Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2024, 11:06:27 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Another take at intellectual property - what about bitcoin private keys?  (Read 7012 times)
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 19, 2012, 01:47:20 AM
 #61

Just to say, I've lost interest in the private key aspect of this argument but I agree that the hacking of a computer is not the same as trespass. Though it does have some aspects in common, it is still a different thing.

It has in common that someone is using your stuff without you agreeing to it.
It's that simple.
Make sure you back up your wallet regularly! Unlike a bank account, nobody can help you if you lose access to your BTC.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 2106


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
October 19, 2012, 04:35:19 AM
 #62

What is the key difference?
Lack of physical presence.
From the point of view of the processor, I am no more physically present than a hacker. A processor simply runs whatever instructions are presented to it, regardless of where it comes from.
Yes. I don't see your point.

That physical presence is not relevant to the computer. I no more have to be local to the processor to use it legitimately than does the hacker, to use it illicitly.

I understand your point (that physical presence is not relevant to computers, therefor hacking is not trespassing since you need to be physically present to trespass), which is essentially the same as mine (that physical presence is not relevant to computers, therefor hacking is trespassing since you do not need to be physically present to trespass), but the fact remains that the hacker is using your property without your permission, which is functionally identical to trespassing.

It's not that physical presence is relevant to computers or not. Only that it is relevant to literal trespassing. If you're going to link the two, you'll need to use a qualifier like "virtual" or "effectively". Legally, it's not even close (though politicians could choose to make it so of course)

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 2106


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
October 19, 2012, 04:45:14 AM
 #63

Just to say, I've lost interest in the private key aspect of this argument but I agree that the hacking of a computer is not the same as trespass. Though it does have some aspects in common, it is still a different thing.

It has in common that someone is using your stuff without you agreeing to it.
It's that simple.

True. But that's not sufficient. If someone comes to the desk where you work and picks up your pen and writes down a phone number, that's not trespass.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
October 19, 2012, 04:57:17 AM
 #64

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_to_chattels

Quote
The trespass to chattels tort punishes anyone who substantially interferes with the use of another's personal property, or chattels. Plaintiffs must show that the offender had intentional physical contact with the chattel and that the contact caused some substantial interference or damage. The courts that imported this common law doctrine into the digital world reasoned that electrical signals traveling across networks and through proprietary servers may constitute the contact necessary to support a trespass claim. Applying this common law action to computer networks, plaintiffs must first prove that they received some type of electronic communication (typically bulk e-mail or spam) that the defendant intentionally sent to interfere with the plaintiff's interest in his or her property and second that this communication caused a quantifiable harm to their tangible property, such as impaired functioning of the computer, network or server.
[eBay v. Bidder's Edge, 100 F.Supp.2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000)]

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 2106


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
October 19, 2012, 01:02:46 PM
 #65

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_to_chattels

Quote
The trespass to chattels tort punishes anyone who substantially interferes with the use of another's personal property, or chattels. Plaintiffs must show that the offender had intentional physical contact with the chattel and that the contact caused some substantial interference or damage. The courts that imported this common law doctrine into the digital world reasoned that electrical signals traveling across networks and through proprietary servers may constitute the contact necessary to support a trespass claim. Applying this common law action to computer networks, plaintiffs must first prove that they received some type of electronic communication (typically bulk e-mail or spam) that the defendant intentionally sent to interfere with the plaintiff's interest in his or her property and second that this communication caused a quantifiable harm to their tangible property, such as impaired functioning of the computer, network or server.
[eBay v. Bidder's Edge, 100 F.Supp.2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000)]

So legally it is the case. At least by precedence in the jurisdiction of those courts. It's not clear from that snippet if they expanded trespass to include all personal items (cf pen example), whether it already applied to those items and they expanded it to include computers  or  if it only means computers and not other personal items or what.

I think it's also important to bear in mind Lincoln's famous quote about dogs and legs.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 19, 2012, 02:07:55 PM
 #66

Just to say, I've lost interest in the private key aspect of this argument but I agree that the hacking of a computer is not the same as trespass. Though it does have some aspects in common, it is still a different thing.

It has in common that someone is using your stuff without you agreeing to it.
It's that simple.

True. But that's not sufficient. If someone comes to the desk where you work and picks up your pen and writes down a phone number, that's not trespass.
No, but that happens inside an office that is not owned by you.
If your pen happens to be in your house then that is tresspassing.
If the pen is a sequence of unique information living on your computer then that is tresspassing too.
And that is besides the point that this is also theft.

mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 19, 2012, 02:13:44 PM
 #67

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_to_chattels

Quote
The trespass to chattels tort punishes anyone who substantially interferes with the use of another's personal property, or chattels. Plaintiffs must show that the offender had intentional physical contact with the chattel and that the contact caused some substantial interference or damage. The courts that imported this common law doctrine into the digital world reasoned that electrical signals traveling across networks and through proprietary servers may constitute the contact necessary to support a trespass claim. Applying this common law action to computer networks, plaintiffs must first prove that they received some type of electronic communication (typically bulk e-mail or spam) that the defendant intentionally sent to interfere with the plaintiff's interest in his or her property and second that this communication caused a quantifiable harm to their tangible property, such as impaired functioning of the computer, network or server.
[eBay v. Bidder's Edge, 100 F.Supp.2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000)]

So legally it is the case. At least by precedence in the jurisdiction of those courts. It's not clear from that snippet if they expanded trespass to include all personal items (cf pen example), whether it already applied to those items and they expanded it to include computers  or  if it only means computers and not other personal items or what.

I think it's also important to bear in mind Lincoln's famous quote about dogs and legs.

Yeah and i want to say that what i write here are mostly generalisations to make a point.
Even the simple case of a pen can lead to a whole essay... Smiley
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
October 19, 2012, 10:27:04 PM
 #68

So legally it is the case. At least by precedence in the jurisdiction of those courts. It's not clear from that snippet if they expanded trespass to include all personal items (cf pen example), whether it already applied to those items and they expanded it to include computers  or  if it only means computers and not other personal items or what.

It originally meant all personal items. Yes, even your pen example. Technically, that's trespass to chattels. It's also petty theft of ink. It's not worth prosecuting, because of the miniscule amount of financial loss, but it is, technically, a crime, even though most people wouldn't mind. Unless, of course, the pen is owned by the company, and for use of employees, in which case it's perfectly within the proper use of that pen.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 2106


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
October 20, 2012, 01:24:37 AM
 #69

So legally it is the case. At least by precedence in the jurisdiction of those courts. It's not clear from that snippet if they expanded trespass to include all personal items (cf pen example), whether it already applied to those items and they expanded it to include computers  or  if it only means computers and not other personal items or what.

It originally meant all personal items. Yes, even your pen example. Technically, that's trespass to chattels. It's also petty theft of ink. It's not worth prosecuting, because of the miniscule amount of financial loss, but it is, technically, a crime, even though most people wouldn't mind. Unless, of course, the pen is owned by the company, and for use of employees, in which case it's perfectly within the proper use of that pen.

In that case, I accept hacking as trespass to chattels.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
fergalish (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 22, 2012, 10:49:48 PM
 #70

"Telling me what I can and cannot do with my computer is equivalent to claiming ownership of my computer, which amounts to little more than theft, hence a violation of NAP".

That's pretty close. I would say that you're using my property (the computer) without my permission, or even knowledge, which, while there is no damage done to that property, does result in a financial loss to me, the same as if you had picked the lock on my front door, and used the access to my house thus acquired to rifle through my financial records and gain access to my bank account information.
Still, you are telling me that I may not type, on my own keyboard, something like (pseudocode): "copy from: myrkulsPC:/dirs/wallet.dat to: myPC:"  Do I own my property or not?

If I foolishly posted my private key down there in my sig, or nailed my banking records to my front door, then the end result of that is my own damn fault, and I'd have a hard time prosecuting you for using the data that is so freely available. On the other hand, if you had to trespass to get that data, then the data is clearly illicit, and what you do with it (such as steal my money) may further compound your crimes.

This is what I'm trying to get at. If you foolishly leave your records where an unscrupulous person can get them, then it's your own damn fault. What if you leave them on an old Win98 computer full of hackable bugs? Where does it cross the line? Let's try something else, suppose you leave your private keys written on your desk. And I look in the window with a pair of binoculars and write it down?  Now suppose your keys are in the same place, but covered by another sheet of paper. So I walk up to the (open) window and blow in - the sheet moves, and I copy the key. Is that ok? Is blowing in the window an act of trespass?

In any case, this thread seems to conclude that hacking is equivalent to trespass. This is something I would largely agree with, so I'm willing to leave it at that, particularly since no strong anti-IPR pro-bitcoin person rose to the occasion. However, I have to say that the forum's defence is only this: "it is not permitted to hack someone's computer to obtain a private key; anyone doing so should be fully responsible for the results of that act of trespass, including loss of value to the victim". This is not what I wanted to address in this thread, but I wanted to address whether the key itself is protected; not whether obtaining a copy of the key is some form of crime or not.

So, in alternative, let me hypothesize this. Suppose I can get a copy of your private key without trespassing?  E.g., your estranged and embittered wife/husband gives me a copy. It is now utterly unnecessary for me to interact at all with your property. May I now openly and legally transfer the associated bitcoins to my account or is use of the private key somehow protected?

I can see that if I pay a thief to steal your key, then I would be largely responsible. But suppose a thief steals your key on his own initiative, then tries to sell it to me? The thief is responsible for the trespass and "loss of value" to you. I would be merely copying a number from him and doing some stuff with that number, need I say, with only my computer.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
October 22, 2012, 11:16:52 PM
 #71

Still, you are telling me that I may not type, on my own keyboard, something like (pseudocode): "copy from: myrkulsPC:/dirs/wallet.dat to: myPC:"  Do I own my property or not?
You can type that all you want. If it actually does that, though, you're accessing my computer. That's the problem, not what you do with your computer, but what you do with mine.


So, in alternative, let me hypothesize this. Suppose I can get a copy of your private key without trespassing?  E.g., your estranged and embittered wife/husband gives me a copy. It is now utterly unnecessary for me to interact at all with your property. May I now openly and legally transfer the associated bitcoins to my account or is use of the private key somehow protected?

I can see that if I pay a thief to steal your key, then I would be largely responsible. But suppose a thief steals your key on his own initiative, then tries to sell it to me? The thief is responsible for the trespass and "loss of value" to you. I would be merely copying a number from him and doing some stuff with that number, need I say, with only my computer.
Buying the key after the fact is effectively the same as commissioning the theft, so you're just as liable, there. Now... obtaining the key from a bitter spouse, that's a rough one. It would probably depend on how she got it.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 2106


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
October 23, 2012, 03:07:59 PM
 #72

Intent also plays into things. If you obtain a key and you don't know it was unlawfully obtained, that's different from if you knew that it was.

The issue also isn't ownership of the private key but what you do with it. Remember when credit cards were recorded by swiping with duplicate paper and there was no ccv code? Someone who you made a payment to "owned" all the information he needed to access your funds. It's only the misuse of it which breaks the law.

And wrt to the property argument, I own my gun. Is it therefore OK to start pointing it in arbitrary directions and pull the trigger? No? Is it not my own property to do with as I wish?

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
nybble41
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 152
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 23, 2012, 07:42:50 PM
 #73

And wrt to the property argument, I own my gun. Is it therefore OK to start pointing it in arbitrary directions and pull the trigger? No? Is it not my own property to do with as I wish?

It is your property to use and consume as you wish, absolutely. However, there are limits to the actions you can take without infringing on others' property rights. These limitations have nothing to do with your own property rights, and in fact it doesn't matter whether your property is involved at all. Hitting someone over the head with someone else's brick is just as off-limits as shooting them with your own gun. It's your action and the impact to their property which matter. You have an absolute right to use your own property. You don't have any right to use theirs without their permission. Any action which would infringe on the property rights of multiple individuals requires the unanimous consent of all involved.
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2394
Merit: 2106


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
October 23, 2012, 07:50:48 PM
 #74

And wrt to the property argument, I own my gun. Is it therefore OK to start pointing it in arbitrary directions and pull the trigger? No? Is it not my own property to do with as I wish?

It is your property to use and consume as you wish, absolutely. However, there are limits to the actions you can take without infringing on others' property rights. These limitations have nothing to do with your own property rights, and in fact it doesn't matter whether your property is involved at all. Hitting someone over the head with someone else's brick is just as off-limits as shooting them with your own gun. It's your action and the impact to their property which matter. You have an absolute right to use your own property. You don't have any right to use theirs without their permission. Any action which would infringe on the property rights of multiple individuals requires the unanimous consent of all involved.

Precisely.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!