On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 07:23:42PM -0400, Todd Wallace wrote:
> >> I would hate to be the poor fool who has an example made of him for
> >> some Senate hearing.
> >
> > Better get rid of your TV set too.
>
> No, I think the Senate hearings would portray it differently:
>
> "So, you mean to say, you set up the computer, you connected it to the
> Internet, you put software on it that allowed anyone to save files to a
> distributed file system?"
>
> "Yes."
>
> "So, you admit you host a machine that contains child pornography? Case
> closed."
As a community, I would encourage us to stop engaging in this sort of
paranoid fantasizing about evil big brother and instead actually study
and understand the law.
For example, there are a lot of points in the DMCA that would protect
node operators in the US, provided that they comply with orders to block
certain files.
As for content that is illegal for reasons other than copyright violation,
I don't think the legal case is anywhere near as cut and dry as the FUD*
mongers on these lists like to dramatize. The fact remains that you
cannot determine what is on your node or view the files on your node
without a list of keys to check one by one. It would be very hard to
make a case against you based on your failure to censor material you
couldn't possibly have had knowledge of. Once again we arrive at the
conclusion that you can protect yourself by complying with legal orders
to block illegal content.
(* FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt)
--
: it's time we took labor saving away from machines :
: and gave it back to the people... :
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
