Hacking as a First Amendment Right

[Autolykos]

@Strawberry Cupcakes

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.

I’ve been meaning to respond to Prototypal again, but I’d like to comment on this post.

Your example with the dog is excellent. However, I’d say that you still exerted physical influence over the property. It’s just that this physical influence involved vibrating your vocal chords, which in turn vibrated air molecules to (and past) the point where the dog could hear them. You also modulated those vibrations in certain ways. On the other hand, electronic commands to change a website are also an example of exerting physical influence, because electricity is a physical phenomenon and all information ultimately has some kind of physical representation.

Additionally, while information itself isn’t scarce, physical representations of it can be. For example, while an image can be copied an infinite number of times (at least in theory), if it’s on only one computer, its physical representation is scarce. Here’s a non-computer example: a handwritten letter that has never been copied.

Finally, time and labor certainly are scarce. They form part of the basis of opportunity cost.

[z1235]

@prototypal

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.

Computers are not physical objects? Network signals are not physical either?

[Strawberry_Cupcakes]

@Autolykos

Your example with the dog is excellent. However, I’d say that you still exerted physical influence over the property. It’s just that this physical influence involved vibrating your vocal chords, which in turn vibrated air molecules to (and past) the point where the dog could hear them. You also modulated those vibrations in certain ways. On the other hand, electronic commands to change a website are also an example of exerting physical influence, because electricity is a physical phenomenon and all information ultimately has some kind of physical representation.

I’m glad you brought this up. I myself have been having trouble with what should be property, what can be property, what are the limitations of property ownership.

If someone was outside and using a leaf blower, and they cause the force of the air to blow into another person’s property, but not resulting in any see-able damage, are they exerting force over another’s property claim?

If someone was using a weedeater, and it hit a small rock that projected towards and broke another person’s house window, did they violate the other person’s property claim?

I would say that in both cases they did. I do not believe, we should reason that in the first case, with the leaf blower, that it wasn’t a violation of property rights, because no see-able damage was done. I do not believe that because it’s something trivial, we should say the point is worthless. It maybe impossible to know if the property owner would be offended, or if they wanted the grass in a very specific angle, or if they wanted it to remain undisturbed, regardless of damage or not. If you do not like the idea of grass, imagine that it is a bed of small rocks that the property owner labored over to place them out.

Because of this, I am having trouble with what can be property. I am going to have to think of a new idea of property. I believe property should be a right of man, but I cannot accept what I think is the current idea of property ownership under libertarianism without trouble.

---

Also, sorry for the typos in my previous post.