Your personal incredulity matters not in reality. 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, I can do nothing more to help you. You are either purposefully ignorant or disingenuous.
No, I didn’t. It’s not germane. And please do learn what an ad hominem attack is:
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.
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?
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.
following the thread of discussion / knowing your opponent FAIL.
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
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
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
But, but, but, but, but, but using your logic, this is an incorrect analogy because letters are physical.
You know what a ping is, yet you fail to understand that when you “call” on a another computer to perform a task, you are causing the other computer to physically alter its state, where it be its voltage or the hard drive.
Or, he is simply trolling.
Do you realize that when you speak Engrish, you causing atoms of air to move, and for the other persons ear to vibrate?
I pointed that out already.
Yes. Do you read your own? Because I find it difficult to believe that you can, on the one hand, accept that computers can be owned (and necessarily, by extension, a network), and then on the other hand believe that accessing a private, secured network (as that is what this is about) it without permission is trespass. If 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.
See the latter post about information transforming.
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.
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.
/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?
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.
It shouldn’t.
Then you’re either ignorant or disingenuous. Which is it?
Facepalm? What is the point of your strawman?
I am talking about information being transmitted.
I’m not interested in engaging you any further.
So you are saying that, when two computers communicate, there is nothing physical going on?