The only point we're going to agree on seems to be more responsibility from the manufacturers.
And, it's important to note that I'm not disagreeing with you per se... I'm merely advocating for a different position than you. You make some good points, I just don't think it's a binary issue. I think it's far more complex -- categorical statements in most endeavors (I will refrain from saying "all";-) aren't really helpful.
Because, really, you need to take responsibility for your own actions through what you do and what you setup in and around your residence. If you setup an AP that is wide open, well, frankly, in this world of "free wireless here!" you can't expect people to _not_ try to find free WiFi.
This is a general issue I see -- the technology has moved along and become widespread faster than the general knowledge of it. So, it becomes a societal issue to try to sort out some of these details. Much like governments don't always do a good job of legislating on technical issues.
On the one hand, we hand these things out like candy and make it "easy" to use. On the other hand, people don't necessarily understand what it is or the ramifications of not using it "safely". Which is why you have an entire generation who isn't aware of the stuff they shouldn't be putting on-line or don't see any problems with posting naked pictures of themselves when they're teenagers.
People in tech rant and drool and say that consumers should be forced to understand what they're using. I point out that if you let anybody use these things, then someone needs to ponder what happens to the people who just innocently use these things an have no idea.
The elitist "l3t the n00bs get pwn3d" point of view doesn't actually help anything, and it forgets that much of the people using these things need to be educated, protected, or both.
As a general policy, I try to see as many sides of the same issue as I can... it avoids developing tunnel vision.
Would people be able to access your utilities without physically trespassing on your property? Would someone be able to use your garden hose without leaving the comfort of their own home?
I merely make a counter-point to that argument that if the owner hasn't made steps to secure it, you get to use the resource with impunity. A point for discussion, not an absolutely final statement. I tend not to believe in black and white situations, and exploring the gray is often more interesting.
Sometimes, things which are fairly cut and dry in the "real world" get somewhat muddy when you add "with a computer". Some of these things tend to be a little more nuanced than most people's immediate reaction of "you haven't stopped me, so you've given me permission". In this case, I'm not convinced that failure to secure it is open permission. There are reasons why courts sometimes struggle to properly apply case law to these things -- because the analogies to real world things get muddied, and you get new corner cases. Precisely because you can't always use the same reasoning in the same way.
But then, does it cause you grief if someone on the sidewalk is listening to the music you are playing even though you paid (presumably) for the CD, and they are simply freeloading?
Me, personally? I don't care at all -- except to make sure I'm not annoying my neighbors.
However, someone like the RIAA could (and I believe has) make the argument that my stereo then becomes a public performance and that they're owed royalties.
At which point, you standing on the sidewalk affects my legal situation, and I do care. Much like someone might care if, say, you were using their wifi as a shield to do something illegal like download kiddie porn or plan a terrorist attack.
I wouldn't want to see someone's grandmother charged because she didn't know enough to prevent someone from using her wireless for illegal purposes. All she wanted to do was log into her laptop to see pictures of her grandchild.
Generally, I fall on the side of saying that if you don't have explicit permission, you're treading on unlawfully accessing someone's computer system. If you do anything illegal, you've gone ever further into unsupportable activity. If you "borrow" a couple of gigs of bandwidth and cost them money, you're in full on theft of service the same as if you spliced their powerline.
Your cases are different because there are per-usage charges for the items you mention
My internet is charged and metered. If I go beyond a certain amount, I pay for it. So, it's not a flat-rate, infinite supply scenario. Until my ISP stops telling me that bandwidth is finite and metered, it remains so.
Now, my wifi is locked down, but I just don't think your argument about bandwidth holds water. I would argue for most people, their internet connection is far from being an un-metered, infinite service.
With out a loss of product or service, how can you justify calling it a crime?
By trying not to allow myself an overly elastic definition of such things and constructing a narrow argument in which you could argue that it's not a problem.
It's unauthorized access to someone's network. You don't have explicit permission, and you're arguing that you either have implicit permission, or that no harm is being done -- I disagree with both.
Do I think people should learn to lock down their wifi? Absolutely. Do I think you should be able to use any wifi which isn't locked down? Absolutely not.
Logging onto an unsecured WiFi connection can be done incredibly easy while I'm in my pajamas in the middle of a blizzard. It can also be done innocently and unknowingly. "Wait, there are 4 "linksys" networks, which was mine again?".
*laugh* For one, there is no "it was so easy I did it in my underpants" defense. Ease doesn't equate with right -- stealing candy from babies is trivial, for instance.;-)
There's also a huge difference between inadvertently using the wrong wifi, and intentionally looking for unsecured wifi.
Sadly, wifi routers are so cheap and easy to get, that lots of people just fire it up, go through the setup wizard, and never think of it again.
For much of the consumer public, these things are treated like toasters. Turn 'em on and go. They just don't realize there's more to it. The availability of the tech has outstripped the knowledge of the people using it.
Right or wrong, these have become consumer devices used as black boxes -- the companies making them should make them a little more secure, and try to steer you into having some protections on it -- having them all have the same SSID and passwords is bad. Unfortunately, that would likely lead to more support issues for them as people call and say "teh wireless doesn't work" as people get lost in the instructions or lose their passwords.
I don't agree with this. I think it should be the owners responsibility to secure their network, but the possibility for legal ramifications exists.
So, if I have an electrical outlet outside of my house and I don't "secure it", should people be able to plug into my electricity with impunity? How about my garden hose? If I don't physically bar someone from parking in my driveway, that's OK? Is it OK to help yourself to my garden? How about siphoning the gas out of my car?
There's loads of things in the physical world that aren't necessarily secured, but that you don't have a reasonable expectation of being able to use.
I don't agree in any way that just because the wireless isn't 100% locked down that you should get a free pass to just use it. You know you're using a network that isn't yours -- just because you can connect to it doesn't mean you have carte blanch.
One more vector of information which can be correlated to you, spammed, sold, analyzed, or mined.
People won't know all of the ways this could be a bad idea until it's way too late -- same with most of Facebook and privacy. Give everything away and hope for the best, or don't use it at all... and still hope for the best.
We need this built into our televisions to automagically remove those network logo "bugs" and other crap they have started putting on the screen during the shows.
First off, I don't think we'll get control over this on our TVs. The networks aren't gonna let us delete their "bugs".
I'm actually more concerned over something like Running Man where you can't trust the news reports you see because someone selectively tweaked the image to hide/alter the bits they don't want you to see.
Now, of course, the technology isn't evil... it will be humans doing that. But, you can imagine government run media stripping out protesters or burning cars to tell everybody that everything is just sunshine and bunnies.
Same here! I've long said that when I'm old and feeble, I plan to have a powered exoskeleton that will keep me active and let me do whatever I damn well please.
See, I want a powered exoskeleton now, before I'm old and feeble... so I can do whatever I damn well please.
I'd like to be able to customize the instrument panel in my Crown Vic
Given the primary demographics of Crown Vics (cops, cabs, and old people) it doesn't strike me as a vehicle with a big demand for after market goodies.
Hondas with coffee-can sized exhaust pipes, however, you can buy anything you want.:-P
but there's no reason to show the top-down view of your car on a map so that you have to read the frickin' map while you're trying not to kill your family and other innocent bystanders as you hurtle down the road in your two-ton death-mobile
Agreed, the lookdown view for GPS systems was a huge enhancement. I don't want want to be looking at a map while I'm driving. I want to see that my second left is where I need to go, or that the road curves ahead.
Trying to correlate a standard map view with my driving is not helpful. Being able to see at a glance the route from the perspective I see in the car, however, is a big help. Trying to figure out which way is North isn't something I need to be doing.
The last couple of cars I bought I refused the option of a built-in satnav. Nevermind that they are way over-priced compared to portable units - the real problem I have is placement.
Yeah, the built in ones are a joke -- I remember looking to replace the DVD (yes, DVD) in my wife's old car. It was a 2003 model, and to get a new DVD for the satnav would have been something like $800 or so. You could buy multiple portable devices for that. At that point, the portable ones had way more features than the built-in.
The placement is kind of strange. Putting it where the stereo is is too low. My window mounted one is only slightly lower than my rearview mirror and doesn't block the view of the road. I can check the nav systm without taking my eyes any further off the road than my mirror. I can also completely ignore it when I don't need it.
And, just think, soon everybody (if you believe Microsoft) is going to have a full-on touch screen entertainment system embedded in their dash. That should cause some fun.:-P
More distractions while driving. Is it too much to ask that people drive when behind the wheel?
It's a matter of degrees, and how you do it.
My car has bluetooth in the stereo, so if I take a call in my car while I'm driving, the car is the cell phone and I can still drive with both hands. I've got a GPS nav attached to my window -- it's in the middle of my window, below the rear view, and not above the horizon of the hood. So, it's in my field of view when I need it, and something I can ignore when I don't.
I agree with you about distracted driving, but a HUD has the benefit of being superimposed in front of you, as opposed to being something you need to look away to see.
As someone with a 25 year driving record with no accidents, I actually like some of these things that allow me to keep my hands on the wheel and my eyes on the road. I don't make a practice of being on the phone while I'm driving, but with a single button I can answer an incoming call if I have to. For some kinds of trip, the GPS is something I wouldn't try to do without.
I still can't believe the number of people I see texting on blackberries while I'm driving. If both of your thumbs are on your blackberry, you are not operating that motor vehicle.
I think if I found someone crawling under my car in my unfenced, ungated driveway, placing some device on my car, I'd be cueing up the track of a shotgun being pumped on my MP3 player, then playing it real loud for the perp under my car.
Yeah, because an MP3 suggesting you might be about to use deadly force won't suddenly back you into a corner when someone who is prepared to use deadly force actually does?
I know you're going for humor, but that just seems like a bit of a dangerous game.
Big agree there, I really don't understand why even the draft phases of a law would be kept secret from the citizens it is intended to be applied to.
So the citizens don't have a chance to say they don't agree with the law until things they are already doing become illegal?
Basically it's eroding any actual "fair use" that anybody ever had, and making it so that you more or less need the permission of media companies to use the internet or own a computer. If they don't like you, they'll take it away from you.
People don't actually want the provisions in this awful treaty, and it makes no sense whatsoever for every government in the world to be clerks for copyright holders. This really does subjugate personal/government interests to those of corporations.
The secret court proceedings and administrative actions are more insidious to my mind.
Agreed 100% with this and all of your other points.
I've just developed a fairly cynical and cranky point of view that says they're doing far more illegal stuff than we know of, doing it every day, and essentially don't care since they can do it with impunity.
Sometimes, the dystopian present seems so damned depressing that it is hard to believe in those constitutional/legal freedoms anymore.:-P
You've gotta be trolling. 21 million copies sold of her debut album, MTV Music awards, BRIT awards, Grammy nominated, #98 best selling of the 21st century, duet with Eminem, music featured in a big movie, song the opening theme of a US TV show, haircut named after her, sold-out world tours...
And yet, some of us still don't care or know who she is.
I don't know about you, but top 40 charts, MTV, Grammy's, Eminem, and US TV show themes aren't my primary news sources. Some artists are almost impossible to avoid (even I know who Lady Gaga is, but that's only in the last 6 months or so), and some you may hear their stuff and still never know who the hell they are.
I'm by no means saying she's crappy (or anything less than the genius you seem to ascribe to her) -- I'm just saying you overestimate the likelihood that everybody knows who she is. It's not actually that difficult if you don't pay attention to these things. For good or ill, some of us have stayed largely indifferent to a lot of these things.
A peg leg's not implanted; it's strapped on (My late uncle made such prosthetics).
What about a glass eye? What about a dental appliance that is screwed into your jawbone? Would a steel plate in your head make you a cyborg?
I'm just trying to figure out the specifics of what makes you a cyborg here. Merely having something implanted vs strapped on can't be good enough. Anybody with pins or screws would be a cyborg, and I'm not convinced of that.
Part of me thinks the interface between you and the device needs to be more... interactive for lack of a better word. It seems like there should be some flow of information, not merely a static component (and I include bending mechanical stuff as "static" for sake of argument).
In your case, I absolutely agree with the lens -- that's sensors and the like, which sounds more like cyborg to me.
Like anything, there's a continuum of things, with some things being obviously "no" and some things obviously "yes" -- and a bunch of things in the middle which.
I just don't think by virtue of having something implanted, you're a cyborg. As someone pointed out elsewhere in this thread, some guy who had an RFID under his skin wasn't a cyborg since it wasn't hooked up to anything and didn't do anything other than respond to external stimuli -- at that point, it's like the tag cattle have in their ears.
Likewise, for the artificial knee, I really don't know where that falls on that range. Is it a prosthetic, a replacement for a worn out part, or are you a cyborg?
Of course, I'm sure this gets very meta and doesn't really have an easily arrived-at answer.:-P Though, you're probably more of a cyborg than most of us ever will be, so, you've got that going for 'ya.
Treason is *VERY* far away. Constitutional amendment far.
Let's hope so -- but, as I said, the government is already their enforcement arm, and their entrenching into treaty that every other government will do as well.
The "scope creep" of what is commercial and what is government is a little disturbing.
That's damned funny. Though, some of the suggestions around "Bite.me" the parking page suggests are a little disturbing (AnimalBite.me).
Of course, I had to look to see what TLD.me was, and found this humorous bit:
The dot-ME top level domain replaced the dot-YU (Yugoslavia) domain previously used by Serbia and Montenegro. In addition to declaring.me independent of.yu.
I'm sure someone thought long and hard to come up with that bit of wit.:-P
Slashdot Mirror
And, it's important to note that I'm not disagreeing with you per se ... I'm merely advocating for a different position than you. You make some good points, I just don't think it's a binary issue. I think it's far more complex -- categorical statements in most endeavors (I will refrain from saying "all" ;-) aren't really helpful.
This is a general issue I see -- the technology has moved along and become widespread faster than the general knowledge of it. So, it becomes a societal issue to try to sort out some of these details. Much like governments don't always do a good job of legislating on technical issues.
On the one hand, we hand these things out like candy and make it "easy" to use. On the other hand, people don't necessarily understand what it is or the ramifications of not using it "safely". Which is why you have an entire generation who isn't aware of the stuff they shouldn't be putting on-line or don't see any problems with posting naked pictures of themselves when they're teenagers.
People in tech rant and drool and say that consumers should be forced to understand what they're using. I point out that if you let anybody use these things, then someone needs to ponder what happens to the people who just innocently use these things an have no idea.
The elitist "l3t the n00bs get pwn3d" point of view doesn't actually help anything, and it forgets that much of the people using these things need to be educated, protected, or both.
As a general policy, I try to see as many sides of the same issue as I can ... it avoids developing tunnel vision.
I merely make a counter-point to that argument that if the owner hasn't made steps to secure it, you get to use the resource with impunity. A point for discussion, not an absolutely final statement. I tend not to believe in black and white situations, and exploring the gray is often more interesting.
Sometimes, things which are fairly cut and dry in the "real world" get somewhat muddy when you add "with a computer". Some of these things tend to be a little more nuanced than most people's immediate reaction of "you haven't stopped me, so you've given me permission". In this case, I'm not convinced that failure to secure it is open permission. There are reasons why courts sometimes struggle to properly apply case law to these things -- because the analogies to real world things get muddied, and you get new corner cases. Precisely because you can't always use the same reasoning in the same way.
Me, personally? I don't care at all -- except to make sure I'm not annoying my neighbors.
However, someone like the RIAA could (and I believe has) make the argument that my stereo then becomes a public performance and that they're owed royalties.
At which point, you standing on the sidewalk affects my legal situation, and I do care. Much like someone might care if, say, you were using their wifi as a shield to do something illegal like download kiddie porn or plan a terrorist attack.
I wouldn't want to see someone's grandmother charged because she didn't know enough to prevent someone from using her wireless for illegal purposes. All she wanted to do was log into her laptop to see pictures of her grandchild.
Generally, I fall on the side of saying that if you don't have explicit permission, you're treading on unlawfully accessing someone's computer system. If you do anything illegal, you've gone ever further into unsupportable activity. If you "borrow" a couple of gigs of bandwidth and cost them money, you're in full on theft of service the same as if you spliced their powerline.
My internet is charged and metered. If I go beyond a certain amount, I pay for it. So, it's not a flat-rate, infinite supply scenario. Until my ISP stops telling me that bandwidth is finite and metered, it remains so.
Now, my wifi is locked down, but I just don't think your argument about bandwidth holds water. I would argue for most people, their internet connection is far from being an un-metered, infinite service.
By trying not to allow myself an overly elastic definition of such things and constructing a narrow argument in which you could argue that it's not a problem.
It's unauthorized access to someone's network. You don't have explicit permission, and you're arguing that you either have implicit permission, or that no harm is being done -- I disagree with both.
Do I think people should learn to lock down their wifi? Absolutely. Do I think you should be able to use any wifi which isn't locked down? Absolutely not.
*laugh* For one, there is no "it was so easy I did it in my underpants" defense. Ease doesn't equate with right -- stealing candy from babies is trivial, for instance. ;-)
There's also a huge difference between inadvertently using the wrong wifi, and intentionally looking for unsecured wifi.
Sadly, wifi routers are so cheap and easy to get, that lots of people just fire it up, go through the setup wizard, and never think of it again.
For much of the consumer public, these things are treated like toasters. Turn 'em on and go. They just don't realize there's more to it. The availability of the tech has outstripped the knowledge of the people using it.
Right or wrong, these have become consumer devices used as black boxes -- the companies making them should make them a little more secure, and try to steer you into having some protections on it -- having them all have the same SSID and passwords is bad. Unfortunately, that would likely lead to more support issues for them as people call and say "teh wireless doesn't work" as people get lost in the instructions or lose their passwords.
So, if I have an electrical outlet outside of my house and I don't "secure it", should people be able to plug into my electricity with impunity? How about my garden hose? If I don't physically bar someone from parking in my driveway, that's OK? Is it OK to help yourself to my garden? How about siphoning the gas out of my car?
There's loads of things in the physical world that aren't necessarily secured, but that you don't have a reasonable expectation of being able to use.
I don't agree in any way that just because the wireless isn't 100% locked down that you should get a free pass to just use it. You know you're using a network that isn't yours -- just because you can connect to it doesn't mean you have carte blanch.
One more vector of information which can be correlated to you, spammed, sold, analyzed, or mined.
People won't know all of the ways this could be a bad idea until it's way too late -- same with most of Facebook and privacy. Give everything away and hope for the best, or don't use it at all ... and still hope for the best.
First off, I don't think we'll get control over this on our TVs. The networks aren't gonna let us delete their "bugs".
I'm actually more concerned over something like Running Man where you can't trust the news reports you see because someone selectively tweaked the image to hide/alter the bits they don't want you to see.
Now, of course, the technology isn't evil ... it will be humans doing that. But, you can imagine government run media stripping out protesters or burning cars to tell everybody that everything is just sunshine and bunnies.
See, I want a powered exoskeleton now, before I'm old and feeble ... so I can do whatever I damn well please.
On behalf of every quad I've ever known ... that's the funniest thing I've seen all week.
I've known some guys who would have been happy to have the high-school shuffle back. :-P
Given the primary demographics of Crown Vics (cops, cabs, and old people) it doesn't strike me as a vehicle with a big demand for after market goodies.
Hondas with coffee-can sized exhaust pipes, however, you can buy anything you want. :-P
Agreed, the lookdown view for GPS systems was a huge enhancement. I don't want want to be looking at a map while I'm driving. I want to see that my second left is where I need to go, or that the road curves ahead.
Trying to correlate a standard map view with my driving is not helpful. Being able to see at a glance the route from the perspective I see in the car, however, is a big help. Trying to figure out which way is North isn't something I need to be doing.
Cost. It's that simple.
That's why Cadillac has had a night-time HUD on their cars for, what, a decade now? Because at that price point, they can jam in a bit of extra tech.
The guy buying the Dodge Neon? Not so much.
The car is working as expected. Your wife seems to be the problem. ;-)
You need to keep both hands on the wheel, so, no.
Yeah, the built in ones are a joke -- I remember looking to replace the DVD (yes, DVD) in my wife's old car. It was a 2003 model, and to get a new DVD for the satnav would have been something like $800 or so. You could buy multiple portable devices for that. At that point, the portable ones had way more features than the built-in.
The placement is kind of strange. Putting it where the stereo is is too low. My window mounted one is only slightly lower than my rearview mirror and doesn't block the view of the road. I can check the nav systm without taking my eyes any further off the road than my mirror. I can also completely ignore it when I don't need it.
And, just think, soon everybody (if you believe Microsoft) is going to have a full-on touch screen entertainment system embedded in their dash. That should cause some fun. :-P
It's a matter of degrees, and how you do it.
My car has bluetooth in the stereo, so if I take a call in my car while I'm driving, the car is the cell phone and I can still drive with both hands. I've got a GPS nav attached to my window -- it's in the middle of my window, below the rear view, and not above the horizon of the hood. So, it's in my field of view when I need it, and something I can ignore when I don't.
I agree with you about distracted driving, but a HUD has the benefit of being superimposed in front of you, as opposed to being something you need to look away to see.
As someone with a 25 year driving record with no accidents, I actually like some of these things that allow me to keep my hands on the wheel and my eyes on the road. I don't make a practice of being on the phone while I'm driving, but with a single button I can answer an incoming call if I have to. For some kinds of trip, the GPS is something I wouldn't try to do without.
I still can't believe the number of people I see texting on blackberries while I'm driving. If both of your thumbs are on your blackberry, you are not operating that motor vehicle.
Yeah, because an MP3 suggesting you might be about to use deadly force won't suddenly back you into a corner when someone who is prepared to use deadly force actually does?
I know you're going for humor, but that just seems like a bit of a dangerous game.
So the citizens don't have a chance to say they don't agree with the law until things they are already doing become illegal?
Basically it's eroding any actual "fair use" that anybody ever had, and making it so that you more or less need the permission of media companies to use the internet or own a computer. If they don't like you, they'll take it away from you.
People don't actually want the provisions in this awful treaty, and it makes no sense whatsoever for every government in the world to be clerks for copyright holders. This really does subjugate personal/government interests to those of corporations.
Agreed 100% with this and all of your other points.
I've just developed a fairly cynical and cranky point of view that says they're doing far more illegal stuff than we know of, doing it every day, and essentially don't care since they can do it with impunity.
Sometimes, the dystopian present seems so damned depressing that it is hard to believe in those constitutional/legal freedoms anymore. :-P
And yet, some of us still don't care or know who she is.
I don't know about you, but top 40 charts, MTV, Grammy's, Eminem, and US TV show themes aren't my primary news sources. Some artists are almost impossible to avoid (even I know who Lady Gaga is, but that's only in the last 6 months or so), and some you may hear their stuff and still never know who the hell they are.
I'm by no means saying she's crappy (or anything less than the genius you seem to ascribe to her) -- I'm just saying you overestimate the likelihood that everybody knows who she is. It's not actually that difficult if you don't pay attention to these things. For good or ill, some of us have stayed largely indifferent to a lot of these things.
What about a glass eye? What about a dental appliance that is screwed into your jawbone? Would a steel plate in your head make you a cyborg?
I'm just trying to figure out the specifics of what makes you a cyborg here. Merely having something implanted vs strapped on can't be good enough. Anybody with pins or screws would be a cyborg, and I'm not convinced of that.
Part of me thinks the interface between you and the device needs to be more ... interactive for lack of a better word. It seems like there should be some flow of information, not merely a static component (and I include bending mechanical stuff as "static" for sake of argument).
In your case, I absolutely agree with the lens -- that's sensors and the like, which sounds more like cyborg to me.
Like anything, there's a continuum of things, with some things being obviously "no" and some things obviously "yes" -- and a bunch of things in the middle which.
I just don't think by virtue of having something implanted, you're a cyborg. As someone pointed out elsewhere in this thread, some guy who had an RFID under his skin wasn't a cyborg since it wasn't hooked up to anything and didn't do anything other than respond to external stimuli -- at that point, it's like the tag cattle have in their ears.
Likewise, for the artificial knee, I really don't know where that falls on that range. Is it a prosthetic, a replacement for a worn out part, or are you a cyborg?
Of course, I'm sure this gets very meta and doesn't really have an easily arrived-at answer. :-P Though, you're probably more of a cyborg than most of us ever will be, so, you've got that going for 'ya.
Let's hope so -- but, as I said, the government is already their enforcement arm, and their entrenching into treaty that every other government will do as well.
The "scope creep" of what is commercial and what is government is a little disturbing.
Wow. I may actually be feral and didn't realize it. :-P
Of course, I've studiously avoided any form of music radio for over a decade now. Some of us simply don't care about your pop icons.
(Now, I might have actually inadvertently heard her stuff and might even recognize it, but I got nothing on the name.)
That's damned funny. Though, some of the suggestions around "Bite.me" the parking page suggests are a little disturbing (AnimalBite.me).
Of course, I had to look to see what TLD .me was, and found this humorous bit:
I'm sure someone thought long and hard to come up with that bit of wit. :-P
Give it a couple of years, and the companies will have defined theft of IP to give to a foreign entity as treason.
They've already managed to make the government the enforcement arm for what should be civil proceedings. Treason isn't too far away.