DOH! I did it twice :P --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You did... ;) > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support/5068 > > The is a big difference in knowing it can happen, > and knowing it is happening. > The USPS knows it can happen, but doesn't know it > is. > In freenet you know not only that it can happen, but > you know it is happening (maybe not with 100% > certainty, but enough to convince a jury I would > suspect). This argument is so bogus it's not even funny. First, how can you argue that the probability that the USPS is being used for illegal activity is LOWER than the probability Freenet is being used for illegal activity? Has anthrax or bombs ever been sent over Freenet? Second, how can an individual be responsible for the ENTIRE FREENET NETWORK but the USPS is not responsible for its distribution system? At least the USPS has thousands of workers and millions of dollars and tons of equipment to check those packages! Is the individual somehow responsible for monitoring the whole Freenet network? I can't even check my own store because the design of Freenet prevents it. A design necessitated by the goals of Freenet to provide anonymity. > The reason you are held more accountable for your > actions is because you are an individual where as > the USPS is a huge organization. It's the USPS job > to deliver packages, where you are under no > obligation to run freenet. I see, somehow the USPS has more civil rights than an individual. OF course. Maybe it's time for the USA to change its name to the UCA (United Corporations of America). I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So basically you are arguing that using Freenet is a crime. Unless there is a specific law against Freenet, then this theoretical hand waving is meaningless. Crimes are specific acts which have to be substantiated with specific evidence in a court of law. Saying someone is guilty of something by helping someone is meaningless and no judge would let you get your foot in the courtroom with this steaming pile of accusations. > > quote - "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." > Actually you combined the acts. The design of > freenet is so successful that it makes it imposable > to tell the bad from the good. The intent of the > law is to stop someone from helping another person > commit a crime by simply not taking part in the > crime themselves. But in fact in freenet its > actually much worse because you are actively taking > part in it. > Its like this, a hard drive by itself is perfectly > legal. But the moment a KP picture is put on that > hard drive the whole thing is contraband since you > have combined the two in such a way as to make them > one. No matter what else is on the hard drive, even > if its the cure for cancer. > You can't hide behind the fact that most of your > deeds are good deeds, if you can't stop the bad > deeds you can't do any of it. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 10:35 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] > Showdown at the Freenode > Coral > Importance: Low > > > On 6 Aug 2004, at 14:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
