I think you're conflating two different things. I'm also against intellectual property and digital monopolies on ideas or information. But breaking into someone's server isn't about copying information - it's about violating their physical infrastructure and their autonomy over their own tools.

The server is physical property that someone built and maintains. Breaking into it violates their control over their own equipment and destroys their work. This isn't about state-defined "property rights" - it's about basic respect for the boundary between your domain and someone else's. If I break into your house and burn your diary, the problem isn't copyright on your words - it's that I invaded your space and destroyed what you created.

I don't know or care if it's legally criminal, but it's clearly unethical. Your "data can be infinitely copied" argument would justify any digital intrusion - no privacy, no security, no boundaries. Anyone with technical skills could do whatever they want to anyone else's systems.

For me, real anarchism means voluntary cooperation and mutual respect for autonomy - not "whoever can hack wins".

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Sorry my guy, but this isn‘t going anywhere as you continue to misrepresent what i say to fit your narrative. Not fun and not productive 👋

whoa whoa whoa whoa

You're trying to say that because the server is digital that accessing it and changing it without the rightful owners consent is NOT violence?!

where exactly is this boundary that we cross where the word violence becomes meaningless?

because it sounds like you've already made that call and it's ALREADY meaningless.

I wonder what the response would be if a publishing house wiped Anna's archive.

"it was just words and therefore non-scarce. so it doesn't violate the non-aggression principle."