Official eMule-Board: Support For Offsystem - Official eMule-Board

The Internet is not the "real world" you can not be beaten to death in the Internet by anyone,
you cant get raped on the Internet. You can not even get into a bar fight.

Everything you do on the Internet is basically voluntary and you can always reboot and Format C:
Nothing that happens to you over the Internet is irreversible.

As about fake contracts, you can always make them void, imho how could anyone enforce a contract that was only signed over the Internet if he can not prove in any way you ware really the one signing it?
As about on line banking, no one forces you to keep more than a few thousand € on your online accessible bank account.

You really don't get it do you?
Nothing bad can happen to you on the Internet only, at least nothing that a proper backup strategy couldn't mitigate.

In the real world no mather how good you protect your selve if someone wants to harm you, if he cant get through your door, he will just blow up the building or even better buy e suit case nuke form the Russians...

In the real world you can get your finger nails ripped out, you can be stabbed for a few bucks from your wallet
or have a vivisection performed on you without any anesthesia, that are really nasty things.


And what is the worst that can happen to you on the Internet?
A few thousand € stolen in a completely nonviolent way, slander, our your most recent data destroyed, thats all.

How does this compare to the things that can happen to you in the real world?
It don't, it really don't.

The state has a monopole on violence in the real world to prevent mad doctors form experimenting on you or rapists putting you into a dungeon and raping you over and over again.

And that is reasonable.



It is however not reasonable to allow the state to respond with physical violence, swat teams, armed police, jail sentences, to completely non violent acts in the cyberspace.



David X.

DavidXanatos, on 04 March 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Which means to say no real people participate in the internet? And no real people connect their real computers they use for real work to make a real living in the real world to the internet?

DavidXanatos, on 04 March 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

I think losing all your money is quite irreversible without any authority to enforce laws such as prohibition of theft. I think losing any credibility because of a web smear campaign in real life which is based on nothing but lies quite irreversible and possibly ruining if you have a nice small butchers shop or bakery. Once ruined there is little chance to regain the trust you lost because of lies.

DavidXanatos, on 04 March 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Well, how do you prove it wasn't you? Or how can you revoke them? Oh right, you can revoke them because law enforces that you can revoke them, now I remember. Not such a bad law, huh?
Incidentally, I might not even have an online banking account but just fall for some Mastercard scam or somebody hacks into the intranet of a company which stored my data I gave them in writing there. I might never have used the data online and still some culprits were able to gather the information because the companies you so love fucked up and some culprit did a "not so real" crime.

DavidXanatos, on 04 March 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

I get that you believe the internet is your personal playground and nothing ever bad happens on the internet. I get that you misjudge criminal minds. I get that you fail to acknowledge the stupidity of so many users. I get that you fail to acknowledge that this world is no where as perfect as your simple world view could possibly allow it to be.

DavidXanatos, on 04 March 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

So how this is different from the internet? You run a nice little online shop and some no-goods start a smear campaign on a number of voting pages. Next they start DDoS-ing your web services. You lose all your assets, debts are piling up, you start to fail coping with the failure and your marriage starts to suffer. Next thing you know you are poor as shit loner with no family when just a couple of weeks ago you had a thriving ebusiness. Who's fault is it? Yours because you did not take full control of any voting site around the internet? Yours for not buying Google grade server resources? Yours for not being able to cope with your business being ruined by some "not so real" culprits?

DavidXanatos, on 04 March 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Oh right, bodily harm can only happen in real life. I acknowledge that. But do you honestly thing that is the only way to hurt somebody? Don't you think their career might be the thing they define themselves by? Ruining someone by ruining their career is just as bad a crime. So is harassing someone online. Have you ever heard of stalking? The internet is a lovely entry point for any stalker because first he gets to know a suitable victim, then he gets to know a lot about the person and then he can monitor their every move online. Find out about their friends and so forth.

DavidXanatos, on 04 March 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Hmm... finding your killer is probably one. Did you know there was this killer who went to dating sites, got to know girls, met them and raped them... What did they do wrong? Oh right, they went to internet for a bit of socialising... They shouldn't have done that, huh?

DavidXanatos, on 04 March 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Just about the same things can happen, aside of direct bodily harm. Still, any event happening on the internet might cause bodily harm at a later point in time so there is a connection there. To give you another example for something like that, somebody might spread lies about you like, for instance, you burned a Coran every couple of weeks. Next thing you know some jackass islamist blows you up. Another example, you are a faithful muslim girl devoted to some very fundamental muslim boy and somebody tells your boyfriend you have been cheating on him. He cracks up and covers you in acid so you lose your eyesight and a majority of your skin. Direct correlation.

DavidXanatos, on 04 March 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Like I said, the monopole on violence is not just to protect from crime but also to define what is a crime. This is why self-justice is not allowed because the state claims the right to judge about criminals and persecute them. You need to realize that violence is not just defined as physical violence, there are many forms of violence and some are far worse than making another being endure physical pain.

DavidXanatos, on 04 March 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Well, so you are revoking your POV that the state has no right to claim the monopole on violence in general? Now it sounds like your brain is starting to do it's job for once.

DavidXanatos, on 04 March 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Right, because ruining someone's life is not a just cause to be persecuted. Again, you have no clue what real police work is about. You have a twisted perception to how things actually come down. Do you name any police officer a friend? Because if you did you would acknowledge that their job is not about hurting people but about helping them. Using physical force is not what they desire to do but one of their means of doing their job properly. If need arises they will use force but trust me in this, most of them are too lazy to even bother if they can help it. Too much stress, too much paper work.

This post has been edited by Stulle: 04 March 2012 - 07:31 PM

Stulle, on 04 March 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

However, all of that can't happen thru P2P filesharing, so no need to have the possibility for a state to control it in any way.

Link64, on 04 March 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

@Stulle

you see, there are people who get the idea right away.

Quote

No,

Which means it is not Material, the participation in it is voluntarily.

Quote

Well, why would you put all your money into one on line accessible place?
Would you go in the real world ona red clight during high traffic on the street?

Quote

Of cause its reversible, you just change the company name and rent a new local.

Quote

Well, actually you can revoke them because you couldn't enter into a binding legal agreement in the first place.

Quote

You are seriously comparing being bowed up or shot or even nuked with a busyness failure?

Quote

don't put person data on the Internet, take some responsibility.

Quote

Well, but they ware not killed over the Internet, or ware they?
The killer could use any other real world method to the same result leaving much less traces.

Quote

And if he would do in in real live he would be safe from prosecution.

Quote

I never said that the state should have no monopole on violence in general, just that in many cases it shouldn't have it.
Like in all cases don't involving violence.

Quote

Well, if you mean it in a purely financially way than it currently is not a cause to be persecuted with physical violence.



For example putting some one in jail for fare dodging should not be Legaly possible, the state should not be allowed to use its violence potential to any extend in order to prosecute any crime.
The amount of violence allowed by the state should be dependant on the kind of crime committed, and in many cases there should be no physical violence allowed at all.
It is obscene beyond any reason that a rapist can get a lesser sentence than for example some one who just stole a few thousand dollars form investors.
It is equally obscene to send armed police after some guy doing stuff on the Internet.


David X.

dl;dr... just a hint though, you were speaking in general terms and not just about P2P. a lot of our Offtopic was not strictly about P2P but general. your whole the internet is my playground crusade is not strictly about P2P. so don't tell me about things i don't understand if you can't even distinguish what you are talking about yourself, David. Thank you!

Edit: did read, didn't care for it. your reasoning is infantile and your incapability to read entire paragraphs leaves me with nothing but shame for being human. and yes, you basically said you oppose the states monopole on violence:

Quote

either you agree to it completely or not at all.

don't point fingers if you are no better. if you think i am incapable to understand reasoning, why don't you try and understand mine for once? because right now you focus on the passages that lead up to my conclusions but exclude my conclusions and if you finally make the exception and get to a conclusion you resort to simply misinterpreting it and narrowing down the meaning of my sentences when i clearly expressed my way in a more general fashion after bringing up a variety examples. this is what makes your reasoning nothing but infantile and pointless.

and for a last time, stop pretending any police officer goes about thrashing your face because you downloaded an mp3. this is an insult to every police officer and any one person who actually had to suffer from real police brutality. you should be ashamed of yourself.

PS: if only i wasn't such a dickhead always getting into discussions with pointless individuals who are as stubborn and ignorant as yourself... well, serves me right for being stupid.

This post has been edited by Stulle: 04 March 2012 - 09:24 PM

Stulle, on 04 March 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

I quite explicitly oppose the states monopole on violence in the Internet,
but no ware I said that I oppose generally the states monopole in violence in the material world.


David X.

DavidXanatos, on 04 March 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

There are places on Earth where "A few thousand €" - a meaningless amount for you - is a fortune. Don't be surprised if the one who lost it would use physical violence as a way to 'restore justice'. Because stealing is violence.
If you ruin someone's business you might leave the businessman with unpaid credits. In a short while it might come to: no place to leave and no money to buy food.
Please come back with great ideas only when you understand: the boundary between the real world and the net is not where you think it is.

The participation in a file sharing network is voluntary, like a sex club for masked people.
If they want to get in any be anonymous and handle al others being anonymous as well its their free decision.

And I'll provide the tools for those who want to join an anonymous filesharing circle to do so free form state opression.

David X.

David, can't you simply admit you are wrong? Right now you just claim you never intended your statements to be about anything else than P2P when they clearly were. fox88 is quite right, you should not come back until after you learn that the internet is just a tool in the real world. A powerful one at that, which makes it all the more dangerous. Hence the need for regulation.

Also, if you were living in an oppressive state and all you are willing to do is write about a wonderland that does and can not exist you are a pretty bad revolutionary. You should consider to be grateful for what your forefathers achieved and how much they lost while doing so. It will quickly render your little discomforts a meaningless itch on your right ear lobe.

David, do not evade the problem. That was you who started discussing money and other possible types of harm. In my previous messsage I tried to explain why your way of thinking is not correct: stealing is violation, and harm could be significant.
Hence a simple question for you: do you agree that your statement was wrong?

Stulle, on 05 March 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

I claim my statement to be about the Internet not about the real world.
P2P is just a special case where I assert even you can not deny reasonably my point.

The Internet in position to the real world is place where you being is competently voluntary and where no bodily harm can happen, those it does not need state regulation.

Loosing you money might seam irreversible, but its in not in the same way irreversible than for example being bitten and ending up in a weal chair.


Your issue obviously seams to be noobs that go into the Internet do something stupid/irresponsible and loose all their money in process, or catching a stalker, etc...
So actually stuff that happens due to negligence of one sort or another.

The point is that in the Internet there is nothing (except mey by a ddos) that can happen to you by force.
You can not break in over the internet like in the real word, by simple applying force to the door, you have to fund an existing loop whole one that can be closed by the user.
So every breaking in in the Internet is in the end like not locking your door or leveeing your wind open, an act of negligence or incompetence.


So lets abstract this a little bit, how about the following case any ISP would provide his user with 2 accesses (for example over VPN) one competently anonymous for the dark wen and one normal for the normal web.
Now, the system would be build so that you can not send packets form one web to the other.
You can interact only through sites that would voluntary accept packets form booth webs, or the user himself would have to be connected to booth webs.

So a Noob using the normal web couldn't get hacked by an user of the anonymouse web, and nos erver that does not want to handle the dark net could be hacked or DDoSed fron the dark side.

Would you still oppose the anonymity in this dark net?

Quote

No.

I stand with my assertion that the state should not be allowed to use physical violence to fight non violent crimes.

No Mather how much money you steal or careasy ou destroy as long as you dont use physical violence i don't see any justification to use physical violence against you.



David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 06 March 2012 - 08:41 AM

Again, your understanding of the word violence and force is by far too literal when it comes to crimes and far too wide when it comes to the actions of the state or police. Force and violence can be applied in a non-physical way as much as the exertion of the monopole on violence by the police can be very non-physical. If, however, actions of the police are met with violence or disobedience the officers will have to resort to physical contact to uphold the law. Or would you simply talk to a trespasser until he stops intimidating your children? Get some perspective and talk to the people you blame. The reason they get annoyed is ignorants like you who blame them for doing their job!

Face it, you are just concerned with your petty law violations on the internet and right now you just try to justify yourself by claiming the others are in the wrong. Take some responsibility, be an adult!

DavidXanatos, on 06 March 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Awesome. Two examples.
One day you come home and see the door broken, all your belonging are gone.
Or, you call bank and manager tells that all the money you had were transfered to an unknown account in far away land.
There was no physical violence against you or anybody else. I bet you will be extremely happy.

DavidXanatos, on 06 March 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

I'm afraid it's incurable.

Stulle, on 06 March 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

Well that very much depends on the kind of disobedience, if you have a trespasser i would see it justified to remove him by force if he is trap passing on private property, however not any more if its public property.
If you however have someone who for example wont pay his find for fare dodging or inproepr parking, the police shouldn't be allowed to use violence or put him in jail.
Thay should just confiscate some amount form his bank account, a panilty that can be exercised completely without physical violence

Quote

I'm not concerned with my acts of spreading culture, as as I already stated my VPN is tested and secure.
The issue how far should police be allowed to go on the internet wont change once piracy was legalized,
it will remain very much the same and the arguments to.

Quote

Well, I wont be happy obviously but I wouldn't want the state to be allowed to go after the guilty with the same means it would be allowed to go after a murderer or robber.
I also wouldn't want the guilty to by punished in some physical way, let him remain free and instead impound some aprt of his income until the damage was paid + some fine, that would more than sufficient.

Now you will say what if he don't have any income, well, if he is ok with leaving in poverty than he is already cursed enough and no I wouldn't want any other panilty inflicted upon him.

Also I'm not that stupid to keep all my money at one place at one time.

David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 06 March 2012 - 10:41 AM

DavidXanatos, on 06 March 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

They don't use force for not paying parking tickets. Are you mental? Seriously, you seem to have lost any connection to the real world! They only resort to violence if the person in question fails to obey their orders which they give out as part of their duty. Orders such as "please follow the courts verdict and come with us to jail because you failed to pay your fines."

DavidXanatos, on 06 March 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Yep, justifying yourself, yet again. It is not legal and you are not trying to make it legal. You are trying to get away with something illegal. Period.

DavidXanatos, on 06 March 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Nobody is being punished physically. And the extent of the persecution is not up to your whim but to how severe the crime was. Trespassing and theft is a violation of your basic human rights, did you consider this by any chance?

I think you never experienced being a victim and don't know nobody that was the victim of a serious crime either. Your lack of empathy is most appalling and even more so is your lack of touch with the real world.

You might not be stupid enough to keep your money at the same place but you certainly lack the imagination to picture people who are not fortunate enough to have your intelligence (which I am sadly starting to doubt by now). If you are happy to live like a tree hugger without any money and personal space do it but don't try to push your twisted ideas on people who will suffer greatly for your lack of understanding.

Stulle, on 06 March 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

As I explained earlier puttign someone in jail, even being without application of violence to do so is in it self an act of violence.

Also if he refuses thay would use physical voilence, without the offender to have use physical voilence himselve, thats also not right.

Quote

I'm not trying anything, I did it and anf if it would be for me only, I wouldn't require any modifications, my offshore VPN's are bulelt prove.

My activism is driven by my empathy to the rest of the population that is not capable of defending their basic human rights against the state.

Quote

and still germans are putting fair dogers in jail, that out of any proportions.
If the reality would be as you just described it in the sentence we wouldn't have a problem, but it is not.

Quote

And in case of trespassing as i wrote applying force to remove the person would be justified.
Also to stop a theft in progress, but not anymore inmy opinion to punish a non violent theft .


PS:
@Stulle
i asked you some time ago what law passed by the state would it take for you to say screw the state I'm invoking Art 20 gg. and defying it with all means necessary.

Please answer this question, would you always follow the rule of the laws those the will of the governing class, or are there hypothetical laws, no mather how unlikely that would make you deify the state?
If they are, what would they be?

David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 06 March 2012 - 03:13 PM

David, before making any requests to me you should first reflect on why you don't feel like responding to the things I said but you don't seem to find a good answer to.

Other than that, I am living in a civilized and just state. If I don't agree with the legislation I have three basic opportunities at my disposal. 1. Get myself elected and make a difference. 2. File a suite with the federal courts. 3. Gather supporters and convince those in power that their doing is not in our best interest. That is not defying the state and its power - that is living democracy. I can't do something unjust because I oppose something I believe to be unjust. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Anyway, I am not inclined to invoke either of those opportunities at this point because I see the logic in the protection of intellectual property. While I do not agree with the possible extend of punishment for theft of intellectual property when applied to consumer goods such as movies or music I clearly see that we need to have some restraint for ourselves and some restraints from the state. If you don't you are likely very short sighted.

Now answer me a question - quid pro quo, Clarice! - why are you incapable to admit that your whole crusade here is not actually changing the fact that copying copyrighted material is illegal but only serves to justify your aim to keep on doing what is not within the boundaries of the law without having to fear any kind of penalty? Also, why can't you stop spreading your filthy lies on the work of good people in the police force who merely do their job just as they are told while having to cope with ignorants like you?

This post has been edited by Stulle: 06 March 2012 - 08:08 PM

Quote

And if you fail in all 3?

How about an example:
There are people born that have not a clearly defined gender, now usually they get butchered by doctors to make them into one or the other, but it isn't law the parents can legally defy this.
Assume this wouldn't be voluntary but mandatory, thats not to far fetched.
And you would get a kid that would be like this, would you allow him to be butchered to conform to the standards and than undergo the legal Process to change the law so that future victims of the system will be saved.
Or would you defy the law right away ans also save your own kid?

The question is simple, if there is a law that you due to your moral conviction strongly despise that you belie is orderly wrong.
Would you obey it just because its the law?
Is the law for you more important than your own moral conviction?


And please don't try to weasel out of an answer by asserting the state would never do such thing, the German state did much worse things before already, so its a historical fact that the state could legally impose horrible laws.

Stulle, on 06 March 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

Because as I explained to you I would fight the exact same crusade still if copying copyrighted material would be completely legal.

I opose the notion of an Ip adress being usable to identify a person after an disconnect the exact same way I opose the notion of a blobal all citizen DNA database or other similarity invasive state violations on the rights of citizens.

Why are you incapable to understand that its a mater or principle?

David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 06 March 2012 - 10:40 PM

You missed one question. It was actually the last one I asked you.

Also, I don't concern myself with "what would be if I was living in [enter unjust state]" scenarios. I live in Germany and there is no state sanctioned butchering. What you are referring to is doctors violating the law and you should be well aware of this difference, if you bothered watching a little more of these rather unsettling tv documentaries that have been broadcasted in German television in the last few weeks.

This post has been edited by Stulle: 06 March 2012 - 11:09 PM

Stulle, on 06 March 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

you mean this one?

Quote

that is not a question but an insult and i don't response to such.

Amnesty international on police brutality in Germany: http://www.amnestypo...ht-internet.pdf
http://www.zeit.de/g...amnesty/seite-2
The bottom line is that police employees are breaking human rights in germany and when they do they are usually not prosecuted.
Sure the really bad are 1% or less but if the remaining 99% close their eyes and allow them to violate human rights, they are ethically just as guilty.

Quote

So you are saying that you believe than everything the German state do now or does in the near future is always right and you would always obey it, even it if would mean imminent and not reversible harm being done to you or someone you care deeply about?

If that is your mind set, you are one of these people who make any dictatorship possible.

David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 07 March 2012 - 07:22 AM