Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Assuming Gulit

Imagine an intruder came into your house. Commonly accepted actions would be to shoot the intruder. But Homo sapiens irrationally ignore these potential contexts:

  • The intruder is actually a friend of your wife or children.
  • The intruder confused your house with a retail store, or your house looks like a retail store.
  • The intruder thought that you are having a garage sale, so he went in.
  • You left a door open and your house looked like a supermarket.
  • The intruder is actually a canvasser, and that he actually misinterpreted your words and he thought you said "you can go inside my house."
  • Your wife or children invited their friend into your house, and you thought the friend is an intruder.
  • You mistakened the intruder with your family. For example, when your children are dressed up in a costume that you mistaken as an intruder.
  • etc.

These special exceptions occur much more than it happens, known as the subjective theory of coercion. Should you shoot an intruder who is in your house? Yes, if you clearly know that it is actually an intruder and he is not a confused or your friend. But because it is impossible to know that if it is really an intruder, it is very hard to choose..

Home intruder

One example in the mainstream media is these case when a human shoots an alleged trespasser. A homeowner, whose habit is to read the newspaper every morning 4:45 a.m. with his garage door open. A stranger came into his garage. The homeowner shot the stranger. There were no charges.

One news report claimed that the homeowner heard "noise coming from the garage." so he shot the stranger. Another news report of the same thing claimed that it is his habit to sit in his garage at 4:45 a.m. with his door open and the intruder threatened him. The two news reports are obviously contradictory. The first implied that it was an intruder who sneaked into his garage when he was sleeping. The second implied that it is his habit and he was awoke with is garage open. These kinds of contradictory news occurs much more often than you think in the mainstream media. The homeowner was likely lying that the intruder threatened him because on the first report he claimed that he heard noises.

This source suggests that the homeowner has a past history of violence, and he shot three people in history, and he was not sentenced in two cases of shooting.

Another news report of the same case wrote in a tone that suggests that he was really an intruder and the homeowner's garage was closed. Many comments cheered for the homeowner to shoot the intruder, and suggested that the homeowner should shoot the intruder to death so he would not waste taxpayer money in the hospital or in prison.

These three reports are clearly mainstream media lies.

What if the intruder actually thought that the homeowner was actually having a garage sale?

Various comments about the news such as:

Probation for the gun charge. A citizens appreciation letter from the city for taking care of a dirt bag. Stay out of people's garages at 0445hrs and this wont happen again.

The writer of the comment told us to "stay out of people's garages at 4:45 a.m." What if the homeowner actually has a house that looked like a retail store or a garage sale? There are not any specific law that said to stay out of people's garages at the time. Therefore, the writer of the comment is trying to make a law by himself. There is no objective law prohibiting staying our of people's garages at 4:45 a.m., and it is dangerous to subjectively consider if it is coercion.

Another comment said:

Yeah, well, threaten my house and expect the same treatment. Strangers on my property at 0445 are looking to commit a crime. (to Anne) substitute criminals for citizens (should be nervous).

As said, the homeowner claimed that the intruder threatened him may be lying. He assumed that the intruder was not threatened.

Trespassing

Another news case happened when a suspected trespasser went into a lawn of someone, and the homeowner chased the trespasser out and then shot him.

What if the trespasser was actually a friend of the homeowner's children? It is! See this comment:

Get an actual paper this morning. It runs the entire story. The guy shot a kid who was visiting his teen daughters. They were invited by his daughters. not trespassing. I don't know why the CL ran a partial online, but this wasn't justified according to what the actual paper reported.

So the news report is false, and another mainstream propaganda lie.

Suppossed "trespasser" shot

This link shows that mainstream media reported that a trespasser went into property owned by someone but got shot. However, the trespasser was not on his property, and was shot in the back. The media lied that he was really a trespasser and comments on the news first thought that he really trespassed and congradulated the shooter, but soon the victim's family concluded that he was not really on his property and got shot in the back. The victim's family sees the murdered person as someone who was innocent.

Samy "worm"

Samy, a user of MySpace, putted JavaScript on his page that added a million "friends" on his profile and placing "but most of all, Samy is my hero" to each profile infected. This is clearly a harmless script. However, he is sentenced of a felony to 90 days of community service and three years of prohibition and banishment from the Internet during the probation period.

He made himself a million friends. What is harmful about that? This is perfectly harmless because he just put a "but most of all, Samy is my hero" on each profile infected. He didn't modify anything else.'

But many mainstream media news reports suggested that Samy's sentence was not outrageous. This is mainstream propaganda. Also, it said that the harmless worm "infecting peoples machines," which clearly did not.

MySpace hired lawyers to promote propaganda that the "hacker" has actually harmed the site: "MySpace is committed to protecting our community from any abusive misuse of the site"

To demonstrate the harmless of the act, imagine this. He put JavaScript code on MySpace that exploited a bug on Internet Explorer and Firefox that helped him add friends. What if someone made his own browser full of bugs that performed a similar result? It is the browser company's fault that they did not fix the bugs. But because Internet Explorer and Firefox are popular browsers, Samy was punish. If Internet Explorer and Firefox were not popular browsers, Samy would not be punished.

If MySpace wanted to punish Samy, then MySpace must clearly say that it would punish individuals who put JavaScript that would add friends. But because MySpace didn't clearly specify that, he should not be punished.

Therefore Samy didn't so any harm.

Experienced internet users criticized the analogy to keeping a door open to a store should be punished and computer crime should also be punished.

Unlike physical security, making a computer system secure against teenage hackers is not rocket science. This vulnerability was clearly a MySpace screwup, and they should be held responsible and pay the price for it. That principle may not be so important when it comes to MySpace (because there is little of value there), but it becomes of paramount importance when it's your bank or your hospital.

Comments such as this:

This is such *****. It sounds to me like punishing someone for glitching in an online game. The loop whole was there and he exploited it, banishment from myspace makes sense, but this is insane. I will never stand trial before a jury of my idiot peers. My tax money helped prosecute this guy???? Damn fascists.

oh thats just stupid, what the hell.. thats so unfair that kid didnt even do anything harmful.. if it wasnt him it would been someone else. god myspace are a bunch of *****. myspace should be banned from the internet not him

i dont understand.. he just found a loophole in myspace that let him acquire more friends, which seems to be the point of myspace in the first place :) its all about the number of people on your friends list.. its highschool popularity contest all over again.. they could have, and did fix the hole.. so to go after him is stupid. and the punishment doesnt fit the crime, they should have said "dont do that again"..

This is ***** ridiculous. He saw the security whole, contacted myspace, watched them do nothing, then merely demonstrated that it exists and is exploitable in a very obvious, very pointless way that was completely fixed. No harm was done to any users or myspace's infrastructure, save maybe a day of work for the people at myspace that they SHOULD'VE done anyway. He could've earned thousands in ad revenue through abusing this descretely in the time it would've taken them to notice, or even created a network of tens of thousands of bots which could be sold off for far more or done hundreds of thousands in damages to myspace of any other online company of his choosing... Instead he decides to have some fun in a non-important way to point it out... So what do the people at Myspace do? They ***** decide to prosecute him out of spite for making them do something they should've done anyway! More benevolent companies with less assholish philosophies and owners would've offered the guy a ***** job, but this guy gets his chances of getting a job pretty much screwed for quite a while. How is an AJAX programmer supposed to get a job in which he isn't allowed any internet access?... What the hell kind of harm could he do to the internet if he was allowed to access the internet? I thought this Kevin Mitnick ***** was over, ***** myspace and ***** this judge.

Solution

A solution to solve the subjectiveness of coercion is to have voluntary associations objectively that define coercion.

A rule-of-thumb for anarchists is to have punishment to be proportional. However, it is impossible to determine the proportional amount, as the value of damage is subjective. Therefore, voluntary associations should define the limits. An example is voluntary limited liability contracts, that defines the amount of punishment.

If punishment is highly high, then businesses would not take any risks. If punishment is too low, than individuals would be injured. It is the individual's responsibility to select a voluntary association that would regulate the amount of punishment.

"Our trade deficit implies that foreigners are stealing our wealth. We deserve the right to [retaliate against them on our self-defense]."

"The poor should be taxed more and the rich should be taxed less."

"Law-abiding citizens should shoot and kill all the [falsely accused] scumbags so they won't reproduce."

"Small businesses should be taxed more than big businesses."

"We [corporation] have the right to protect our intellectual property. We have the right to [murder] these criminals who developed our patented idea independently."

"Because you are [within the airspace above my geographical territory], I have the right to do anything that I want [murder] with you."

No comments: