I gave you a link to the New York state penal code definition of criminal facilitation. Which spells out very clearly that one only needs a probable knowledge that his or her actions are allowing for a crime to occur.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c82/a25.html
Perhaps I have overlooked one of your emails, but I don't think you responded to my point that if the law was interpreted in the manner you are suggesting, then postal workers (who must know that there is a possibility that the mail they carry contains illegal material) would be liable.
Clearly this would be ridiculous, and so I suspect your interpretation must be incorrect.
Looking more closely at the case law you cite it isn't hard to see fundamental differences which would mean it doesn't apply here (which is good news for postal workers and Freenet node operators alike):
Florez knew the person that she was helping, and had specific reason to believe that he would use the account illegally, but she did it anyway. In contrast, neither a Freenet node operator nor a postman will typically have specific knowledge of the person to whom they are delivering a piece of information, and it is reasonable to assume that is most cases that person is doing nothing illegal.
In other words, for any given piece of mail or data, the Freenet node operator most certainly does not have probable knowledge that they are taking part in an illegal activity. You are trying to turn a collection of acts, a small number of which may assist someone to do something illegal, into a single act of criminal facilitation. This is clearly not the intent of the law and I would be amazed if you can provide any case law to the contrary.
Ian.
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
