Incorrect. The bona fide purchaser for value without notice rule is applicable here. If the purchaser buys an item for non-trivial value (ie something that could be considered a real price) and does not have actual or constructive notice of a third party's title (which is to say that they did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know about the third party's ownership) then they acquire good title and the original owner cannot enforce their property rights against the purchaser. The original owner is stuck with having to sue the thief for the value of the item.

Of course if you buy a PS3 from some guy in a pub with no proof that they own it, then you have constructive notice that someone else might own it. If, on the other hand, you buy an book from a reputable book retailer, you are entitled to rely on the retailer's implicit claim that they own what they are selling you. You can not reasonably be expected to check whether Amazon actually had the rights to sell 1984 so you acquire good title.

Of course in this case copyright law is also applicable and may allow authorities to seize infringing copies but the parent posters points were purely on the issue of property law and the parent is incorrect.

Standard disclaimer. I do have a law degree but I am not a lawyer.

How you finance the purchase of the car from the dealer also has nothing to do with ownership of the car. If you borrow from a bank, finance company, or merely agree to pay the dealer over time, the lender gets a collateral interest in the car, but that is not ownership.

This is a side issue to the original somewhat bizarre assertions by the grandparent but it's not true to say that a secured loan has nothing to do with ownership. The lender's colateral interest in the car is actually a property right and does go directly to the question of ownership. Depending on how the loan is set up, the individual may have legal title to the car with the lender having an equitable property right entitling them to posession in certain circumstances. Alternatively, the situation may be as in a mortgage. In that case the lender has the legal title and the debtor owns an equitable right to exclusive possession of the property and the right, in the event of reposession, to the surplus value of the property at sale after the debt is paid. The details of who owns what rights are a bit below the radar for most people since they don't typically directly affect the practicalities of their loan (they get the car, they make the payments and everyone is happy). You do hear it in general conversation about mortgages: people will talk about their equity and, of couse, there is the situation of "negative equity". The key point is that in a secured loan, both the lender and the debtor have a property (which is to say ownership) right in the colateral.

There are several "provably secure" computer systems. As in you can demonstrate they fulfil certain mathematical constraints and those constraints are absolute. Then you have to write the code and prove the code, then you have to hope the prover is correct and the hardwareis correct. Nothing is 100%.

As to the randomisation stuff - yes I've got examples, and we've hit the same thing in Linux with randomisation. You get cases where memory scribbles cause a problem only if the layout happens to be a specific variant (especially with stack randomisation). From "either it dies or it works" you get "1 in 10,000 times xyz app blows up". That does make debugging much much harder. Of course a good reply to that is "so improve the debugging tools".