"Habeas corpus" or "[we command] that you should have the [detainee's] body [brought to court]"; The lawful obligation that a detainee could request that they be brought before a court of law in order to assess whether the custodian has the lawful right to hold the detainee in detention.

In Magna Carta:

• "No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land."
• "No legal officer shall start proceedings against anyone (not only freemen) on his own mere say-so, without reliable witnesses having been brought for the purpose."

Habeas corpus is a writ of right not a writ of course such that it provides only a procedural remedy going as far as the detainee being brought to court in order to assess whether the custodian has the authority to detain an individual.

Habeas corpus is remarkably a common law and not necessarily a constitutional law but could be seen in modern times as an antecedent of the human right to freedom and protection against illegal or unlawful detention. Nevertheless, the application or existence of Habeas corpus varies upon jurisdiction and does not necessarily apply to most jurisdictions where the charter of human rights would.

The Magna Carta is dated 1215 A.D.

One more popular phrase that is used more colloquially rather than "Habeas Corpus", is the "burden of proof" which is an expression of obligation towards a prosecutor that must provide sufficient evidence in order to sustain the accusations in a court of law.

Unfortunately, many people tend to ignore the direction in which the "burden of proof" goes and are under the mistaken impression that the accused is obliged to bring forth "proof of their innocence". However, under "Habeas Corpus", legally speaking the burden to provide proof, non-intuitively falls on the prosecution; that is, if you accuse someone of some illegal deeds, you are morally obliged to provide sustaining proof for your accusations whilst the accused has no legal obligation to defend themselves until the prosecutor brings sufficient sustaining evidence to the case.

In a recent media scandal, namely Andrew Tate vs. the Romanian government, a lot of the talk consists in implying that Tate is supposed to bring "evidence" for his proof, with people demanding "case files", yet it is ironic that the prosecution is the one that must bring these papers forth and as the events unfolded, Andrew Tate spent time in detention without any proof, nor witnesses, being found by the prosecution to accuse him.

Bizarrely, on the matter of laws not being quite derived from the Magna Carta, the Romanian constitution, Art. 23, paragraph (5) states that:

"În cursul urmăririi penale arestarea preventivă se poate dispune pentru cel mult 30 de zile şi se poate prelungi cu câte cel mult 30 de zile, fără ca durata totală să depăşească un termen rezonabil, şi nu mai mult de 180 de zile.", namely that you are able to detain someone for 180 days (three months) where there is "probable cause"

However, the Romanian constitution also states, Art. 23, paragraph (11): Până la rămânerea definitivă a hotărârii judecătoreşti de condamnare, persoana este considerată nevinovată., namely that until the court decides whether a person is guilty or not, the detainee is considered "not guilty"

From (5) and (11), it thereby logically follows that it is legal to detain people for 180 days on "probable cause" without having to bring forth any proof, and for that duration you are, as the words would directly imply, detaining someone considered "not guilty".

Interestingly, the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, expands on Article 9 of human rights, namely article 9.3 and 9.4, stating that, "It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.", which makes Romania's constitution not derived or connected in any way to the Magna Carta on the matter of "Habeas Corpus".

Even if the case seems flamboyant in the Tate vs. Romania case, the rights of the Magna Carta along with the lack of "proof" is also applicable to cases where public opinion has been more favorable, for instance in the case of Anakata (Gottfrid Svartholm) that was similarly involved in a fringe scandal, ending up in a false convictions based on criminal law that was not even in effect in Sweden at the time of his incarceration, thereby making the case look more like a "political score", rather than some objective legistic case where "proof" would have been brought to light in order to press charges against Anakata.

The following list is a collection of arguments against Open Source software in general:

• conceived as a slogan rather than a license; GPL licenses are "viral" such that linking against open source code implies that linking code has to change its license to a GPL license. There are cases where developers that only create addons or additions to a project are placed in the situation that they have to release their own code which can be a deterrent to the development of the project in general and to no great benefit to extending the user base,
• little to no legal protections provided for open source software; given that open source licenses are not the only software licenses available, there are little protections provided to open source developers given that commercial and closed source software might just as well use open source code without disclosing the fact that they do,
  • easy to declare and tough to implement; more on the former point, it is easy to license code as open source but the legal process of enforcing developer rights is next to impossible and more than often way beyond the reach of the common developer. In fact, open source licenses from a legal perspective seem more suitable to large organizations rather than small development groups because large organizations are more likely to be able to uphold their rights and follow up with legal procedures in case their license has been breached (if GPL-like licenses can even be commended for their legal benefit rather than their, say, "political activism"),
• irrelevant to the end user; for involved projects, it is highly unlikely that the end user and perhaps even the power user would draw benefits just from the fact that the source code is available. In most cases the end user is oblivious to coding or compiling, or technology in general, such that even showing the end user the source code would not make any practical difference. It is also similarly unlikely that every end user would prefer to spend time to compile the source themselves, for whatever reason, instead of just using the software for its intent, which seems to be a very actual design pattern where the programming crud is hidden from the user behind a slick interface,
• security ambivalence; whether the source code is closed or open, from a security perspective, open source code and closed source code are just as likely to contain exploitable bugs,
• not a guarantee for quality; the fact alone that software is open source does not guarantee a degree of quality. In fact, in many situations, contributors to open source software have various levels of expertise with coding and more than often there is very little quality control included in the development pipeline of open source projects,
• not a guarantee for continuity; in many situations, open source projects become abandoned just like closed source projects with very few projects actually being carried forward by the rest of the community. The more involved a project becomes, the less likely it is that people would have the required expertise and knowledge required to drive the project forward, let alone the incentive or ambition, once the initial developers either abandon or give up on a project,
• complex projects require complex build systems; it is sometimes the case that involved projects require a complicated build system to even manage to compile the project. Even though people might have the source code, it is not a guarantee that the community will be able to reproduce the build system in order to carry the development further,
• exchanging corporate monopolization for mob-monopolization; initially, one would think that the reason behind open source licenses was to "free" up code and make the development lifecycle accessible to a wider audience, however well-established open source projects often function on a mob basis where groups or cliques ("code of conduct") form around the software projects that tend to monopolize the direction, vision and the development of the project. Hierarchies establish themselves even in the absence of corporate control such that it becomes ambivalent whether a project is controlled by a few disparate group of developers or whether the project is controlled by a well-established (written) corporate hierarchy,
• no warranties; very unfriendly to the end user and to the sole benefit of the developer is the widely adopted clause in open source licenses that the developers cannot be held accountable. Similar to no guarantees of quality or security, open source licenses delegate all safety to the user's own liability such that just from a legistic perspective, it becomes by definition dangerous to run open source code. In the event of damages, the developers are blanket-protected by open source licenses such that the license can only work to the disadvantage of the user,
• plagiarism being tough to prove and tough to dispute; from a legal perspective, in order for a trial to be successful, the plaintiff must prove beyond a reason of a doubt that the code has been plagiarized and yet doing so can prove challenging given that there are ways of plagarizing code without being obvious. Similarly, open source licenses do not cover patents such that it is trivial to just plagiarize a methodology without having to reuse code at all,
• not a guarantee for privacy; large projects include telemetry as part of their open source releases and GPL on its own makes no statements on telemetry or data export. For most open-source projects bundling telemetry, the task to curate source code is delegated to the user; to prepare a build system, remove the telemetry and recompile the project (this would have to be done every single time there is a new software update to the package). The expectation that every user will review the code, remove any offending code and then recompile their software (ie: a browser) upon every single version bump is very steep and highly unrealistic when applied to a wide audience,
• free as in not free; many large scale projects have adopted a donation or bounty system where work to be carried out has to be followed by a donation or set up as a bounty. It is uncertain why it would not be easier to just create a company and sell a product instead of hiding behind a donation and bounty system,
• vague and ambiguous licenses; as an example, the single condition that the MIT license imposes is that software that leverages code from an MIT licensed code base should retain the header in every single source code file imported. Nevertheless, the MIT license does not additionally include the requirement for the source code to be disclosed such that it is impossible to check whether the developer using MIT licensed code has, in fact, preserved the source code header. And even if, in case the source code is not available or observable by the end user, what does it matter whether the developer kept the initial comments in the source code?
• a plea for free work; aside being part of a hype, it is uncertain, as in, not well-defined, what the motivation would be for a developer behind maintaining "free" software. It is unclear what reward a developer or a group should expect when taking it upon themselves to create non-commercial software aside from perhaps being part of a trend or exercising a hobby. More than often the vested efforts do not scale linearly, or dare it be said, better than linearly, with the rewards reaped from maintaining open source software. One could argue that at worst, it is a learning experience but then open source development is shifted to a hobbyist level and not really an avenue to be explored by an emerging company,
• the dissolution of authorship; even if source control systems track the users committing changes, there are other components to a project, such as perhaps bug reporting or translations that more than often either go uncredited, are forgotten or generally speaking dissolved by the project's lifecycle. For almost every single open source project out there, it is not immediately apparent, as it should be, to whom credits and respects should be paid to. Perhaps one can pull the commits and check the tags and usernames of the people committing changes, perhaps one can dive deep into a project's structure and search for the people that did translations or perhaps one can even go through every single bug report to account for the people that contributed to a project by extensively testing and reporting bugs but ultimately it is never apparent and often even less accounted who exactly contributed to each project and, perhaps even, by how much and how consistently.

Traced to Cicero as the most likely initial apparition in literature where the phrase appears as "Silent enim lēgēs inter arma" meaning that in times of war the law falls silent. Cicero is known for his critique of the Roman empire in its late stages where hefty corruption of the state lead to an ad-hoc method of governance within an empire that was ridden with gangs, partisans, generals that have gone rogue, many of whom were directly involved with the government.

Although outside the scope of Cicero's cynicism on the topic of the Roman empire, the phrase has been used in more recent history in relation to the suspension of the right of habeas corpus in the time of war. One notable occurrence when the citation has been used was back during Abraham Lincoln's presidency in the United States when Lincoln explicitly asked about the right to suspend the right to habeas corpus during the civil war. It was unanimously agreed upon that the amendments to the bill of rights are in truth just provisions during time of peace and that the amendments can be suspended in times of war when the safety of the people becomes the supreme.

In a broader sense, out of the scope of war, "inter arma enim silent legis" could also describe the behavior of certain corrupt states that leverage states of national emergency in order to bypass the laws, in particular, the constitution, in effect during time of peace. Even though corrupt countries might proceed with such measures it is important to remember that the quote originated from Cicero that was more or less describing in his works an empire in a state of decline such that the phrase shrouded in cynicism represents in context one of the worst stereotypical behaviours of a state.

• Negative rights pertain to non-interference and are generally called liberties (the right to purchase a given good, does not entail an entitlement to be given that good for free yet it means that nobody is allowed to interfere with the right of an individual to purchase a given good),
  • negative rights have the benefits of not conflicting with each other since they hinge on non-intervention,
• Positive rights are entitlements, they create duties on others to act or provide.
  • positive rights hence are able to conflict with negative rights
    • for instance, contractual relationships resolve the issue of a positive right conflicting with a negative right via the means of consent,

If a society is to be considered free and equal then any positive rights can only be consensual.

In general terms, the phrase "the constitution is not a suicide pact" refers broadly to the idea that the law is not designed to be applied competitively but rather for mediation in order to obtain balance between parties (bare-bones, an accuser and the accused). The phrase is attributed to Abraham Lincoln as a response to charges that he suspended "habeas corpus" during the American civil war.

In principle, police gaslighting operations or, more generally, hustling individuals in order to provoke them into breaking the law can be considered as prime examples of the phrase "the constitution is not a suicide pact", and by extension, "the law is not a suicide pact", due to the fact that it is not a guarantee that the same individual would have acted the same way or performed the same deeds were they not harassed. By consequence, the phrase "the law is not a suicide pact" would imply that, in such cases, the law could not possibly be legally binding without consideration for the former.

Ex post facto is used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Typically, this is not the case for modern states and it is universally acceptable that the past cannot be changed, such that deeds committed in the past that are criminalized in the future cannot be prosecuted.

In a theological encoding, following Christian terminology that is spelled out in the commandments, "thou shalt not steal", stealing is one of the pedestals of crime that also, unlike other commandments, seems to hold ethical value due to the act of stealing being demonstrably unethical. In order to demonstrate that stealing is unethical, summarily, the act of stealing involves gain at the loss of the other. Worded differently, when one person steals some good or goods, another person loses the said good or goods.

Contrary to stealing, deduplication, such as data-deduplication differs from stealing in that there are no losses to account for and hence, under the premise that the deduplication of data follows in a context restrained enough to not include matters such as secrecy, privacy or other similar contextual restrictions, data-deduplication cannot be covered by ethics or can be said to be neutral to ethics.

One counter-argument offered that would re-insert "loss" into matters of deduplication are predicted gains. In other words, on political grounds, some companies have tried to normalize that while deduplication does not directly incur losses, in case the perpetrator had no chance of deduplication, then it would have been predictable that the perpetrator would have bought the data instead of incurring a loss through deduplication. Nevertheless, it is trivially false to believe that predicted outcomes are guaranteed outcomes. The act of predicting, by definition implies a guess, even under certain probabilistic margins, that some event might, and it is worth to stress, might come true, yet it is still speculative, given that the possibility of the same predicted event not happening is not only true, but also part of the definition of a prediction. Logically speaking, given some predicted or projected gain, the realization of the gains is true as much as the non-realization of the predicted gains is also at the same time true, even if under different weighting, where in practice either one or the other is true and the other is false.

Given the shortsightedness of theology, or the inability of high order law to predict sophisticated societal advancements, the legistic perspectives of data seem governed by politics, rather than law, due to the problems governing the laws of data not being founded nor described by ethics and are rather demonstrably morally neutral. Whilst law deals in concrete terms of leverage, the law does not carry within the mathematical sophistication of data. Just like it is not sinful to pirate data, under a restrictive context, given that data deduplication is not equivalent to stealing, it is also not an evasion of taxes to to accept gifts even if they be materialized as micro-transactions, both of the matters escaping the rule of ethics and being morally neutral, the former by terms of definition and the latter in terms of quantity.

During the 90s, one of the proposals of the Russian parliament, the Duma, had been to collect an additional tax alongside an Internet subscription, as money that could be used to pay off companies complaining about software piracy. Since data deduplication is ethically neutral, the incentive came across as a payment of ransom, yet as a moral solution to an unethical situation, the proposal had been ulteriorly dismissed and the tax was not implemented.

It is worthwhile to bear in mind that just the existence of high velocity communication, has implicitly and indirectly shaped the landscape of problems that historical pedantic solution cannot cover anymore. At times, the inability of historics to be able to apply the same solutions has been a deliberate sought after goal by the technology, such as the goals of parallel markets established by digital currencies, or at times in deliberately, due to technological developments that introduced organic conundrums that cannot be approached in a traditional fashion. The fast paced developments from the 20th to the 21st century introduced such schisms of a perceptibly Malthusian aspect that can overall be seen as organic, and even if some subset of technologies have deliberately sought destabilization of the status quo, the me destabilization could not have been carried out were the technology not present to offer the opportunity.

Lex Talionis is a retributive justice principle dating to ancient Mesopotmaia where it is stipulated via the saying "an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth" wanting to achieve a symmetric retribution as punishment for the person found guilty for an illegal act.

On boarder lines Lex Talionis can be shown to be a fallacy by following a proof symmetric to the categorical imperative simply by hinging on the fact that "all men are made equal", as per Rousseau refers to men being equal within the legal framework but not equal in terms of likes or dislikes.

Lex Talionis could be re-written as "a punishment [should] produce an amount of suffering in the criminal which is equal to the amount suffered by the victim", yet even by abstracting away the "teeth" and the "eyes" to a more general term such as "suffering", the problem of symmetrical still is not solved due to the subjectivity of the term "suffering" when applied to the likes and dislikes of individuals.

Nevertheless, Lex Talionis, perhaps even unwittingly expresses the concept of proportionality in justice where severe crimes entail severe punishments and trivial crimes entail trivial punishments, following the disproportionality between "tooth" and "eye" within the expression, implying a scale of gravity of offenses, even if they do not have to be a scale of punishments in order to not fall into the categorical imperative trap as per Immanuel Kant.

Given the former, the saying "tooth for tooth, eye for an eye" might just as well be answered by "violence begets violence" lifted from the arrest of Jesus Christ from the Bible, Matthew 26:52, citing, "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" that might hinge on the fact that due to errors in judgment a spiral might be erected where the circle of symmetric retribution (in terms of magic, an engine) will end up escalating the violence further.

Compensatory justice, contrary to Lex Talionis, as per Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism, seeks to rather restore an individual to their initial state on the Pareto curve as well as subsuming the illegal act. Modernly, in compensatory justice, sufficient money or currency, as a means to everything, is granted to the victim in order to allow them to restore their initial state on the utilitarian curve. In exchange, the society buys the liability of the crime from the victim, and then uses that liability to punish the perpetrator via whatever means are established by the law.

The phrase related to the ancient Roman law stating that when something is unowned or abandoned whomever finds the item first can claim it as its rightful owner unless the real owner makes a claim. Finders, keepers is mainly pertinent to British law due to various jurisdictions and legislation dealing with the matter differently, often not arriving at a consensus.

In international maritime law, "finders, keepers" apply to shipwrecks where the owner has not made a claim after a defined amount of time such that others that discover the shipwreck can claim the contents and mount a salvage operation.

"finders, keepers" also constitutes the basis of the US Homestead Act as part of the expansion and colonization of America such that people were able to claim land as long as it had been previously unowned (Terra nullius, nobody's land).