The is a big difference in knowing it can happen, and knowing it is happening.
I don't think you can be any more or less certain that it is happening with Freenet than with the USPS. I think it is a virtual certainty that a given postman will deliver something illegal in the course of their career, this may or may not also be true of someone operating a Freenet node.
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).
You don't know with any certainty, for any given piece of information, that it is happening, all you know is that *something* illegal may pass through your node in the course of your running it, but the exact same is true of a postman delivering mail.
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.
A postman is under no obligation to work for the USPS. It is the USPS job to deliver information without reading it, the exact same is true of Freenet. You still haven't demonstrated that under your interpretation of the law a postman wouldn't be just as culpable as a Freenet node operator.
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.
You are dodging the question, in order for you to apply criminal facilitation law to Freenet you must stretch it to apply it to a collection of acts where there is a small likelihood that one of those acts helps someone do something illegal.
The law was not intended to be applied in this manner, on the contrary, it is clear that in most sane legal traditions (and even though some on this mailing list might disagree, I am including the US here ;) the provision of a service or product to the public which happens to be used by someone in the course of breaking the law does not make the service or product provider a criminal, even when, as is the case with any large service or product provider, it is virtually certain that the service or product will be used by a criminal at some point. This is what protects Kinkos, Smith & Wesson, Verizon, and many others from criminal liability.
Ian.
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
