[PeterisP]

I don't see how quantity suddenly transforms a permitted thing into a forbidden one.

If I don't need your permission to look at your car's licence plate on a public street and write down when and where I saw it, or simply take a photo of said licence plate (as photos currently include timestamp+location) - then the situation doesn't change in any way and I still don't need your permission even if I did the same for a thousand cars this morning, and my buddies did the same thing for ten thousand cars more.

[deeths]

The law has thousands of examples of quantity turning permitted things into forbidden ones (or at least regulated ones, which is probably more the case here). This is in no way a unique restriction.

For example:

1) If someone glances in your window as they walk by your house, that's fine. If they stand there all day, they're probably guilty of stalking, a crime.

2) If one person is holding a protest sign in front of city hall, that's legal. If a thousand people do it, that's a protest, which in most cities is a regulated activity requiring a permit.

3) If you pour your morning orange juice out in a storm drain, that's probably legal. If you pour thousands of gallons of OJ into a storm drain, you're breaking environmental laws.

4) If someone drives by a street, that's fine. If they go back and forth down it, they're cruising, which is a crime in many cities.

5) If you give a friend $100, it's an unregulated gift. If you give them $20k, then that's regulated by tax laws.

6) If someone sells a stock and buys it back, that's fine. If they do it tens of thousands of times in a minute, they may be breaking securities laws.

7) If you bring $1000 into the country, that's an unregulated event. If you bring $100k, it becomes regulated.

8) If you access a web site with an automatic tool, that's fine. If you access it a thousand times a second, that's a DDoS attack, which is a crime.

9) If you cut a tree down on your property to sell the wood, that's fine. If you cut hundreds down, then you're running an illegal logging operation.

and on and on.

I totally don't buy the argument that it's unreasonable to forbid or regulate the case of collecting license plate numbers based on it just being a different quantity of something that's permitted. Laws use quantity as the basis for drawing the line between legal/illegal or unregulated/regulated all the time.

[PeterisP]

Okay, this is a very valid point that laws can and make a distinction based on quantity.

However, in this point no such distinction has been made, and thus they should be treated equally. There is clear law on the "low quantity" case, and no distinct law on the "high quantity" case - so the same principles should be applied even for thousandfold or millionfold increases unless/until the lawmakers (not the courts) draw a line somewhere.

[deeths]

I totally agree. I think the point most people are trying to make here is not that this _is_ illegal, but that it should be made illegal.

[me_again]

This article is specifically about a lawmaker trying to draw a line, and the lobbying around that process. At least as far as this article goes, no court case is underway, nor is there a claim that this is currently illegal.

[PeterisP]

On the other hand, I'm very very worried about the risk of making it illegal - because those justifications can be used to make the low-scale personal activities into 'victimless crimes', leaving the government with a monopoly on surveillance while criminalizing citizens who do the same thing.

I'd rather prefer if everyone was permitted to do this at all scales, rather than risk restrictions on what people can do with their minds and devices with stuff that they can plainly see - it's similar to various restrictions on recording police officers in action, so as "to protect their privacy".

The government will do their thing anyways (as Snowden showed us), so if any restrictions are implemented then they will only restrict us, but not protect us.

[barrkel]

Can you understand how individual letters may not be copyrighted, but an arrangement of them into a large text may be?

[PeterisP]

Can you understand that if you give me the individual letters or sentences, than I'm allowed to arrange them in a large text even if you don't want them to be arranged that way?

I'm aware of the copyright legislation that applies to copying of data compilations - but those restrictions don't apply here, where people are [re]creating databases from independently made real world observations.

[TeMPOraL]

No, I can't. It's actually a big philosophical/legal issue involving "illegal numbers"[0], definition of copying and colour of bits[1].

Don't make problems simple and obvious when they're not.

[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

[1] - http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

[barrkel]

My argument was by analogy, but you've taken the analogy beyond its breaking point into another domain.

A single fact about a person at a particular place is not much more useful than knowing the placement of a single letter in a word. But if you know the placement of several letters in a word, you can guess the word - and that has a whole bunch more information [1]. Similarly, know several facts about a person's path, more information comes to light that is not evident from single facts alone, in a way that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; place of work, school of children, likely friends, relatives, partners, potential medical issues, possible infidelity.

The issue you're getting at is a philosophical issue related to the sorites paradox on one hand, and the zero marginal cost of duplicating information on the other. The former is somewhat related to the issue at hand, but the latter definitely isn't.

[1] Semantically, not by Shannon, for the autistic nitpickers out there.

[ellyagg]

Differences in degree produce differences in kind all the time. Some places you're allowed to have small amounts of recreational drugs, but if you have large amounts you're presumed drug dealing. Over the years we've allowed tips uncovered on undercover operations to nab unrelated criminal activity; now that the government is shown to be monitoring online behavior on most of us, we recognize it as a problem. Some places you're allowed to cut down a Christmas tree but if you clear cut the forest, people would look askance. The examples of quantity mattering are endless. Often the issue has to do with power. Once the quantity and efficiency of an activity affords vast new power, that power must be scrutinized and regulated.

[mattfenwick]

> the situation doesn't change in any way and I still don't need your permission even if I did the same for a thousand cars this morning, and my buddies did the same thing for ten thousand cars more.

I hate to say it -- because it's probably irrelevant from a legal perspective at the moment -- but this sounds exactly like the fallacy of the beard to me.

(edit: not to accuse you of committing this fallacy, just felt this was important enough that it should be highlighted)

[HarryHirsch]

If you can't understand how indexing turns bulk data into information you are clearly beyond help. Hint: there is a whole industry involved in data mining, and since time immemorial what distinguished a library from a pile of books is the library index.

[PeterisP]

Yes, and if I have the right to the bulk data, then I automatically have the right to all the knowledge that I can mine or infer from that data. THAT is the point that there is no difference. I can create information from data - and saying "raw data is okay, but the information mined from it isn't okay" is ridiculous.

If I have unconditional permission to read books from library, then that allows me (I don't need any extra permission) to use what I read to create a library index - even if you explicitly don't want me to have such an index.

And the public information permissions really are unconditional - what I see in public space is public info. There's no "... unless you write it down" or "...unless you plan to keep that data forever" or "... unless you don't gather too much" or "... unless you tell it to others" or "... unless you profit from it" or "... unless you make interesting conclusions from the raw data" - it's just that, public and unrestricted.

Once I have a legally obtained fact in my mind or my computer, I'm allowed to do pretty much everything with that knowledge, barring very specific exemptions such as blackmail or insider stock trading.

[mikeash]

Saying your opponent is "beyond help" is a great way to have them dismiss your side entirely.

I'm disappointed, as I was hoping for some sort of informative argument, as someone with no strong opinion either way.

[CodeMage]

Somehow, I doubt that this would be the first time the legislation had to deal with a Sorites paradox.

[pizza234]

A very pertinent, technological example, for the unconvinced: copying one street from google maps, versus mass-scraping entire locations.