Racism, Freedom of speech and ownership of information

[myrkul]

If I can access it, I can copy your private key without destroying the original. My use of that private key may result in a loss for you.

Just so it's clear, the accessing (unless it was stored on privately owned hardware) and copying are not the crime. The fraudulent use of the key is.

It occurred to me after thinking about this a bit. If no one owns the information obtained on the private key, how do we determine fraudulent use?

You're representing yourself to be the person whose key you have copied. That's fraud.

"Person whose key"

Didn't you just imply ownership of the key?

The English language is imprecise. Saying that a person is "your" child does not imply ownership, any more than does saying it's their key.

Yet the argument that I am representing you when using the key implies ownership as well. I don't need to represent you if you don't own the key, I can use it as myself.  

I can sign a transaction with any key and broadcast it, but it's only going to be accepted by others if I've used the correct key.

I can sign a check with any signature, but it's only going to be accepted if I've used the right one. Now, I understood the above quote to refer to using private keys in their original, cryptographic purpose... signing something carries an indication that you are some specific person. If this is not what you meant, and there was no intent to masquerade as the original assignee of that key, then the only crime is the trespass (if any - and that includes digital trespass) you had to commit to acquire the key.

If you are lax in your security practices, I could theoretically photograph you backing up your private keys with QR codes, or on paper wallets, without violating your rights.

Indeed. Likewise with photographing physical keys and making a copy from that. Creepy, perhaps, but not sinister.

[MysteryMiner]

The private key does not indicate person. It can be controlled by organization (legal entity), by multiple persons at different times (casascius coins, phisical notes, selling the privkey). The private key can even be controlled or owned by virtually none if used only temporary by automated software such as mixing service.

[myrkul]

Say I obtain "your" private key using the method quoted at the bottom of this post, if you don't own the key, and I'm not masquerading as you when I enter it into software on my computer, has a crime been committed? You will certainly experience a loss by my actions, should I transfer any Bitcoins accessed with that private key (alter the public ledger), but I can't figure out how you can claim there was a crime if no one owns information, in this case private Bitcoin keys or the ledger itself!

Well, if you get the key in a legit (if shady) manner, then it's not really a crime if you use that key to take the money... no more than it is if you found a key to an airport locker sitting on the sidewalk, and took the suitcase full of money you found within. It all comes down to how you get the key.

Another flaw in the English language, "assignee", "assignment", and "assigning" all have definitions which involve property, as well as one's that don't. And for some reason, the only way "assignee of that key" makes any sense to me is if the key is now owned by the assignee as property. I also get very frustrated when definitions use another form of the word being defined.
 <snicker-snack>
Now I'm just fucking lost. It makes so much more sense if the key is just considered property.

If it helps, I am using definition 3 of assign, and definition 5 of relation. The key, while it is solely in your possession, refers solely to you. This is more important in traditional cryptography than in cryptocurrency.

If you are lax in your security practices, I could theoretically photograph you backing up your private keys with QR codes, or on paper wallets, without violating your rights.

Indeed. Likewise with photographing physical keys and making a copy from that. Creepy, perhaps, but not sinister.

Sure, but then using that key requires that I trespass on your property or steal your property. If information isn't property, that isn't the case with Bitcoin private keys.

Not necessarily. Look at it like that airport locker I mentioned. That's the blockchain. The coins are the suitcase, and the key is, well, the key. Whoever has that key, or a copy of it, can open the locker and take the money. It all comes down to how you got your copy of the key.

The only thing that makes any sense to me is "you own it if you can prevent others from using it (protect), you don't own it if you can't". Similar to the self(property)-defense argument that "you don't own it if you can't protect it". That may sound brutal, but isn't this what it ultimately comes down to if someone or some group ignores your rights? This is why we (or at least I) will fight for the right to defend myself and others. Our ability to protect ourselves (our property) is our last resort against those who would attempt to take it by any means possible. This is why I am a huge fan of Bitcoin. It's so easy for me to protect "my" Bitcoins (private keys).

That seems reasonable, just remember that if your security is lax, and anyone can see your private keys, it's your fault that you lost the suitcase.

[myrkul]

For what it's worth, I'm more confused now than when I started this discussion. I'm honestly trying to understand the concept of no one owning information, but it's not clicking for me.

Here are some articles from one of the greats, Stephen Kinsella on the subject:

http://www.libertarianstandard.com/articles/stephan-kinsella/intellectual-freedom-and-learning-versus-patent-and-copyright/
http://blog.mises.org/11383/intellectual-property-and-the-structure-of-human-action/
http://mises.org/daily/4848/

These come at it from the perspective of Praxeology, which is essentially economics applied to all human action.

[Snipes777]

Even in a time when ideas are not owned, the colloquial is to use "your" or other forms of ownership words. Stefan releases a book for free that anyone can download, modify, or read and can choose to donate if they want to. "Your" is used in order to denote that he came up with the idea, even though he doesn't own the idea. Donating to him results from people wanting to continue his idea generation, or because they gained value from an idea. Despite all of these, he still cannot own ideas or words and wouldn't dream of forcibly preventing others through threats of jail or fine.

Despite that people cannot own ideas, we still give credit for their origination. A great and powerful speaker who reads a book someone else wrote will still gain some compensation for the added value to the idea by lending his voice to the discussion. This still doesn't necessitate ownership.