whatsoever by hacking. The owner of the “hacked” computer has maintained physical control over the computer, and it has only done as he instructed it to do.

There simply is no analog between a computer system and a physical place. Even the “radio bomb” I mentioned above is only loosely analogous. It doesn’t make sense to define computer hacking as a form of either trespassing or theft.

I think teuch phrased it most succinctly: “Either a computer accepts instructions from other computers, and the owner is responsible for controlling what is sent out, or all communication between computers is trespass and we must destroy the internet.”

What do you think? Could anyone recommend some more reading on this?

[AJFrost]

I don’t really think the “it’s not breaking in because the owner wrote the program in a way that allowed the hacker access” argument holds. If I build a faulty security system for my house or if I unintentionally leave my door unlocked, gaining access to my house is still trespassing.

[The_Freeman]

Computers are like evil genies. They’ll do exactly what you tell them, alright, but they’ll do it in this profoundly evil way you never imagined.

Anyway, hacking will generally involve fraud. There is a user account that can access the network with appropriate permissions - admin or whatever - but since you’re not the admin, using that account without permission is fraud.

As for theft… Processing cycles or bandwidth, which are things hackers often want to steal, are scarce and finite things. I don’t see why using them without the owner’s permission isn’t theft.

[Marko]

Likewise, if your computer is “hacked”, what has happened is that you, in fact, have set up your computer to do something that you actually do not want it to do, namely allowing access to an unauthorized user.

I did not “allow it”. I enabled it in the physical sense, but there is no permission in the ethical sense. As you say it was setup like this by mistake, so there is no meeting of the minds here. I don’t know that it is setup this way, and if I had I would have changed it.

Therefore, the act of “breaking into” somebody’s computer can be seen as a form of expression. They are simply using property they own (their computer) to transmit signals over a network they have been allowed access to (the internet). The owner of the computer being hacked has full physical control over his computer–his property rights have not been violated. He has simply done a silly thing in instructing his computer to interpret the signals of the “hacker” in such a way that the hacker is able to view or manipulate information the owner wishes to keep private.

Just like if you leave for the holidays and forget to lock your door, and I take advantage of that to come over to examine your stuff.

[MaikU]

yeah, the OP’s “argument” is flawed. One more ridiculous example is drunk rape..

[prototypal]

Thank you all so much, this is all very helpful. However, you all made analogies to the real world, which I maintain there are none.

I come back to this idea: “Either a computer accepts instructions from other computers, and the owner is responsible for controlling what is sent out, or all communication between computers is trespass and we must destroy the internet” Is that not a fair ultimatum?

How is posting here on Mises any different than hacking into Mises.org and putting a picture of a bunny on the home page? At which point during each of those actions am I made aware that I am either trespassing or not? The answer is at neither time. I am simply given a public interface to Mises computers and allowed to do what I can do with them.

To compare an unlocked house to an unsecured computer may seem correct, but it is actually very far from the truth. It’s a lot more like locking your house, but mailing your key to everybody in town. The only truly “locked house” is one that is not connected to the internet.

I also don’t see how hacking necessarily involves fraud. Say that the government creates a public page that is full of military secrets–adding no password or security–and makes it illegal to visit that page unless you are authorized. Would that be a reasonable or just law? You have to understand that, to somebody who understands how computers work, there is no “forgery” involved. It is just as if the information is right there out in public for you.

It is true that hacking is doing something without permission in the ethical sense, but I don’t see this as being worthy of criminal penalty. A person needs to understand that, unless they are a computer expert, if they hook up a computer to a network they are risking doing it incorrectly. They are risking doing it in such a way that may expose their information.

Has anybody found any reading on this issue? I’d be really interested to see if there is any scholarly material on the subject, but have been unable to find any.

[billott1]

You are missing the definition of private property. The equipment and storage devices that support this web site are the private property of either the folks at Mises.org or Mises.org contracts with another owner to use their equipment. They, one of the parties mentioned previous, paid for the equipment by trading something of value with the creators of the equipment. And as owners they have complete rights to limit who has access the terms of that access. So if a hacker trespasses on that property without prior approval then they are committing a crime against the owners or users of the property. If the hacker opens an account and posts just like the other users then they are acting within the parameters of use set by the owners so there is no crime. So to summarise:

Hacking into a private system without owner approval is trespass and an act of aggression.

Accessing the system with malintent but using it according to owner preferences is not trespass and not an act of aggression.

All that having been said, it is up to the owner of the property to limit its use in ways that prevent hacking. Although a crime, the owner will have a difficult time determining the perpetrator and an even harder time getting restitution of some kind for damage.

[Autolykos]

@prototypal

You create a bomb and hook it up to a radio receiver. You set the bomb so that it will only explode when it receives a radio signal on a certain frequency, and then leave it in your living room. At some point, somebody transmits a signal on that frequency and your house is destroyed. Has the transmitter destroyed your property, or have you set up your property to be destroyed?

Did you intentionally set up the bomb* that way? Or was it a flaw that you overlooked?

@prototypal

This analogy is meant to underscore an important fact about computers that is often misunderstood: computers always do exactly what you tell them to, and only what you tell them to. When a computer user encounters a “bug” in a program, that is because the person who created the program instructed the computer to do something wrong. Likewise, if your computer is “hacked”, what has happened is that you, in fact, have set up your computer to do something that you actually do not want it to do, namely allowing access to an unauthorized user.

Did Anton Chigurh’s fictional victims set up their lives to turn out in a way they actually did not want them to, namely being killed by him?

@prototypal

There is no concept of a computer being “broken into” in a virtual sense. Breaking into a computer simply means you have transmitted a signal that reaches that computer, that makes the computer do something it was instructed to do, but that the owner of the computer actually does not want it to do. The owner has definitely instructed the computer to do what you ask it–otherwise the computer would not do it.

If a group of people walk into a restaurant and proceed to trash it, was the restaurant broken into?

@prototypal

Therefore, the act of “breaking into” somebody’s computer can be seen as a form of expression. They are simply using property they own (their computer) to transmit signals over a network they have been allowed access to (the internet). The owner of the computer being hacked has full physical control over his computer–his property rights have not been violated. He has simply done a silly thing in instructing his computer to interpret the signals of the “hacker” in such a way that the hacker is able to view or manipulate information the owner wishes to keep private.

Likewise, the aforementioned act of walking into a restaurant and trashing it can also be seen as a form of expression. The vandalizers are simply using property they own (their bodies) to transmit signals (actions) over a network that they have been allowed access to (the real world). The owner of the restaurant being vandalized has full physical control over his restaurant - his property rights have not been violated. He has simply done a silly thing in allowing the vandalizers to walk into the restaurant unopposed.

What’s wrong with this picture?

• No Zero Wing jokes, please.

[Autolykos]

@prototypal

How is posting here on Mises any different than hacking into Mises.org and putting a picture of a bunny on the home page? At which point during each of those actions am I made aware that I am either trespassing or not? The answer is at neither time. I am simply given a public interface to Mises computers and allowed to do what I can do with them.

If a restaurant doesn’t have a sign in front of its entrance stating “No Vandalism”, then its owner has no recourse against people who come in and trash it?

Obviously, putting a picture of a bunny on the Mises Institute home page would be against the wishes of its owners. Posting on the Mises Institute forum might not be.

Another point about trespassing: did a person who egged another’s house in the middle of the night, without getting caught in the act, commit trespassing (along with vandalism) or not? Either way, he was given a public interface (the street) to the other’s house and was “allowed” to do what he could do to it (i.e. he wasn’t opposed or resisted right then and there).

@prototypal

To compare an unlocked house to an unsecured computer may seem correct, but it is actually very far from the truth. It’s a lot more like locking your house, but mailing your key to everybody in town. The only truly “locked house” is one that is not connected to the internet.

How is that any different from the house simply being unlocked? You’re just adding another action to the list of actions necessary to gain access to the house. If the house is unlocked, you still need to travel to it by some means, open the door, and step inside. Whether a house is unlocked has no bearing on whether one is allowed to enter it.

@prototypal

It is true that hacking is doing something without permission in the ethical sense, but I don’t see this as being worthy of criminal penalty. A person needs to understand that, unless they are a computer expert, if they hook up a computer to a network they are risking doing it incorrectly. They are risking doing it in such a way that may expose their information.

The same reasoning could apply to car theft: “It’s true that car theft is doing something without permission in the ethical sense, but I don’t see this as being worthy of criminal penalty. A person needs to understand that, unless he’s a car expert, if he parks a car in a parking lot he risks doing it unsecurely. He’s risking doing it in such a way that he may expose his property to being taken.”

[prototypal]

Again, thank you all! This is a great discussion and it is really making me think. I swear that if I can understand why I am wrong, I will admit to it! However, none of you have convinced me yet.

Perhaps there is a better way for me to explain my problem with the analogy between computers on a network and buildings in a town.

It seems that the term “hacking” applies to the access and/or manipulation of a computer, over a network, by a person who has no permission from the owner of the computer to do so. After all, a computer is simply several hunks of metal covered in various electrical and magnetic charges, and so the owner of the metal should have absolute control over how the metal is charged. On this point, I will agree.

Connecting a computer to a network is one of the ways you can exert your control over your metal. You connect a device to your computer (a network card) which allows you to connect a wire which is connected to other computers. You then install software on your computer which determines how to handle each signal it receives over the wire. Certain signals might cause your computer to transmit a web page (via various signals) to another computer. Certain signals might cause your computer to do something else. Certain signals might simply be ignored. This is all under your control. At all times, you have the physical capability to configure your metal in any which way. Therefore anything your computer ever does, it does because you configured it to do so. Whether or not it is connected to a network doesn’t change this.

As I see it, you cannot disagree that computers only do what they are told by their owners. To me this is a fact of science, and hopefully I have conveyed why. So how does “hacking” occur, then? If you have full control over your computer, it should be impossible that any signal should be able to convince your computer to do something you do not want it to do. But of course, it is possible, because humans make mistakes. It is of course entirely possible to accidentally configure your computer such that a certain signal will cause it to divulge your private information. But you have to remember: this is a mistake on the owners’ part.

The only argument you can make is that, legally, it is not the owner’s fault if they make such a mistake. This is where analogies to houses and restaurants are sure to come in. If a home owner does not lock his home and a person walks in and takes his painting, his right to his property has most certainly still been violated. I would agree that, even if the home was unsecured or secured poorly, this is theft.

But we must consider why this is theft. The reason is because we assume that if an owner leaves his painting on his private property, even if it is unattended or unsecured, he does not want it to be taken or damaged. This assumption is reasonable for the same reason that, if a person were to cast his painting into the ocean and leave it unattended, it would be unreasonable to assume that he didn’t want it taken or damaged by others. We base our system of property rights on physical access to property, and whether explicit permission has been given for said access.

Perhaps now you can see why I don’t think any of your analogies hold. Sending or receiving data over computer networks is not analogous to giving or receiving a physical object because the explicit wishes of the computer owner are not and cannot be made clear through network protocols. A person’s wish for his painting is made clear based on where he puts it and what he tells you about it, the default assumption being that he does not wish it to be touched.

If the default assumption is the same for network access, then this post is vandalism. I have never communicated with the owners of the Mises.org servers, so they have never given me permission to transmit signals to their server that will cause their data to change. The only way this post is not vandalism is if you instead assume that any action permitted by the configuration of the Mises.org computer is indeed permitted by its owner.

There are only two ways of interpreting what you have “permission” to do in terms of network signals. One way is explicit permission from the computer owner. Another way is to assume that anything the receiving computer will do for you is permitted by the owner. Any other way of determining permissions is arbitrary and contrived.

It seems most logical to use the latter form of permissions. After all, as I’ve pointed out, the computer owner has gone through several explicit steps to connect his computer to the network and make it responsive to other computers. It does not seem logical to assume that the owner does not, by default, give you permission to access the computer he has just connected with yours. It seems more logical to assume that he wishes for his computer to communicate with others, and that he has configured it in such a way that it will not do something he doesn’t wish it to do.

Consider this forum post. Have I hacked Mises.org? Have I modified data over a network without receiving permission to do so?

Consider a bug in the Mises.org web site. The bug emails the user all the Mises.org admin passwords if the user types the word “jello” in a forum post. So if a user types “jello” in a forum post, and consequently receives all the admin passwords, has he just hacked Mises.org? Has he accessed data over a network without receiving permission to do so?

Finally, consider a slightly more complex bug. You must enter a cryptic string of characters into a forum post, something like “';DROP TABLE users”. If you do that, then the Mises.org user database is deleted. This is, in fact, exactly how a “SQL Injection” works–a real form of hacking! If a user does this, has he hacked Mises.org? Has he modified data over a network without receiving permission to do so?

The fact is that every single type of hacking works exactly like this. A hacker simply has to discover a bug in the configuration of the computer he wishes to hack. That is the only possible way to do it.

If you are inclined to say that the “jello bug” is the fault of the owner, but the “SQL Injection” bug is hacking, then you are just making things up. You have adopted a system of rules that is very different from property rights, which are based on explicit permissions. The same applies when comparing the forum post with either of the bugs. You must either assume that neither are permitted or that both are.

So this is where I get to the first amendment. Two people, Alice and Charles, individually contract with an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to gain access to the same network. If Charles “hacks” Alice over the network, the government has nothing to charge him for. He is simply broadcasting signals. He has a right to broadcast as he wishes, and his doing so does not violate anybody else’s rights. Of course, the ISP has the right to penalize him based on the contract he signed. But the government does not have the right to declare that certain actions such as this are not allowed.

Am I making sense?

[Marko]

The only argument you can make is that, legally, it is not the owner’s fault if they make such a mistake. This is where analogies to houses and restaurants are sure to come in. If a home owner does not lock his home and a person walks in and takes his painting, his right to his property has most certainly still been violated. I would agree that, even if the home was unsecured or secured poorly, this is theft.

I didn’t say anything about taking off with anything. My example was someone coming over and snooping through your things, then leaving without taking anything with him.

There are only two ways of interpreting what you have “permission” to do in terms of network signals. One way is explicit permission from the computer owner. Another way is to assume that anything the receiving computer will do for you is permitted by the owner. Any other way of determining permissions is arbitrary and contrived..

I never communicated with you directly. I have no idea if you want me in your house snooping through your things or not. The only non-abritrary, non-contrieved way for me to know this is to see if you locked your entry door or bought a large dog. If you did not I must assume I have been invited in.

I will enter in order to use your handheld mixer. I will see what your handheld mixer will do for me if I give it the ON signal. It is your fault for setting up your house in such a way to allow me the use of your home appliances.

[prototypal]

@Marko

My example was someone coming over and snooping through your things, then leaving without taking anything with him.

…

I never communicated with you directly. I have no idea if you want me in your house snooping through your things or not. The only non-abritrary, non-contrieved way for me to know this is to see if you locked your entry door or bought a large dog. If you did not I must assume I have been invited in.

I will enter in order to use your handheld mixer. I will see what your handheld mixer will do for me if I give it the ON signal. It is your fault for setting up your house in such a way to allow me the use of your home appliances.

You’ve just given an example of trespassing. Yes, snooping through a house without permission is trespassing.

But then you must agree that this post and yours are vandalism (hacking), unless you received permission from the owners of the Mises.org servers (I certainly didn’t).

My point is that the default assumption with property rights is that the owner doesn’t want you snooping, or damaging, or taking–hence your example being trespassing. But given the nature of computer networks, it seems the default assumption for network access should be the opposite.

[Marko]

My point is that the default assumption with property rights is that the owner doesn’t want you snooping, or damaging, or taking–hence your example being trespassing.

That’s an appeal to common sense. Something you don’t want to recognise as valid when it comes to computers.

Show me why exactly the default assumption should be that the owner doesn’t want you walking around his house, without falling back to “common everybody knows that, that’s just common sense”.

[gotlucky]

You’ve just given an example of trespassing. Yes, snooping through a house without permission is trespassing.

But then you must agree that this post and yours are vandalism (hacking), unless you received permission from the owners of the Mises.org servers (I certainly didn’t).

We have received permission in the form of registration. In order to post, we must register. Those are the rules set up for us to post. Mises has moderators in order to enforce rules as well.

Hacking another’s computer is done without permission. You keep saying that computers do exactly what are they are told, therefore there is no violation of property rights. Do you see how this does not follow?

The lock to my house does exactly what it is told. If it turns, it unlucks. I have a key, but someone else might be able to pick the lock. Either way, it does what it is told. So is there no violation of my rights if someone picks my lock?

My car does what it is told. It has a lock. If someone were to unluck my car and drive away with it, has there been a violation of my property?

It is entirely irrelevant that computers do what they are told. All inanimate objects do what they are told.

[SrirachaDawg]

“…that computer hacking is protected under the First Amendment.”

I hate when people reference the constitution. It’s like we wouldn’t have the right without the amendment or something…

[Jack_Roberts]

@prototypal

I noticed there was another thread on this topic, and it was suggested that “hacking = trespassing”. But again, I don’t think property rights are violated whatsoever by hacking. The owner of the “hacked” computer has maintained physical control over the computer, and it has only done as he instructed it to do.

That is complete non sense. Hacking is a broad term. But if you are talking about unauthorized access to external computer systems then that violates property law. People own their property which includes their computer hardware and their network. Even if some noob has no firewall and leaves the door open then you are still violating property law. Well in my opinion. But when you exploit or compromise or crack computer systems then you are obviously violating property law.

Stealing expensive rare painting from art galleries can be seen as an art-form but at least the thief is under no illusion that he is not violating property rights.

[prototypal]

@gotlucky

We have received permission in the form of registration. In order to post, we must register. Those are the rules set up for us to post. Mises has moderators in order to enforce rules as well.

When did you get that permission? In order to receive any form of permission, you had to first make a request to port 80 on their server (that’s the port web browsers connect to). Was your initial request trespassing?

@gotlucky

Hacking another’s computer is done without permission. You keep saying that computers do exactly what are they are told, therefore there is no violation of property rights. Do you see how this does not follow?

My point is that all network activity occurs “without permission”, at least in an explicit sense. Unless you require that explicit permission is given for any and all network access, you must instead assume that “permission” is defined through the receiving computer’s configuration.

@gotlucky

The lock to my house does exactly what it is told. If it turns, it unlucks. I have a key, but someone else might be able to pick the lock. Either way, it does what it is told. So is there no violation of my rights if someone picks my lock?

My car does what it is told. It has a lock. If someone were to unluck my car and drive away with it, has there been a violation of my property?

It is entirely irrelevant that computers do what they are told. All inanimate objects do what they are told.

It is relevant because computers are different than houses. It’s not possible to absolutely secure any physical object, be it a house or a car. But it is entirely possible to prevent a computer from doing something you don’t want it to, even if it’s connected to a network.

If you want to make analogies to houses, you have to imagine that everybody in the world has the capability to lock their property in such a way that is physically impenetrable. If we all had that capability, an unlocked house might indeed seem to be an obvious invitation to enter. It would be a different world.

@Marko

That’s an appeal to common sense. Something you don’t want to recognise as valid when it comes to computers.

My point is that nobody recognises it as valid. Again, I never recieved any permission or implication of permission from the owners of the Mises.org servers to access those servers on port 80. And yet that’s exactly what I did, just visiting the home page. (In fact your browser will typically make tens of requests to multiple different servers just to load one page)

So, why isn’t it trespassing?

It’s not trespassing because the server responds on port 80, for anybody, instead of ignoring requests or giving an error message. Permission is not required. There would be little reason to use computer networking at all if it were.

@Marko

Show me why exactly the default assumption should be that the owner doesn’t want you walking around his house, without falling back to “common everybody knows that, that’s just common sense”.

Property ownership is based on exerting control over objects and space. He who controls it, owns it. As civilization advanced ownership grew to include prior ownership. He who controls it first, or is given it by a previous owner, owns it. I am no scholar, so perhaps I have this mucked up, but this is how I understand property rights to work.

Trespassing, vandalising, or stealing involve the physical exertion of control over another’s object or space without a “meeting of the minds” on whether said exertion of control is permissible. In computer networking, there is never any “meeting of the minds” in any way, whether to grant permission or forbid it. There are only requests and responses.

[prototypal]

@SrirachaDawg

“…that computer hacking is protected under the First Amendment.”

I hate when people reference the constitution. It’s like we wouldn’t have the right without the amendment or something…

Read the discussion, it might interest you!

[gotlucky]

@prototypal

I have a walkway in front of my home. I allow people to use it. The mailman can deliver mail. Neighbors can ring the doorbell. Etc. The purpose of the walkway is to provide access to my house from the sidewalk. People who I have not given express permission to enter my house can still use this walkway, but they can only use it to walk up to my house. They cannot camp there. Just because they have access to my walkway does not mean they now have access to the rest of my house if they can figure a way in.

I might also ban some people from my walkway. I may want to make sure people really know they aren’t allowed on my walkway at all and I might put up a sign that says “NO TRESPASSING - NO EXCEPTIONS”. That they still have access to it does not mean they can then walk on it.

It’s the same with restaurants. I might go into a restaraunt. I was not expressly invited by the owner. The manager didn’t invite me in. Even the hosts and waiters didn’t invite. I’m allowed in. A host will show me to a table. Etc. Maybe once I walk inside the manager will ask me to leave and say “We don’t serve libertarians here!” I can then leave.

It’s the same with these forums. We are allowed to connect to the Mises servers and browse the site. We are allowed to register on the forums. That Lew Rockwell himself did not email me personally to invite me to post here does not mean I am trespassing on these servers. It’s just like the walkway to my house. We connect to servers and other computers throughout the world, just as I can walk up to a neighbor’s house and ring the bell. But you can’t vandalise the website - I can’t vandalise my neighbor’s house.

I’m not really sure how else to explain this. But basically, just because you have the ability to control someone else’s property does not give you the right to do so. Computer, doorbell, car, radio, tv, etc. If it’s someone else’s property, you have to abide by their rules. That some people permit others to use some of their property but not all does not change the fact that you would be violating the NAP if you do use what they don’t allow you to use.

[Strawberry_Cupcakes]

Forgive me if I state something that will be proved moot by the information stated above, it was a lot of reading of back and forth argumentation. I am also having trouble figuring out how to operate this reply setup.

@prototypal

"Property ownership is based on exerting control over objects and space. He who controls it, owns it. As civilization advanced ownership grew to include prior ownership. He who controls it first, or is given it by a previous owner, owns it. I am no scholar, so perhaps I have this mucked up, but this is how I understand property rights to work.

Trespassing, vandalising, or stealing involve the physical exertion of control over another’s object or space without a “meeting of the minds” on whether said exertion of control is permissible. In computer networking, there is never any “meeting of the minds” in any way, whether to grant permission or forbid it. There are only requests and responses."

I believe that I am in current agreement about you beliefs on property ownership, and, because of this, if any of our access via the internet causes a property owner to use electricity or their machinery to operate without their prior willing for these actions, then, it’s a violation of their property. This may mean that the entire current internet networking system is flawed by this property ownership belief. A quick fix maybe for ISP to state that this is a risk that will happen under the current system and that the user of the service accepts these acts unless.

Property ownership, like everything has to be broken down as far as possible. If I were to stand on the other side of a busy street and call a person’s dog on the other side, knowing and hoping that it would be hit by a vehicle as it crossed, did I violate the property ownership of the dog’s master? Yes, because I purposely acted and made the dog come to me. I exerted intentional influence over the property though not physical, it cause physical actions of the dog’s master’s property. If I send commands electronically that change a website, but it does not cause any physical acts (if possible) on the part of anyone but myself and consenting parties, is it a violation of property ownership? No, because the information had no scarcity cost, and though, it may cost time and labor to rechange the website, time and labor are not scarcity (one is a for of measurement and the other is human action); if a person wants to influence an infinite and ownerless thing, then, they have to be willing to keep using their own labor to change something that cannot be owned by them.

So, if you agree that property ownership is not violated by the last example, but still feel it is immoral and want change-- a different concept of property ownership must be believed. But as of currently, it seems me and you, are acting against our beliefs of property ownership.