[sudo-discuss] Friday Filosophy: Software as Speech

[Steve Berl]

Seems to me that the autonomous system is guilty of aiding and abetting a
crime, or conspiracy, or something like that. Either it's a sentient being
and must follow the law, or risk punishment of some sort, or it isn't, and
Bob has to be responsible.

-steve

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Anon195714 <anon195714 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>
> Yo's-
>
> Since I couldn't make it in person...
>
> Hypothetical:
>
> Assume the existence of intelligent computers that can make autonomous
> decisions, which many folks believe will become a reality in the near
> future.
>
> Alice Analyst publishes virus source code in an online computer security
> publication.  So far that's clearly protected speech, nobody here would
> argue otherwise.
>
> Bob Badguy reads the article and types the code manually into a computer,
> with the overt or covert intent for the computer to broadcast the virus and
> infect other computers.
>
> Does it matter whether the computer into which Bob enters the virus source
> code, is an ordinary computer that does what it's told, vs. an intelligent
> computer that has the capacity to make autonomous decisions?
>
> Clearly if the computer is an ordinary one that is not capable of
> autonomous decisions, then Bob's typing of the virus code into it would
> constitute an "action" rather than "speech," and would not be protected.
> He could be successfully prosecuted for unleashing the virus upon the
> world.
>
> But if the computer is an intelligent one that can make autonomous
> decisions, then could Bob rightfully claim that his typing of the virus
> code into that intelligent computer was _also_ protected speech, merely an
> exercise in communication with another sentient being, the same as Alice's
> original publication?
>
> -G.
>
>
> =====
>
>
>
> On 13-03-01-Fri 8:22 AM, Eddan Katz wrote:
>
> Dear Kopimists and the People who Love Them.
>
>  For the featured Filo delicacy for Friday Filosophy, we will have potato
> burekas.
>
>  I propose we talk about the difference between source code, object code,
> and executable code in regards to 1st Amendment protection. In other words,
> when is code speech and when is it a speech-act subject to less legal
> protection?
>
>  Below is an excerpt from an essay by Lee Tien, a brilliant EFF attorney
> for more than a decade, on Software as Speech (2000). These two paragraphs
> are in the section: Viruses and other "dangerous" software.
>
>  Of course, as always, we can talk about whatever else. Such as
> conscience and the unconscionable, perhaps.
>
>  Lee Tien, Publishing Software as a Speech Act, Vol. 15 Berkeley Tech.
> Law Journal (2000)
> http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html
>
> Let’s return to the virus hypothetical.192<http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html#sdfootnote193sym> The
> main concern lies in the fact that the software may be “diverted” toward
> unlawful purposes, regardless of the speaker’s intent. This concern is,
> however, not unique to software. It also applies to other types of
> information usable for mischief or harassment, whether highly technical
> like information about nuclear weapons, or utterly mundane like a person’s
> name, address or telephone number.
>
> Even if the virus author merely posts the source code and fails to release
> it in active form, the issue remains whether the posting was done with an
> intent to communicate. If the author claims that she intended it to
> communicate, we would need to examine the context to decide the
> plausibility of that claim. There will often be a plausible claim. There is
> no question that people study viruses and other dangerous software in order
> to prevent or relieve harm.193<http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html#sdfootnote194sym> One
> way to control a virus is to publish its source code so that systems
> operators can disable or protect against it. Communicating a virus’ source
> code as part of such an effort qualifies as a speech act because the
> publisher intends to communicate how the virus works in a conventional way.
> In fact, one could imagine entire journals or Internet sites devoted to
> viruses and other dangerous software.194<http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html#sdfootnote195sym> When
> such publications aim to alert the world to these dangers, their intent is
> clearly communicative.
>
>
>  sent from eddan.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing listsudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.orghttp://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>


-- 
-steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130302/b732f360/attachment.html>