Comment by chroma | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chroma | Hacker News Reader

I think this specific suit is valid, but it does raise questions about where the line should be drawn. With just a little creativity, it is very easy to build extremely dangerous weapons from off-the-shelf parts. I won't mention anything specific, as some HN karma is not worth the slightest chance of these weapons being used. I will mention one of my rejected ideas, as there is a straightforward countermeasure: laser blinding devices. Powerful infrared laser diodes are cheap, as are the optics and electronics to drive and focus them. Such lasers are invisible and cause permanent damage faster than one can blink. They have a range measured in kilometers, and they are small enough to be mounted on consumer drones. Combine this with face recognition/tracking, and you could permanently blind any target who dared to show themselves in public.

Do you think someone who published the specifics (parts list, blueprints, source code, etc) of such a device should be punished? I do, even though I think there's an obvious countermeasure. Likewise, while Wilson's 3D-printed gun is a toy, not everything publishable is so benign. Before we hop on the train of free-speech idealism, we should realize how fortunate we are that nobody has discovered a convenient world-ending weapon. Considering the amount of energy pent-up in ordinary matter, we've been incredibly lucky. SILEX[1] came close, but thankfully its specifics have been kept secret. And had physics turned out slightly differently, building a nuclear weapon could have been as easy as putting sand in a microwave.[2]

As much as I hate to admit it, there is such a thing as dangerous information. Until humanity becomes wiser, I think our only (terrible) option is to silence people who try to spread it. Again, this specific case clearly falls under free speech, but it's important to keep future discoveries in mind.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_isotopes_by_lase...

2. This example was originally used by Nick Bostrom.

>I think this specific suit is valid, but it does raise questions about where the line should be drawn.

I vote no line. I grew up on a small farm. I was near large farms. There are some very dangerous chemicals that have been used in terrorist attacks that are in large supply on almost any farm. Freedom of speech and freedom of information is greater than any safety, especially since with the darknet and the ability to do basic research such safety is minimal at best.

>As much as I hate to admit it, there is such a thing as dangerous information.

Partial censorship in the government's favor has been vastly more dangerous than information in the hands of the masses. Thus I rather have the info without the censorship.

To quote someone who actually put his money where his mought was...

>The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

Thinking about issues in completely binary terms is not taken seriously by policymakers who balance a host of competing concerns.

> As much as I hate to admit it, there is such a thing as dangerous information

I do agree with you on that but the problem, as always, is who decides what's dangerous information? What if I published the blueprint of a blinding drone with the genuine intention of it being used against pests? Eventually you end up with some bureaucrat ruining some kid's life just so he can climb a bit up on the hierarchy ladder. And then there the issue of cost effectiveness. Should we really waste resources on silencing people when it's so easy to publish information anonymously?

The first line would be the government. This is what is expected in this sort of case. The defendant could then appeal, and eventually it would reach the Supreme Court, who would then decide.

This is the general process for appealing all laws thought to be unconstitutional in the US, for better or worse. Challenging it is unlikely to curry favour from any party.

When you're threatened with jail time and million dollar fines, your first thought isn't "yeah, screw it, I'll appeal". Most rational people will just play it safe and comply. Knowing that, authorities can use it to suppress anything inconvenient that comes close to some broad definition of "dangerous" information.

I'm quite certain I'm well into the 1%, and I've looked at taking people to court several times when they've screwed me over in some way. Not once have I ever looked at the process and thought, "I can afford this!", so I choose to pay to deal with their actions myself and move on with my life. The legal system is broken.

Well Blinding weapons are banned by the Geneva convention use would be considered a war crime.

That's actually true (I wasn't aware of it), turns out there's even a wikipedia article about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weap...

Because there are non criminal ways to go about killing people in war.. think about that a bit.

While true, how would that begin to cover domestic use outside of warfare? I didn't even think the current discussion was even covering warfare.

Causing injury to another person is generally already illegal.

The question isn't about causing injury. It is about possessing a device (or even knowledge) capable of harming someone.

Yet putting a missile into their vehicle, even when there is a chance their children are with them, isn't (and even if it is on paper, a law that isn't enforced might as well not exist).

No suffering involved... Because killing is okay as long as you don't make your victim suffer.

I honestly can't tell if you are being sarcastic because there are enough people who hold a similar view to this, at least in certain cases.

I said it tongue in cheek because I don't believe any form of killing is okay, except maybe as punishment for murder.

The logic used to prohibit things like chemical warfare during war is just that: to limit suffering.

But where does your line get drawn and who gets to decide what "too dangerous" is? This is just ripe for abuse. There are many ideas that are considered a threat to the current regime of a country and in many cases there is the suppression of those ideas that threaten the status quo.

Also, I think it may be a mistake for you to think that you are the first and only person to have come up with most of your "dangerous" ideas. Open conversations about potential threat vectors is a much better proposition than trying to sweep it all under a rug, hoping some "bad actor" never arrives at that same idea.

You may be interested in a post I wrote on this subject a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8916033

Summary: The question isn't if the knowledge about dangerous weapons will leak, but when that leak will happen. The as technology keeps getting better and better, it is only a matter of time before those technologies are cheap/simple enough to become something that can be found in a "garage workshop".

Trying to resist the spread of knowledge merely slows the rate of diffusion at best - it can have the opposite effect - so this is not a long-term solution. I suggest that we need to start fixing the underlying problems (poverty, tribal feuding, etc.) that create the motive for using dangerous weapons, or we are going to get a nasty surprise someday.

There's a selection effect at work. It seems as if everything leaks because you don't hear about the stuff that doesn't leak. Plenty of things have been kept secret for decades: differential cryptanalysis, Ultra, FOGBANK. Those are just some of the ones we know about. It's quite likely there are more we don't.

Yes, they were kept secret for decades and yet you know about them now. It's not always a question of how long can information that is considered potentially dangerous can be kept secret. Sometimes it's a question of can it be kept secret indefinitely if the information is deemed dangerous enough. Many would say no.

> I won't mention anything specific, as some HN karma is not worth the slightest chance of these weapons being used.

Thank you. I have seen far, far too many people - including myself, at times - instinctively choosing to be clever in conversation rather than using appropriate discretion.

Just think of all the terrorist attacks that were caused by HN information not already on Youtube or PirateBay or I2P.

Calling people's attention to dangerous ideas is a risky thing to do, regardless of whether the information was technically available or not. Often the risks are small compared to the benefits of bringing the ideas into a discussion. But sometimes they're not small enough, and the responsible thing to do is to think before posting about whether you're creating the wrong kind of inspiration. You don't know what sort of crazy person might end up reading it.

That's far less dangerous than you might think. True, people are far more likely to look ar a drone than a random object, but targeting a 2mm wide target from a drone is a hard problem. Especially when you consider how dangerous fairly small drones can be. IMO, as long as your taking about something less dangerous than a car surpassing information seems excessive.

The book The Trigger by Arthur C. Clarke and Michael P. Kube-McDowell covers that very idea, dealing with dangerous information that will eventually become public knowledge. It's not a main plot point for the book, but it is discussed by several of the characters.

What was the obvious countermeasure?

IR-blocking glasses or contact lenses. If the adversary used lasers in the visual range, the beam (and source) would be clearly visible. Still, you could counter that with photochromics or active defenses similar to auto-darkening welding masks.

Reflective sunglasses, maybe

Reply on news.ycombinator.com