"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 with "political activism" in mind and (ironically) to be able to peek in the inner-workings of software published by large companies. GPL licenses are "viral" in the sense that linking code against an open source code requires that linking code has to change its license to a GPL license. There are cases where developers that only create addons or additions and then link to the main open source project and in doing so are required to change their own license to the GPL license, which can be a deterrent to development in general.
• It is easy to license code as open source, it only requires a statement, but the legal process of enforcing developer rights is impossible in many cases. Software binaries are non-reversible such that the original code cannot even be obtained, making the burden of proof, to demonstrate that code was plagiarized, insurmountable for any developer that is a plaintiff in a court case. Open source licenses seem more suitable to large organizations rather than small 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. Open Source licenses do not cover patents such that it is trivial to just plagiarize a methodology without having to reuse code at all.
• Open-Source licensing is irrelevant to the end user and the fact that the source code is available is not an immediate benefit. The end user is oblivious to coding or compiling, or technology in general (by definition of an "end user"), such that even showing the code to the end-user would not make any practical difference because the end-user would not be able to make sense of the code. It is also a false assumption that end users prefer to spend time in order to compile the source of software themselves, instead of just using the software for its intents and purposes.
• 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 bugs and backdoors. It is a false equivalence fallacy; the fact that the source-code of software is publicly available does not immediately imply that the open source software cannot contain exploitable bugs or that the project itself cannot be socially engineered to introduce backdoors, just as much as closed-source code can be jerried, like a lock, in order to determine the weaknesses that the closed-source code contains in order to create exploits.
• Open Source is not a guarantee for quality. In many situations, contributors to open source software have various levels of expertise with coding and little to no quality control and assessment included in the development cycle of open source projects.
• Open Source code is 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 often require complex build systems that are hard to reproduce and compiling the software tends to be a very difficult task even if the project is open-source. 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.
• Open Source exchanges corporate monopoly for mob-monopoly. 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 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. It is known that Linus Torvalds is infallible.
• No warranties are provided and developers cannot be held accountable, which makes developers immune to any and all litigious cases (in fact, this point might be illegal in itself). 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 legally dangerous to run open source code. In the event of damages, the developers are blanket-protected by open source licenses with the result that the open source license can only work to the disadvantage of the user. Technically=speaking this can give rise to funny situations where, in case malware is licensed as open source, then the creator of the malware is immune via the license; the former leads to the necessity to enforce policy without a backing legal framework (ie: deleting projects on forums and developer platforms that create malware, where deleting the project implies the infringement of the rights of the developers of the malware and the deletion is legally unjustified).
• Open Source codes does not immediately guarantee 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 and pedantically violates the definition of an "end-user".
• Free as in guilt-tripping users. 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. he mechanism to keep a project open-source but then auction off parts of the development seems like a way to avoid hiring employees, even though for a large project, the marginal losses on auctioning off parts of the development via taxes, might just be on par with creating a boilerplate company and paying unitary taxes.
• Some Open Source licenses are vague and ambiguous. As an example, the single condition that the MIT license imposes is that software that uses MIT licensed code should retain the "text header", with the header typically containing the name of the developer, date and other mentions, within the file being imported. However, 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 preserved the source code header (comments are stripped out during compilation for most binary generators). 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? For contrast purposes, GPL code does require the user to disclosed the code and to mention the license of the imported code, which at least makes sense from the point of view of the demands that the GPL license makes.
• Open Source is a plea for free work. It is tough to ascertain what the motivation would be for a developer to create "free" Open Source software. It is not well-defined what reward a developer or a group should expect when taking it upon themselves to create non-commercial software, or to publish the source code, aside from perhaps being part of a trend or for 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. To some level, the development framework that has been built around open source software facilitates the creation of open-source software, but the framework itself is agnostic to the fact that the sofware is open-source and could just as well be repurposed for commercial purposes (ie: making a project public or private on a popular development tracker is a matter of authentication).
• Open Source represents the dissolution of authorship ("You shall own nothing and you shall code."). 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 unaccredited, 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 made clear and often even less accounted who exactly contributed to each project and, perhaps even, by how much. Open Source projects maintain the copyright to the initial authors whilst mentioning contributions as "and contributors" without any direct mention of who contributed and, in that sense, it even becomes questionable whether Open Source contributions can even be claimed by various authors that are not part of the original license holders. Sometimes the development platform itself is used as proof-of-authorship (ie: the GitHub profile), when that is counter-intuitive and the contributors should be credited in the project itself. Microsoft, for example, implements a mechanism where contributors waive their rights to Microsoft when contributing code, which, at least, makes sense from a declarative perspective and confers at least a certain level of verifiability and accountability to the IP transfer from contributors to the company.

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).