Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 114 posts

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#51

Post by WalterBright »

beambot wrote: post #33
3pt14159 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In D&D there is a certain type of spell called Power Word Kill which works slightly differently based on the version of D&D you're playing with, but the effect is that it essentially kills a single individual with a single word. I'm not saying phosphorus should be legal or illegal, but at some point "it's just a packet I sent on the internet" or "it's just a PDF I sent to someone overseas" or "it's just an element" m…

Deciding what is fundamentally good or drawing the line (eg the glassware) is the muddy part. The road to hell is paved with good intentions -- next thing you know, science chemistry kits are illegal & large swaths of population no longer believe in a spherical earth, evolution, and climate science.

Chemistry sets were emasculated right around 1970. I know because I got one of the good ones immediately prior. Had lots of fun making stink bombs, burning various chemicals just to see what would happen, dissolving things in acid, generating hydrogen gas, etc.

The ones after 1970 were like "hey, watch salt dissolve in water."

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#52

Post by catalogia »

leetcrew wrote: post #44
catalogia wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the intent is to protect people from phosphorus, I'd just like to point out that you can buy large amounts of gasoline without any paperwork, without even raising any eyebrows. If somebody wants to commit arson, bullshit regulations on phosphorus won't stop them. Nor does it require any knowledge a gradeschooler doesn't possess. This isn't even academic, a maniac killed 36 people like this in Japan last year. If t…

I share your position, but the obvious counterpart to this is that many regular people need access to gasoline as part of their daily lives. not so with phosphorus. in general, I don't think citizens should have to answer "why do you need this?" to the government, but you're not really comparing apples to apples here.

I think it is apples to apples, since as you say, the "why do you need this" question isn't relevant. Gasoline is easier to cause harm with and would be more readily accessible even if phosphorus were totally unregulated; regulating ownership of phosphorus nets a society nothing. It's as inane as banning switchblade knives when machetes, handguns, rifles, etc are all legal and available. Does anybody need a switchblade? No. But does banning them accomplish anything at all? I can't see how.

Phosphorus and gasoline even share the same potential for substance abuse. Just as you can make meth from phosphorus (apparently) you could huff gasoline. I wouldn't recommend either, but you could. Both can be used for arson, and both can be used as drugs. One you can buy anonymously in large quantities with cash in literally every neighborhood in the country.

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#53

Post by jlokier »

RHSeeger wrote: post #29
tathougies wrote: post #3

I mean, you really ought to be able to experiment with explosives in a free country, as long as you're not hurting anyone / planning to hurt anyone. It's obviously legal when companies in the industry do it. Why shouldn't it be for private citizens.

> as long as you're not hurting anyone I think the problem is that, much of the time, there's no way to know _if_ someone is planning on causing harm with certain tools until it's too late; until they actually cause the harm. While it would be nice to allow everyone to have anything they want (as long as they're not going to hurt anyone else), sometimes it's necessary to take away some rights in order to protect the…

> I think the problem is that, much of the time, there's no way to know _if_ someone is planning on causing harm

In this case, the judgement was to decide if it's lawful to make a damp-firework's worth of explosives even if everyone agrees there's no harmful intent, or even any realistic capability to cause harm ("small amounts to produce insignificant detonations").

You can see this in the dissenting judges opinions, where they conclude that it's unlawful when only asking about "personal experimentation or own private education". There is no mention of balancing personal freedom against risks to greater society, or evaluation of whether it might be used for harm, or if the quantities produced could ever cause any real harm to anyone.

I find the quoted summary of the dissenting opinion strange:

> “to say that something is done for one’s own private education is not a sufficient object for the purposes of the section 4(1) defence, as it does not identify the use to which the explosives will be put in order to provide such education.

> “Similarly, personal experimentation is not a sufficient object for this purpose as, although it identifies in very general terms what is to be done with the explosives, it does not identify any purpose for so doing.”

Reading that, I can't help thinking that personal experimentation is what is to be done, and private education is the purpose for so doing.

But I'm not a judge, and that won't be the whole opinion.

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#54

Post by Fnoord »

noir_lord wrote: post #17
ty7yt wrote: post #6

good for him. he only has one life and he aint spending it in a sandwich factory. hes exploring some of the most exciting chemistry this world has. and its a shame we live in a place where people are terrified and manipulated by tv into thinking anyone who shows interest in these things must be placed in a small room for a long time. 300 gears ago governments would be giving him money and patting him on the back. som…

Could not disagree more, for much of human history only the rich and their offspring typically had access to higher education and crucially learning materials, books where horrendously expensive for example for all but the most wealthy. We live in a golden age for autodidacts, that people often seem intellectually incurious says less about the society and more the people who constitute it, many people are simply incu…

What you wrote is basically Hans Rosling's "Factfulness" [1] and the other person wrote the rhetoric of 1984 or whatever. I guess we see what we want to see, and the news focuses on the negative. Consider, for example, computer security. You'd think with a recent RCE in Bluetooth and in Windows SMBv3 the world is insecure. Well, it was way worse 20 years ago, and even worse 30 years ago. Heck, barely anything used strong encryption back then. Everything was MITMable! But the news does not support that statement. Only if you look into the details (which does require some specific expertise, knowledge wise), you notice such. I also don't believe this to be a conspiracy; people are generally harmless, and good. Perhaps, in a case like this, we need to figure if there were clear harmful intentions. Same with USA's Espionage Act though.

[1] Full title: Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#55

Post by MaulingMonkey »

catalogia wrote: post #38
3pt14159 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In D&D there is a certain type of spell called Power Word Kill which works slightly differently based on the version of D&D you're playing with, but the effect is that it essentially kills a single individual with a single word. I'm not saying phosphorus should be legal or illegal, but at some point "it's just a packet I sent on the internet" or "it's just a PDF I sent to someone overseas" or "it's just an element" m…

If the intent is to protect people from phosphorus, I'd just like to point out that you can buy large amounts of gasoline without any paperwork, without even raising any eyebrows. If somebody wants to commit arson, bullshit regulations on phosphorus won't stop them. Nor does it require any knowledge a gradeschooler doesn't possess. This isn't even academic, a maniac killed 36 people like this in Japan last year. If t…

Gasoline is regulated. Trucks transporting large quantities of it requires hazmat registration for the safety of first responders. Zoning regulations limit and regulate how large quantities of gasoline can be stored. Try parking a gas tanker in a residential HOA without proper hazmat plates and see how long it goes "without even raising any eyebrows". Try driving one without a hazmat license and see how long you get away with it.

Now, yes, regulating tiny amounts of phosophorus might be a bit much. But I'm pretty sure you'd object to an unregulated chemical plant next door - those things can be dangerous even with well trained, well meaning personel. The question, then, is where to draw the line, not if it should be drawn at all.

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#56

Post by est31 »

beambot wrote: post #33
3pt14159 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In D&D there is a certain type of spell called Power Word Kill which works slightly differently based on the version of D&D you're playing with, but the effect is that it essentially kills a single individual with a single word. I'm not saying phosphorus should be legal or illegal, but at some point "it's just a packet I sent on the internet" or "it's just a PDF I sent to someone overseas" or "it's just an element" m…

Deciding what is fundamentally good or drawing the line (eg the glassware) is the muddy part. The road to hell is paved with good intentions -- next thing you know, science chemistry kits are illegal & large swaths of population no longer believe in a spherical earth, evolution, and climate science.

I think more regulation is kinda inevitable. Technological progress gives single bad actors more and more tools to cause damage. The issue is that single bad actors or small groups are far more common than entire developed states. Right now a drone can disable an entire airport.

To give an example with current technology, drones are being regulated now and likely will get remote off switches one day that police can trigger, but for that regulation to be effective, self built drones have to be under a similar regime... so maybe in the future it will become illegal to own innocous drone parts without a permit, etc.

Do we want to distribute science kits that allow people to play around with viruses? Sure, most viruses are affecting bacteria and playing around with them is fun, but if you can also change their genomes with those kits, some idiots might use them to make a superbug.

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#57

Post by chickenpotpie »

3pt14159 wrote: post #13
anfilt wrote: post #5

I hate how chemistry can land people in legal hot water due to overzealous government policies. While this example is not in the UK. It's illegal to own certain glassware without a permit in Texas for instance. The glassware is considered a drug precursor, like freaking glassware. Oh also federally the DEA treats Phosphorus as a type 1 precursor to meth. That's a freaking element! An element is illegal/regulated like…

In D&D there is a certain type of spell called Power Word Kill which works slightly differently based on the version of D&D you're playing with, but the effect is that it essentially kills a single individual with a single word. I'm not saying phosphorus should be legal or illegal, but at some point "it's just a packet I sent on the internet" or "it's just a PDF I sent to someone overseas" or "it's just an element" m…

Exactly, we make a lot of things that are fundamental parts of science illegal. The government bans certain properties of light without a permit to allow radio to work and uncontrolled fission reactions to stop millions from dying.

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#58

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #16
anfilt wrote: post #5

I hate how chemistry can land people in legal hot water due to overzealous government policies. While this example is not in the UK. It's illegal to own certain glassware without a permit in Texas for instance. The glassware is considered a drug precursor, like freaking glassware. Oh also federally the DEA treats Phosphorus as a type 1 precursor to meth. That's a freaking element! An element is illegal/regulated like…

Free states write laws that criminalize harmful actions. Police states write laws that criminalize possessing things that could be used harmfully.

> Free states write laws that criminalize harmful actions. Police states write laws that criminalize possessing things that could be used harmfully.

Would you agree that nukes run afoul of that reasoning?

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#59

Post by catalogia »

chickenpotpie wrote: post #50
leetcrew wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I share your position, but the obvious counterpart to this is that many regular people need access to gasoline as part of their daily lives. not so with phosphorus. in general, I don't think citizens should have to answer "why do you need this?" to the government, but you're not really comparing apples to apples here.

It's about the societal costs of denial vs. the risks of availability. Restricting gasoline to only certain individuals would cost millions to billions of dollars and would save us from a few fires a year. Restricting access to nuclear bombs costs almost nothing and saves huge risk.

> Restricting access to nuclear bombs costs almost nothing and saves huge risk.

That makes me wonder, if nuclear bombs were deregulated, who would actually be rich and stupid enough to actually construct their own? Larry Ellison maybe? Probably not even him.

Re: Man's 'experiments' with explosives were lawful, court rules

#60

Post by catalogia »

MaulingMonkey wrote: post #55
catalogia wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the intent is to protect people from phosphorus, I'd just like to point out that you can buy large amounts of gasoline without any paperwork, without even raising any eyebrows. If somebody wants to commit arson, bullshit regulations on phosphorus won't stop them. Nor does it require any knowledge a gradeschooler doesn't possess. This isn't even academic, a maniac killed 36 people like this in Japan last year. If t…

Gasoline is regulated. Trucks transporting large quantities of it requires hazmat registration for the safety of first responders. Zoning regulations limit and regulate how large quantities of gasoline can be stored. Try parking a gas tanker in a residential HOA without proper hazmat plates and see how long it goes "without even raising any eyebrows". Try driving one without a hazmat license and see how long you get…

Gasoline in the quantities required to burn down a building with people inside it is, for the intents and purposes of an arsonist, unregulated. They might yell at you if you use an unapproved jerry can, but otherwise it may as well be unregulated as far as homicidal nut is concerned.

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

Post reply on HN