Okay I still have “buts”: - aggression would still not be legitimate, as the aggressor would be punished non the less (regardless if he finds eve fence or not - information (here the evidence) is not scare? and thus no property. - if the evidence would be uploaded to the internet, third parties would have gotten the information without aggression, and it could then be used legally Also it feels wrong, but I now feelings are not objectively. But it’s basically saying, the truth does not exist legally.

@Max I think this logic breaks with Kinsellas IP. Example: A breaks into B’s garage and discovers stolen bicycles. A calls C to inform them about the bicycles. A: clearly violates property rights C: however not, he just received information (IP), which he can then use as e wishes. That means C can use it as evidence or clue. Or would you still disagree here? :) View quoted note →