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/