consent to be deceived?

Christopher Waid chris at
Mon Sep 30 06:36:24 BST 2019

On 2019-09-30 01:06 AM, Florian Snow wrote:
> On September 30, 2019 12:06:37 AM GMT+02:00, Christopher Waid
> <chris at> wrote:
>> This is like saying because I setup a new server
> That is not what happened.
>> In any event none of this theoretical chatter
>> matters much. You are on
>> the internet and the internet fundamentally
>> disagrees with you. It's
>> not the law that matters because the law
>> differs from place to place and we
>> are all in different places. It's fundamentally
>> how the internet works
>> that matters and the fact you are on two lists
>> now is evidence of that fact.
> According to this, everything that factually happens, is OK.

Of course not. What I was saying was relative to the internet.

> Awesome!
> So if someone hires a hitman online, only the hitman can be legally
> charged.

If a hitman commits murder than yes- the hitman should be charged.

> Spam,

I have no issue with spam. You can't stop it and you agreed to it by 
utilizing the very nature of the technology. Anything you do via law is 
through the use of violence and that is morally wrong. Spam isn't going 
to kill you.

> DDoS attacks,

Same thing. I'd not encourage it. Nor would I encourage spam. However it 
is part of what you agree to when getting online.

> copying data without consent,

I'm not even sure this makes any sense. What is it even mean? A copy 
certainly isn't theft. No.

> all OK because they factually happen.

Nope. You left out the whole internet part.

> If only the real world was like this: We could punch or stab each
> other and it would be OK because it happened. Oh, wait, perhaps we
> introduced laws to avoid that situation, and perhaps that is also why
> we we live by rules in society that do not depend on laws.
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at

More information about the Discussion mailing list