On 2005-10-26T08:21:08+0200, Stephan Neuhaus wrote:
> cyphrpunk wrote:
> > The main threat to
> > this illegal but widely practiced activity is legal action by
> > copyright holders against individual traders. The only effective
> > protection against these threats is the barrier that could be provided
> > by anonymity. An effective, anonymous file sharing network would see
> > rapid adoption and would be the number one driver for widespread use
> > of anonymity.
> If I thought I was being ripped off by anonymous file sharing, I'd try 
> to push legislation that would mandate registering beforehand any 
> download volume exceeding x per month.  Downloaded more than x per month 
> but not registered?  Then you'll have to lay open your traffic, 
> including encryption keys.
> The reasoning would be that most people won't have any legitimate 
> business downloading more than x per month.  By adjusting x, you can 
> make a strong case.  Once you get this enacted, you first get the ones 
> with huge download volumes; then you lower x and repeat until the number 
> of false positives gets too embarassing.

This legislation would also require mandatory reporting by ISPs of
subscribers' traffic patterns?

"Most people don't have any legitimate business writing for public
consumption on blogs."

"Most people don't have any legitimate business owning cars that can go
over 75MPH."

"Most people don't have any legitimate business for owning more
scary-looking black rifles."

If you tried to push this hypothetical legislation, you'd end up on some
cypherpunk's to-kill list.  Of course, those threats are all hot-air.
Has anyone who's life has been threatened on cypherpunks-l (since Jim
Bell) gotten so much as a scratch at the hands of a threatener?

This is not the grand arena.

Reply via email to