Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by fatbird 4955 days ago
This proposal seems especially weak given the ease of anonymously creating such material and 'seeding' it.

The point of criminalizing the data is to suppress the market for it in order to reduce the incentives to create it.

4 comments

What I believe is weak is that someone could put files in your computer and you become a criminal, completely out of proportion response.

"Suppressing" the market is impossible. How did it work with drugs? or with alcohol?

The law of the unintended consequences strikes again.

> "Suppressing" the market is impossible. How did it work with drugs? or with alcohol?

For alcohol, consumption shortly after Prohibition in the US fell to about 30% of pre-Prohibition levels. It then increased over the next few years to about 60-70% of pre-Prohibition levels. It stayed at that level until Prohibition was repealed, and stayed there for a bit after then climbed over the next decade back to pre-Prohibition levels. Cite: Alcohol Consumption During Prohibition, Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel, The American Economic Review, Vol. 81, No. 2 (May, 1991), pp. 242-247.

Yes, yes, lovely, and what happened to crime during that time ?
While that is a noble goal, does it work? And is it really worth the sacrifice?

Yes, it is awkward to compare something as awful with something as intangible as anonymity. But if you don't draw the line somewhere you will not be able to have a functional society - in which case we might as well be as humane as humanly possible and make good use of our nukes and make sure that there will be no human suffering in the future to worry about.

It doesn't sound easy at all, most other crimes don't require you to produce and widely distribute evidence of the crime.

I'm more worried about all the people abusing children without doing us the courtesy of publicizing the fact on the Internet.

how well has that worked out with drugs? with alcohol in the 1920s? with the RIAA and MPAAs fight against torrenting?