http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/site/sn/show.do?series=707
worthwhile show to watch!
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Hackers and Moral Desert (not a sweet treat)
The concept of moral desert is a complicated one. Moral Desert states that a person is obligated to something because of something else (the dog gets a biscuit because he's been good), and that result can be either good or bad; the person must accept all consequences be they positive or negative. The actual theory is more complex and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a much more in-depth explanation (trying to explain it fully here would go way over the maximum word count, so I'll just mention the site).
This theory was famously rejected by the philosopher John Rawls. Rawls claimed that a person's talents were simply the result of 'natural lottery' and so a given individual could not claim credit for and does not morally deserve the results of said talents (better job/salary, award, etc); he does clarify that while he does not accept the underlying concept of moral desert, people can and should expect to receive positive--and only positive-benefits from talent (he calls this 'Legitimate Expectation'). Where the legitimate expectation argument seems to fail is that it states that one only deserves to take credit for results if the individual or group expected them to happen, and the only results that count are positive.
In applying this concept to hacking, a person may not expect the results of an action but it happens anyway. Is it then moral to claim credit for those results? According to the basic moral desert framework, yes. In today's world where exploits can be found with a Google search and skill isn't necessarily required to make use of some powerful tools, not unless the person personalized the results in some way (tweaking source code and adding in a signature, adding a message to a defaced site, etc) so that everyone would know it was them. Hacking results are only claimed by an individual or group if the results are positive (when was the last time you heard of Anon, LulzSec or the like taking credit for a failure?).
When I was in high school, the 'IT department' (one librarian who believed anything on a computer worked exactly the way it was supposed to) used a fairly simple keyword filter with a bad bit of code. It blocked sites based on keywords with no context, resulting in students unable to do research assignments because the filter was blocking a lot of stuff it shouldn't.
I was able to get the password through simple shoulder-surfing (I was just curious and did not expect to be able to actually get the master password). So I disabled the filter when I had an in-class project that otherwise would have been impossible. One teacher saw me doing this and assumed IT had trusted me with the password; I later told her that was not the case. She asked how I got it; I told her, gave her the password, she gave it to a couple other teachers and students were happy. Everyone behaved (the students didn't directly have the password, only teachers) and there were no logs to check. This fails the 'legitimate expectation' argument that Rawls gives, as I used knowledge (not 'natural lottery') to gain these results, but I had no real expectation of being able to circumvent the filter. Nor did I expect or even want credit; I figured that the librarians would probably find some reason to ban me from the computer lab altogether if they found out.
Another possible example of the moral desert theory is the Harvard admissions hack. Prospective students replaced a character string in a URL, and thus were able to view their admissions status in advance. Could it be considered an 'immoral' advantage? Not knowing the whole story, I would think that it depends. If an applicant viewed only their own information while waiting for the letter to arrive in the mail, I would not see that as an unfair advantage as the outcome was already certain. Some might.
You could argue that the person who discovered this flaw in the system did not expect to gain access (the expectation is that databases like that with sensitive information are protected by a password or other barrier to entry from the outside), but we don't know if that is in fact the case. Once the info was published, everyone expected to get in, so that might fall under 'legitimate expectation' (however wrong it may be). However, anyone using the hack must be prepared for the negative consequences as well as the possible positives (moral desert).
John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham - Enjoy the occasional hack.
What would John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Benetham say about hacking?
An interesting idea, and certainly one worth taking a look at. For this blog post, I am focusing on two of the strongest driving forces behind the ideas of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the idea that the proper action, the moral action, is the one that maximizes overall happiness. Benetham states that there are two “soverign masters” governing mankind, pain and pleasure, and Benetham believes that the proper action would be one that maximizes overall pleasure, while minimizes overall pain. This concept stems from the idea of consequentialism, which states that the morality of an action can be determined only from the outcome of said action. This differs from Kant’s idea of categorical imperative, which can be summed up by saying that some actions, regardless of outcome, are moral or immoral. To really get an idea of these concepts in action, let me employ a lovely example I came across in one of Michael Sandel’s lectures.
Imagine you’re walking along a bridge and you spot a runaway train; It’s zooming along the track, the breaks don’t work, and Denzel Washington is nowhere to be found(If you don’t understand the joke, don’t be discouraged. I assure you it wasn’t that funny anyway). A good distance down the track are five unaware train workers, doing train worker things to the track. Imagine that it is inevitable - if nothing is done, these five train workers are going to die miserable, painful deaths. Now, imagine on that very bridge, a incredibly large man is leaning over the railing directly above the train’s track. You realize that you can save all five of those train workers lives if you just push the large man over the railing, and onto the track. This incredibly large man would inevitably die a most unfortunate death, but in the process he will have saved five other peoples lives. So what do you do - Do you choose send one man to his death to save five people, or do you choose to let the train kill the five workers and let the fat man lean against the railing in peace?
The utilitarianist would keep it simple and state that five lives without pain and one life with pain is better than five lives with pain and one without pain, and without much hesitation, send the fat man plummeting to his inevitable end. Obviously, somebody who follows Kant’s idea of categorical imperative would let the five men die, because regardless of whether 5 men die or 1 man dies, this philosophy states that sending a man to his death is, without question, immoral, and thus the wrong decision.
So now that we know how the Benetham and Stuart Mill would act in that scenario, what can be assume about their stances on hacking? I believe that both of these gentlemen would support hacking as long as it follows the basic tenants of utilitarianism -- there must be more overall happiness after the hacking than before. Let’s delve into a few scenarios and see the stances they’d take.
Would Benetham/StuartMills be okay with hacking into somebody’s wireless network? It depends - if the hacker isn’t in any way infringing on the owner’s speeds, or data privacy, I don’t think they would have a problem with this. Pleasure is gained from free Internet, and if the owner’s experience does not change post-hack, he/she does not feel any pain. If you take a step further, it might be argued that the people who profit from the Internet service provider’s income may suffer, so depending on how much the ISP stands to lose from this hack, Benetham and co. might not approve of the hack.
Would Benetham and co. approve of hacking a child pornography website? Absolutely. Without a doubt these people would view distributors and producers of child pornography and incredible sources of pain for children and families, and to prevent them from creating any more pain, thus minimizing pain and increasing overall happiness, they would hack the website (Stuart Mill has 1337 h@ck3R sk1llz, afterall).
And for my final example, would BeneMills approve of hacking Microcenter’s website because he doesn’t like their prices and the manager was a big jerk to him? I believe they would not - they would see that while it may produce a considerable (very, very, very considerable) amount of pleasure for the hacker, it would cause much more pain for customers, workers, and anybody who stands to profit from the website’s operation.
In conclusion, I believe that our friends Benetham and Stuart Mills would approve of hacking - but only after they have analyzed the resulting outcome of said hacks.
An interesting idea, and certainly one worth taking a look at. For this blog post, I am focusing on two of the strongest driving forces behind the ideas of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the idea that the proper action, the moral action, is the one that maximizes overall happiness. Benetham states that there are two “soverign masters” governing mankind, pain and pleasure, and Benetham believes that the proper action would be one that maximizes overall pleasure, while minimizes overall pain. This concept stems from the idea of consequentialism, which states that the morality of an action can be determined only from the outcome of said action. This differs from Kant’s idea of categorical imperative, which can be summed up by saying that some actions, regardless of outcome, are moral or immoral. To really get an idea of these concepts in action, let me employ a lovely example I came across in one of Michael Sandel’s lectures.
Imagine you’re walking along a bridge and you spot a runaway train; It’s zooming along the track, the breaks don’t work, and Denzel Washington is nowhere to be found(If you don’t understand the joke, don’t be discouraged. I assure you it wasn’t that funny anyway). A good distance down the track are five unaware train workers, doing train worker things to the track. Imagine that it is inevitable - if nothing is done, these five train workers are going to die miserable, painful deaths. Now, imagine on that very bridge, a incredibly large man is leaning over the railing directly above the train’s track. You realize that you can save all five of those train workers lives if you just push the large man over the railing, and onto the track. This incredibly large man would inevitably die a most unfortunate death, but in the process he will have saved five other peoples lives. So what do you do - Do you choose send one man to his death to save five people, or do you choose to let the train kill the five workers and let the fat man lean against the railing in peace?
The utilitarianist would keep it simple and state that five lives without pain and one life with pain is better than five lives with pain and one without pain, and without much hesitation, send the fat man plummeting to his inevitable end. Obviously, somebody who follows Kant’s idea of categorical imperative would let the five men die, because regardless of whether 5 men die or 1 man dies, this philosophy states that sending a man to his death is, without question, immoral, and thus the wrong decision.
So now that we know how the Benetham and Stuart Mill would act in that scenario, what can be assume about their stances on hacking? I believe that both of these gentlemen would support hacking as long as it follows the basic tenants of utilitarianism -- there must be more overall happiness after the hacking than before. Let’s delve into a few scenarios and see the stances they’d take.
Would Benetham/StuartMills be okay with hacking into somebody’s wireless network? It depends - if the hacker isn’t in any way infringing on the owner’s speeds, or data privacy, I don’t think they would have a problem with this. Pleasure is gained from free Internet, and if the owner’s experience does not change post-hack, he/she does not feel any pain. If you take a step further, it might be argued that the people who profit from the Internet service provider’s income may suffer, so depending on how much the ISP stands to lose from this hack, Benetham and co. might not approve of the hack.
Would Benetham and co. approve of hacking a child pornography website? Absolutely. Without a doubt these people would view distributors and producers of child pornography and incredible sources of pain for children and families, and to prevent them from creating any more pain, thus minimizing pain and increasing overall happiness, they would hack the website (Stuart Mill has 1337 h@ck3R sk1llz, afterall).
And for my final example, would BeneMills approve of hacking Microcenter’s website because he doesn’t like their prices and the manager was a big jerk to him? I believe they would not - they would see that while it may produce a considerable (very, very, very considerable) amount of pleasure for the hacker, it would cause much more pain for customers, workers, and anybody who stands to profit from the website’s operation.
In conclusion, I believe that our friends Benetham and Stuart Mills would approve of hacking - but only after they have analyzed the resulting outcome of said hacks.
Oops!
In my half-awake stupor I forgot to thank both Jamie and Monica for taking us out to lunch. It was awesome and much appreciated. So thank you guys, and thanks for making the class enjoyable and engaging!
John Rawls is Anonymous
John Rawls believed that the greatness your future may or not behold stems solely from the things you were taught and the talents you were given at birth, and as a child. John Rawls philosophy is that even with meritocracy you will never be put ahead of someone who is naturally talented. You were either born into a family that raised you to be successful or you were not. However, John Rawls mentions that even those who are naturally talented can not claim credit because there success may rely on factors such as birth order.
John Rawls also thought that being paid insane amounts of money to do something you were born talented at is unfair. Unless you were using some of that money to give back to the people who lack talent in such things. For instance in the lecture they mentioned the salary of supreme court judge Sandra Day O’Connor ($200,000) with the salary of television’s Judge Judy ($25 million). To no surprise, John Rawls would not approve of the pay difference. When I heard John Rawls's take on Greed an wealth of the talented people, It made me think about what his opinion would be toward the current actions of anonymous. I wonder if he were still alive, if he would reject the protesting or support it. Based off what I learned from the lecture, I think John Rawls would want to take part in the protesting and would support the occupy groups. John Rawls was most likely ashamed by present day America with all the overpaid athletes and bone head celebrities. Although, in many instances his theories prove correct. The rich are richer and the poor are getting poorer.
However, I believe that groups such as Anonymous would give John Rawls hope, and maybe even put his theories to the test. Anonymous is a public group of secret members, who claim to be activists for freedom and truth. They claim to be ideas without origin. It started with image board in japan. Then they created an image board in English (4chan).Where Anonymous only grew in numbers. Annonymous as I mentioned is public and completely diverse. Holding member of various skill sets, though some are childlike and immature, there are also educated and skilled members. Anonymous has been know for actions such as stealing private information, and taking down inappropriate websites for justice. I don't fully agree with the idea that hard work will never compare to natural talent. Also, the idea that people who come from impoverished families should be given charity by wealthy families. In most cases that theory may hold truth, but not all. I think John Rawls needed to put more faith in the underdog.
I personally think John Rawls would be proud of the current cover of Time magazine.(Person of the year: The Protester) I feel John Rawls almost thought of life as a race, It all depends on where you start that determines the outcome of how far you will go. That's why I believe he would be proud of the “underdogs” for fighting against the greed and ridiculous wealth that belong to a select few. John Rawls seemed like he was all about the idea that the talented and wealthy can have tons of money, as long as they help the less fortunate. Many wealthy American do give back to the community by giving to charities, but there are also many wealthy people who could care less. I am not sure how John Rawls would feel about all the hacking anonymous does.
In conclusion, John Rawls believed that the success in your life is determined by your beginning and that no matter how hard you work the person with the “easier” beginning, or farther start will end up ahead of you. Which I do not believe. Also, John Rawls believed that natural talent was more efficient than motivation and effort. John Rawls also believed that the wealthy should have to give some of their money to the less fortunate, because they can not take credit for their natural talent. I mentioned that I personally believed John Rawls would find anonymous and the occupy groups intriguing, because they are joining together to fix what they see as wrong in the world.
John Rawls also thought that being paid insane amounts of money to do something you were born talented at is unfair. Unless you were using some of that money to give back to the people who lack talent in such things. For instance in the lecture they mentioned the salary of supreme court judge Sandra Day O’Connor ($200,000) with the salary of television’s Judge Judy ($25 million). To no surprise, John Rawls would not approve of the pay difference. When I heard John Rawls's take on Greed an wealth of the talented people, It made me think about what his opinion would be toward the current actions of anonymous. I wonder if he were still alive, if he would reject the protesting or support it. Based off what I learned from the lecture, I think John Rawls would want to take part in the protesting and would support the occupy groups. John Rawls was most likely ashamed by present day America with all the overpaid athletes and bone head celebrities. Although, in many instances his theories prove correct. The rich are richer and the poor are getting poorer.
However, I believe that groups such as Anonymous would give John Rawls hope, and maybe even put his theories to the test. Anonymous is a public group of secret members, who claim to be activists for freedom and truth. They claim to be ideas without origin. It started with image board in japan. Then they created an image board in English (4chan).Where Anonymous only grew in numbers. Annonymous as I mentioned is public and completely diverse. Holding member of various skill sets, though some are childlike and immature, there are also educated and skilled members. Anonymous has been know for actions such as stealing private information, and taking down inappropriate websites for justice. I don't fully agree with the idea that hard work will never compare to natural talent. Also, the idea that people who come from impoverished families should be given charity by wealthy families. In most cases that theory may hold truth, but not all. I think John Rawls needed to put more faith in the underdog.
I personally think John Rawls would be proud of the current cover of Time magazine.(Person of the year: The Protester) I feel John Rawls almost thought of life as a race, It all depends on where you start that determines the outcome of how far you will go. That's why I believe he would be proud of the “underdogs” for fighting against the greed and ridiculous wealth that belong to a select few. John Rawls seemed like he was all about the idea that the talented and wealthy can have tons of money, as long as they help the less fortunate. Many wealthy American do give back to the community by giving to charities, but there are also many wealthy people who could care less. I am not sure how John Rawls would feel about all the hacking anonymous does.
In conclusion, John Rawls believed that the success in your life is determined by your beginning and that no matter how hard you work the person with the “easier” beginning, or farther start will end up ahead of you. Which I do not believe. Also, John Rawls believed that natural talent was more efficient than motivation and effort. John Rawls also believed that the wealthy should have to give some of their money to the less fortunate, because they can not take credit for their natural talent. I mentioned that I personally believed John Rawls would find anonymous and the occupy groups intriguing, because they are joining together to fix what they see as wrong in the world.
Aristotle and Anonymous
The hacker ethic is closely related to the virtue ethics found in the writings of Aristotle. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics suggests there is an ultimate good toward which, in the end, all human actions ultimately aim. Virtue Ethics refers to the philosophy that emphasizes being, rather than doing. This means that morality stems from the how a person identifies his/her motivations for the action, and the character inherent in that person, and not from actions of that person alone. Ethical choices and examination must be made in each individual situation, based on factors such as personal vs social(group) benefit, and what intentions are present in the person(s) …are they well meant or malevolent?. Anonymous is a complex example to examine because by it’s very nature, it consists of a group of persons of unknown identity, who, despite claiming altruistic intention, may in truth be carrying out actions that benefit a smaller chosen group, although they claim to seek justice for others…or they may be as they seem. In truth, that may fluctuate at every moment, as it is a “many” and not a “one”.
Anonymous was formed on the imageboard 4chan, primarily a place to chat and post images and rambling text (often incoherent or offensive…at this point I’d like to shout out to the /b/tards!). They act at times like a hive mind with no openly recognized leaders, choosing to encourage and inspire group action under an anonymous fictional figurehead (as shown by their logo, a suited figure without a head, instead there is only a question mark, standing in a stance of authority in front of a globe). Starting somewhere around 2006, members of this collective have collaborated through anonymous Internet Relay Chat (IRC), where they communicate in group chats, send each other private messages. There is also the capability to exchange files via FTP/file transfers via IRC. IRC creates a decentralized “war room” in which ideas are exchanged, agreements are made as a group, and plans may be deployed. Actions that follow include DDoD attacks , the public posting of group information mining efforts, exposing as muany details as possible to the public eye about offending groups, people or corporations, including security flaws and exploits of websites that may be used by any and all, to create further breaches and attacks. The factor of anonymity and the group collective effort of many (“We are Legion”, they proclaim), can have strong influence on certain social groups in today’s society.
The idea that Anonymous represents is ethical. They represent a symbolic figurehead, an inspiration and identification symbol by which to organize actions with intent towards acts of activism via hacking, or “hackivism”. Individuals within the whole collective operates in a non-centralized, collective manner that insists on overall agreement in order for such action to succeed despite any petty differences or disagreements, with members working together in order to accomplish set goals. In addition, they put out the call for others to join, adding further strength in numbers. But the question is - is crashing a website, or denying people access to the information or function of it, a morally justified means of protest? Is putting the personal information of a person who has committed a perceived wrong out there helpful? I bring up the case of the “pepper spray cop”, John Pike…are the efforts of publishing his information, that result in lots of pizza, male escorts and such being sent to his home, that he shares with a family who are not at fault, worth it as a form of protest? Is it worth it if only to shame HIS unethical behavior, and do we consider the demoralizing effect this may have on innocent members of his family? In John Pike’s case alone, Aristotle would argue for Distributive Justice…in essence, that people should get what they deserve. In Pikes case, it could be argued that he “deserves” less respect, authority, and dignity or pride. Certainly it can be said, that despite the resulting actions being petty, that they strip away his dignity and lower the reflection upon him of those traits I have just mentioned. When considering this protest, or any other, the moral reasoning of the protest should be examined. If that action is deemed to NOT fit in the reasoning, and instead commits a wrong to the target by way of the action, then that act of protest should seem morally wrong. Aristotle’s virtue ethical theory only focuses only upon the agent of the chosen action. The actions of a single individual in such an act of protest, compared to the relative morality of the rest of the world, may not be considered ethical, but the scale of justice shifts when it is a mass, faceless collective. It becomes easy to understand them as the Everyman. This gains sympathy – who doesn’t want to see a “bad guy” come to his just desserts, after all?
Anonymous was formed on the imageboard 4chan, primarily a place to chat and post images and rambling text (often incoherent or offensive…at this point I’d like to shout out to the /b/tards!). They act at times like a hive mind with no openly recognized leaders, choosing to encourage and inspire group action under an anonymous fictional figurehead (as shown by their logo, a suited figure without a head, instead there is only a question mark, standing in a stance of authority in front of a globe). Starting somewhere around 2006, members of this collective have collaborated through anonymous Internet Relay Chat (IRC), where they communicate in group chats, send each other private messages. There is also the capability to exchange files via FTP/file transfers via IRC. IRC creates a decentralized “war room” in which ideas are exchanged, agreements are made as a group, and plans may be deployed. Actions that follow include DDoD attacks , the public posting of group information mining efforts, exposing as muany details as possible to the public eye about offending groups, people or corporations, including security flaws and exploits of websites that may be used by any and all, to create further breaches and attacks. The factor of anonymity and the group collective effort of many (“We are Legion”, they proclaim), can have strong influence on certain social groups in today’s society.
The idea that Anonymous represents is ethical. They represent a symbolic figurehead, an inspiration and identification symbol by which to organize actions with intent towards acts of activism via hacking, or “hackivism”. Individuals within the whole collective operates in a non-centralized, collective manner that insists on overall agreement in order for such action to succeed despite any petty differences or disagreements, with members working together in order to accomplish set goals. In addition, they put out the call for others to join, adding further strength in numbers. But the question is - is crashing a website, or denying people access to the information or function of it, a morally justified means of protest? Is putting the personal information of a person who has committed a perceived wrong out there helpful? I bring up the case of the “pepper spray cop”, John Pike…are the efforts of publishing his information, that result in lots of pizza, male escorts and such being sent to his home, that he shares with a family who are not at fault, worth it as a form of protest? Is it worth it if only to shame HIS unethical behavior, and do we consider the demoralizing effect this may have on innocent members of his family? In John Pike’s case alone, Aristotle would argue for Distributive Justice…in essence, that people should get what they deserve. In Pikes case, it could be argued that he “deserves” less respect, authority, and dignity or pride. Certainly it can be said, that despite the resulting actions being petty, that they strip away his dignity and lower the reflection upon him of those traits I have just mentioned. When considering this protest, or any other, the moral reasoning of the protest should be examined. If that action is deemed to NOT fit in the reasoning, and instead commits a wrong to the target by way of the action, then that act of protest should seem morally wrong. Aristotle’s virtue ethical theory only focuses only upon the agent of the chosen action. The actions of a single individual in such an act of protest, compared to the relative morality of the rest of the world, may not be considered ethical, but the scale of justice shifts when it is a mass, faceless collective. It becomes easy to understand them as the Everyman. This gains sympathy – who doesn’t want to see a “bad guy” come to his just desserts, after all?
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Ethics Blog Post (Exactly 800 Words)
John Locke (even though I disagree with John Locke on many
issues I agree with natural rights) was a 17th century Philosophy
that influenced many other social thinkers, political philosophers, economic
theories from all walks of the spectrum. His theory’s can be applied to a
concept that he wouldn’t be so far from, property rights in the modern era.
Property rights in the modern age seem to be dwindling, and
no I’m not talking “Me Hate Taxes, Taxes Bad GRR”, I’m talking with modern day
electronic devices and digital content where the concept of ownership seems to
becoming less than that of the Native Americans. Where and when will people
finally see that when you buy an electronic device where you can only do
certain things with it “or else” that you don’t really own a product, you are
merely leasing it? It’ll probably be where you can’t just smash the device with
a shovel for being an ineffective piece of shit without having the manufacture
suing you for improper use. EULA’s are turning purchases into leases,
destroying property rights.
Take the Sony case, for an example, where a jail breaking (modifying)
a Playstation and telling people how to do it could bring on a lawsuit. This
brought an outrage in me that if I rented a car and caused damaged to it or
modified it against their wishes, the rent-a-car company could bring a lawsuit
against me and would be completely just in doing so. But if I bought a car and
modified it the car salesman or even the car manufacture could not sue me. John
Locke claimed before and would claim today that a civil society was created for
the protection of property. Property what is one’s own. That even in the sense
of the law (as in if someone broke into my house they would be stealing my PS3,
not Sony’s PS3) I would own that Playstation but I could not modify it; even
without causing real harm to others, that I could be punished for my actions.
Yes, companies deserve say in what you do with your product
ON THEIR systems, just like the state has a say in what you can drive on public
roads, and a store has a say in what they will sell. Sony could ban any user
that jailbreaks their PS3 from the Playstation network without anyone’s
property rights truly being infringed upon. This all falls under natural rights;
John Locke could comparatively see this action to another action in his time
such as a traded horse with a contract to the new owner that as long as the new
owner does not needlessly beat the horse he could ride the horse on trader’s
property, but if the new owner needlessly beats his horse he no longer can ride
his horse on the trader’s property.
Digital content isn’t owned, it is rented with a onetime fee.
And I’m not talking about copyrights; people deserve credit and payment for
their work, I’m talking purchased digital content where your ownership be
revoked for as simple a reason as they sold it to you for a couple dollars less
than they should have. Yes, I am referring to the Kindle books that were deleted
from people’s Kindle’s by Amazon (Ironically it happened to books by George
Orwell, Animal Farm and 1984, among others) after they had already paid for the
book. This wouldn’t happen in John Locke’s time and comparatively John Locke
would see this as a giant abridgment of property rights, ones labor exchanged for
value, and that value traded for goods then become one’s property.
Imagine a scene like this occurring in John Locke’s time,
John Locke purchases a book for 10 shillings, he reads it, enjoys it and when
he is halfway through the man that sold him the book runs up to him, takes the
book right out of his hands and gives back the 10 shillings (for one of many
various reasons sold too cheaply, wasn’t an authorized version etc.) which went
completely outside of the agreement the men had (Amazon’s ToS). With the
government sitting idly, by just allowing this to occur wouldn’t truly be an
ideal society or a Civil Society.
Property in the digital age is truly becoming a dying concept;
the day will come where true ownership of electronic devices and of property on
digital devices becomes a thing of the past, where you do not own an object,
you just paid a onetime fee to be allowed to use it. That is the future we face
unless we extend current property rights protections to digital content and
electronic devices.
OOOO Nooooooo, I am currently not at exactly eight hundred words;
I now only have two more words to write right now.
Screw Flanders.
issues I agree with natural rights) was a 17th century Philosophy
that influenced many other social thinkers, political philosophers, economic
theories from all walks of the spectrum. His theory’s can be applied to a
concept that he wouldn’t be so far from, property rights in the modern era.
Property rights in the modern age seem to be dwindling, and
no I’m not talking “Me Hate Taxes, Taxes Bad GRR”, I’m talking with modern day
electronic devices and digital content where the concept of ownership seems to
becoming less than that of the Native Americans. Where and when will people
finally see that when you buy an electronic device where you can only do
certain things with it “or else” that you don’t really own a product, you are
merely leasing it? It’ll probably be where you can’t just smash the device with
a shovel for being an ineffective piece of shit without having the manufacture
suing you for improper use. EULA’s are turning purchases into leases,
destroying property rights.
Take the Sony case, for an example, where a jail breaking (modifying)
a Playstation and telling people how to do it could bring on a lawsuit. This
brought an outrage in me that if I rented a car and caused damaged to it or
modified it against their wishes, the rent-a-car company could bring a lawsuit
against me and would be completely just in doing so. But if I bought a car and
modified it the car salesman or even the car manufacture could not sue me. John
Locke claimed before and would claim today that a civil society was created for
the protection of property. Property what is one’s own. That even in the sense
of the law (as in if someone broke into my house they would be stealing my PS3,
not Sony’s PS3) I would own that Playstation but I could not modify it; even
without causing real harm to others, that I could be punished for my actions.
Yes, companies deserve say in what you do with your product
ON THEIR systems, just like the state has a say in what you can drive on public
roads, and a store has a say in what they will sell. Sony could ban any user
that jailbreaks their PS3 from the Playstation network without anyone’s
property rights truly being infringed upon. This all falls under natural rights;
John Locke could comparatively see this action to another action in his time
such as a traded horse with a contract to the new owner that as long as the new
owner does not needlessly beat the horse he could ride the horse on trader’s
property, but if the new owner needlessly beats his horse he no longer can ride
his horse on the trader’s property.
Digital content isn’t owned, it is rented with a onetime fee.
And I’m not talking about copyrights; people deserve credit and payment for
their work, I’m talking purchased digital content where your ownership be
revoked for as simple a reason as they sold it to you for a couple dollars less
than they should have. Yes, I am referring to the Kindle books that were deleted
from people’s Kindle’s by Amazon (Ironically it happened to books by George
Orwell, Animal Farm and 1984, among others) after they had already paid for the
book. This wouldn’t happen in John Locke’s time and comparatively John Locke
would see this as a giant abridgment of property rights, ones labor exchanged for
value, and that value traded for goods then become one’s property.
Imagine a scene like this occurring in John Locke’s time,
John Locke purchases a book for 10 shillings, he reads it, enjoys it and when
he is halfway through the man that sold him the book runs up to him, takes the
book right out of his hands and gives back the 10 shillings (for one of many
various reasons sold too cheaply, wasn’t an authorized version etc.) which went
completely outside of the agreement the men had (Amazon’s ToS). With the
government sitting idly, by just allowing this to occur wouldn’t truly be an
ideal society or a Civil Society.
Property in the digital age is truly becoming a dying concept;
the day will come where true ownership of electronic devices and of property on
digital devices becomes a thing of the past, where you do not own an object,
you just paid a onetime fee to be allowed to use it. That is the future we face
unless we extend current property rights protections to digital content and
electronic devices.
OOOO Nooooooo, I am currently not at exactly eight hundred words;
I now only have two more words to write right now.
Screw Flanders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)