[letsgetphysITal]

> the laws of virtually every free democracy on the planet encapsulate the idea of some information being illegal.

Illegal to disseminate, not to own. There should be no punishment for being able to access or possessing information; Liability should squarely sit with the publisher, intentional or otherwise.

[pbhjpbhj]

Most places have indecency laws which cover things like video of murders and extreme pornography; privacy laws that make acquisition and retention of data/imagery illegal; etc..

[letsgetphysITal]

We (you) are conflating issues. Creating, distributing, profiting from, and possessing are all separate issues. Possession of information of any kind should not be illegal, as information is in and of itself not harmful; It's how you use it which should confer liability. If I download instructions on making a nuke, for example, that shouldn't be illegal. It should be illegal to make a nuke, to use a nuke, and to distribute them onward, but not to own them.

[pbhjpbhj]

>If I download instructions on making a nuke, for example, that shouldn't be illegal. It should be illegal to make a nuke, to use a nuke, and to distribute them onward, but not to own them. //

According to your assessment here you're an accessory to a crime - a willing and necessary participant. You said (hypothetically) you downloaded it, but that distribution should be illegal. Distribution and reception are linked, you can't get it without the distribution.

Demand for distribution fuels the supply.

I absolutely would maintain the illegality of ownership of some types of information (mitigations aside) - child pornography, imagery of rape or assault are obvious ones.

Freely allowing the supply and acquisition of details on making nukes is fine, because acquiring the components is difficult and can be controlled.

My quandary is that I want to be liberal to allow curiosity and educational intent to be fulfilled; but realise that there are elements who abuse the free acquisition of information that enables great harm (how to make a fertiliser bomb, how to make ricin).

[simonh]

Most judicial systems would conclude that if for example you had extreme snuff porn on your computer, or the private personal records of another person, that there could be no legitimate procedure by which you could have obtained them. I don't think claiming that you extracted them from Pi, or 'could have done so' would be taken seriously as a defence.

The law for all it's flaws is ultimately a practical discipline, not abstract logic. Unless you're against all laws in general, which is a thing for some people.

[caf]

Interestingly enough, in the US, for the specific case of nuclear weapons design information, you don't even have to download it for it to be illegal. This class of information ("Restricted Data" as defined by the Atomic Energy Act) is "born secret" - even if you write it yourself, you're not allowed to have it.

(It should be pointed out that it's not been shown that this would actually be upheld by the courts).

[scbrg]

If anybody is conflating things, it's you. And what you seem to be conflating is the meaning of the word "is", with that of the word "should".

You might be quite right in that no information should be illegal to posses. That, however, does not make it so. There's plenty of information that is illegal to posses. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it less so.

[Chriky]

If possession is not illegal, why is distribution? You point makes no sense.

Consider your argument with respect to privacy and data issues - obviously possession of information can be in and of itself harmful because it can be something that other people have a right to restrict your access to.

[andrepd]

Would you be okay with someone possessing nude photos of yourself? After all, "holding information isn't in itself harmful", as you state. What about, god forbid, pornography starring your underage child. Is it still "just information"?

[letsgetphysITal]

If I make those photos available then yes, of course I would be happy. If they were taken without my consent, that is different. If I do not take adequate measures to protect them from accidental or malicious release, that is also different. I am specifically saying that owning knowledge should not be illegal. Creation, distribution, profiting from... All different things. Possession of data at rest should not be a crime, regardless of content. It's what's done with it that changes legality, in my opinion.

[andrepd]

That's reducing things to a logical extreme and removing all considerations of practicality. In the end, that's not a good way to look at law, or the nitty-gritty of the world for that matter. If you find someone with nude photos of yourself, and you didn't give them to them, then you can conclude that those photos were obtained illegally. That fixation on the distinction between "technically just posession" and "creation/distribution/etc." is not really helpful.

[pitay]

Being a reasonable person, I don't see any reason I would care if someone has nude photos of myself, even if I was a child at the time the photos was taken. The photos are not harming me, nor will they be harmful to me in any sense other than random chance. I know there is a photo of me pissing into the sea when I was young, it doesn't bother me a bit.

[andrepd]

It's good that you don't care, but don't I (or anyone else) have a right to care and not want those photos?

And I don't believe that you wholly don't care. I'm almost certain you must have some photos, or potentially may have some situations, if you were photographed, that are embarrassing and that you wouldn't want the general public (parents, coworkers, boss) to see.

[GyYZTfWBfQw]

Did he say that you don't have the right to care? He did not.

You can care, you may not want these photos to be where they are, and you may attempt to have them removed if it is possible, but you don't have the right to punish people for not caring, and you don't have the right to force people to care for the things you do.

I personally hate being on photos, so I try to avoid it to my best ability. I also asked someone to have a photo of me removed from somewhere. This is all understandable. The problem occurs when you are trying to dictate other people's lives by threatening to use violence against them for not conforming to your beliefs, etc. No need to resort to violence, come on.

I have a feeling you would attempt to beat me up for my tone alone because you perceive it to be hostile. Not cool. :P

[PurpleBoxDragon]

Under current law that is already legal as long as they hold copyright. There is a grey area deciding what is artistic and what is prurient, but if ruled artistic, they could publish it in a book and sale in on Amazon.

But I think we should consider a major division between the rules of sharing information and the rules of possessing information. If I know how to make something bad, that shouldn't be wrong. If I share that for the sake of a discussion, that shouldn't be wrong. If I share it with someone who will use it to cause harm, knowingly aiding them in causing harm... well isn't that where we should say wrong has been done?

[ythn]

> Possession of information of any kind should not be illegal, as information is in and of itself not harmful;

And how does one come to possess information without creating or receiving (distributing) it?