On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 09:51:01PM +0100, Roger Hayter wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Martin Stone Davis > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >Roger Hayter wrote: > > > >>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > >>Some Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> > >>>--- Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 06:52:13PM -0700, Martin > >>>>Good point. The term is "on the balance of probabilities". That scares > >>>>me - I wonder what sort of probability courts would accept for civil > >>>>cases (if they even know what the word probability means, which is by no > >>>>means certain in english courts!). > >>> > >>> > >>>50% in a civil trial. If I can prove that you "more likely than > >>>not" stole 100USD from me in a > >>>civil trial you'll owe me 100USD. I may not be able to get you sent > >>>to jail, but I can get my > >>>money. > >>> > >>>Yeah that scares me too. > >>> > >> Would it not be better for deniability if splitfiles were routed and > >>cached under one meta key (with a suffix for part number)? Then, > >>whoever requested the split file would naturally go to the best node > >>for that key to get all the parts, and it would be commonplace for > >>any node en route to deal with all the parts. Perhaps this has some > >>disadvantages from the POV of distributing and storing files, but > >>would seem to help the plausible deniability side of things. > > > >I don't think that's necessary. Fish's and panamerica's "I was > >framed!" idea is a pretty great defense. Read those recent posts. > > > > > 1. If you are accused of pornography or terrorism offences[1] the jury > is going to be keen to convict you if at all possible. > > 2. "I bought it from a man in a pub" and "It fell off the back of a > lorry" are popular and plausible defences in UK: they are rarely > believed. > > 3. Unless you can show a) prevalence of framing behaviour on Freenet > or, b) you have enemies on Freenet, I don't think being framed is > enormously credible. If you have been caught with 2 or more files at > different times "framing" gets even less credible as a random act of > malice. > > [1] This could easily arise from browsing mis-labelled Freenet content, > but this is not necessarily a defence, certainly in UK>
I was under the impression that intent was needed, or something like that, from something I heard on the radio. Accidentally clicking on something on the net and immediately backtracking is okay. OTOH, that could just be what they can be bothered to investigate... > -- > Roger Hayter -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
