IP: Re: The rise of Thought Crimes

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> To: Russell Nelson <nelson () crynwr com>
> Cc: farber () cis upenn edu, gnu () toad com, mo () gonzo ccr org
> Subject: Re: IP: The rise of Thought Crimes
> Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 15:43:41 -0500
> From: "Mike O'Dell" <mo () gonzo ccr org>
>
>
> yes, but your example involves doing something to
> someone else to trigger the event, and only then do
> they take your state of mind into consideration.
> Otherwise, Stephen King would have been convicted
> any number of times for all kinds of heinous things.
>
> the thought crimes i'm worried about occur when
> the act of having the though itself which is the crime.
> that's much more troubling, because it quickly degenerates
> into having to prove you *didn't* think of something.
> if copy protection involves cryptography, cryptanalysis
> itself could become prohibited because you would have
> to prove the work could not be applied to a copy
> protection scheme and the identification of weaknesses
> therein.
>
> so i really differ with you - yes, state of mind is already
> a component of other crimes, but short of dangerous psychosis,
> having particular thoughts, per se, are not yet crimes, but we are
> on the verge of that being the case.
>
>         -mo



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/