--- Matthew Findley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This doesn't have anything to do with act being more > probable then the other. It has everything to do with how likely this supposed activity is, that was the whole point of your argument. Freenet is likely to be used to break the law, therefore running Freenet is a criminal act. You just gutted your own argument.
> You aren't responsable for the entire network; only > what your node is doing. > Just because you can't see what your node is doing > doesn't excues anything. YES IT DOES. What I CAN see is that it protects my anonymity and I am not using it for anything illegal. What I can't see is designed into Freenet. I'm ignorant about what my node is used for because I'm not a cryptography expert and I don't have a supercomputer. There is nothing willful about my ignorance. > Running freenet is not a civial libertiy. Totally, completely wrong. Utterly wrong. Using technology to protect you privacy is protected. Using any technology from envelopes to quantum cryptography would be protect because anonymity is the cornerstone of the first amendment! > > Laws are not made to outlaw specific ways of commint > a crime so there will never be a law that says > useing freenet is illegal. Laws are only written to > outlaw certin acts, like transmitting KP. This is getting silly. How many laws have been struck down because they are overly broad? You are arguing all acts are illegal unless they are protected by the constitution? This is completely opposite of the framers intent, read the 9th amendment! > > "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." > ... so wrong. > Helping someone commit a crime is very illegal, it > always has been and always will be. No kidding helping someone commit a crime is wrong. But you have to be specific. Helping a specific person commit specific crime demonstrated by specific evidence. Innuendo, rumor and bluster don't qualify as evidence or even here-say. > > Let me pose something to you. > Right now I'm telling you that there is > overwhelimingly strong likelyhood that running a > freenet node will help someone spread illegel > material. I don't believe you. You have no credibility with me sir as demonstrated by your apparent ignorance about how the law works. > Are you still going to run your node? Yes, because it has a lot of utility for me. A lot of dangerous things that have utility are permitted to be used, like guns, cars, fire ... bricks. Really this is getting asinine. If there is any danger posed by Freenet, it is the least of all these. > If you are then you are knowingly commiting a crime. No. You are not the LAW. Perhaps you see yourself as a real world Judge Dredd? > Why do you think you should be able to get away > with it? Get away with exercising my rights? Absolutely. I've come to the opinion you are a Troll and any mails from you in the future will head straight to my trashcan. Maybe if you post something remotely intelligent and reasonable I'll see it in a reply from someone else. I have my doubts. > > pineapple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > 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 > === message truncated ===> _______________________________________________ > chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
