[TheDong]

This was really well written in "What color are your bits": https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

Programmers have trouble seeing color (two identical numbers are the same bits, how can typing '1234' to unlock one phone be legal, and '1234' to unlock another phone be illegal?)

Courts care about color (intent, provenance, permission), even though that color cannot be digitally represented.

[arijun]

An interesting analogue to "What color are your bits" in the tech world, as well as a direct disproof of your "two identical numbers are the same bits" statement (although perhaps only technically so), is the idea of provenance of bits memory in programming languages. Here is an RFC for rust's memory provenance:

https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3559-rust-has-provenance.ht...

[kmeisthax]

"Color" absolutely can be represented digitally; C compilers were doing it before we even knew they were doing it. We just like getting away with shit. It's part of the hacker ethos. Probably.

[TheDong]

Not all color can be represented digitally.

Is a piece of software subject to patents? Is it export controlled?

Both of those can change without the data changing at all. A new patent can be applied for and accepted, at which point all code the patent description matches is potentially encumbered (even if it was written with no knowledge of the patent or before the patent existed, yes our patent system sucks).

Export controlled is also a matter of laws, not an attribute of the data itself, and laws change independent of data.

[Brian_K_White]

You've just merely exhibited the symptom of being blind to all the colors which cannot be represented, not proven or shown that there are none.

All of a things properties are not contained in or expressed by the thing itself.

[daemin]

An interesting parallel to this is parallel construction, where a side knows X but they know it through illegal/illegitimate means, so how do they create a trail of evidence for X through ordinary and legal means. This applies to legal cases and things like reverse engineering etc.

Like we know X but the colour of the fact is red, and we need some way to figure X out with a colour of green or blue.

[abofh]

Indeed, but should he say his real code was one digit swap off, could you prove intent? Color matters, but you can't paint with only one

[CJefferson]

This is where 'reasonable doubt' comes in from a jury. Would I believe that someone set up a 'wipe my phone' code, something that would be catastrophic, it was one digit different, and they accidentally typed it, or would I think they were trying to wipe their phone.

Honestly, given what I know here (a full case might be different), I would believe they did it on purpose.

[sReinwald]

Framing this as whether he can convince you the mistype was accidental gets it backwards, and "would I believe X or would I think Y" is preponderance, not reasonable doubt - entirely different standard. Reasonable doubt doesn't ask which account you find more likely. It asks whether the innocent one is unreasonable.

Take the hypothetical as posed: duress code one digit off, entered while detained after being interrogated for hours, and repeatedly pressured to unlock. The government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly triggered the wipe and did it for the purpose of impairing the seizure. Nothing about that scenario makes mistyping an unreasonable explanation unless there is more circumstantial evidence that indicates him intentionally providing the wrong PIN.

Proving that to a jury looks very hard.

[yorwba]

The scenario itself is unreasonable.