Xref: utzoo comp.org.eff.talk:2713 comp.admin.policy:471 gnu.misc.discuss:3376 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!fornax!miron From: miron@cs.sfu.ca (Miron Cuperman) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.admin.policy,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Is there an equivalent of "The Anarchist Cookbook" in Cyberspace? Message-ID: <1991Jun17.041959.19121@cs.sfu.ca> Date: 17 Jun 91 04:19:59 GMT References: <1991Jun16.202928.21626@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> Organization: Simon Fraser University Lines: 28 earle@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Greg Earle (Sun Software)) writes: >Now there is a tie between the original posting and a piece of commercial >software (e.g.). How does this change things? Is the culpability of the >original posting the same, or does the fact that there is now a known >connection to its purpose add to it? And what about the culpability of the >second poster, for exposing the intended program (note that the original >posting makes no mention of the purpose; this just as an added twist)? Well, I can give you a moral answer but I doubt that the current legal system has any strong inclination to be moral. The moral answer is that nobody is responsible for another person's actions. Since the act of publishing information does not in itself cause harm, the poster is not doing anything immoral. If somebody actually uses the information for theft, that is immoral and the user is the only person responsible. >Lastly, if (e.g.) Frame Technologies determined the original poster's identity >and determined their employer, would they be justified in demanding that the >original poster's employer fire the poster? Same thing for the followup >poster? Or justified in demanding damages from the original poster's >employer? Etc. etc. The can demand all they want. -- By Miron Cuperman