On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 10:13, Mark J Roberts wrote: > Edward J. Huff: > > [If freenet-tech were "post only by members", I would gladly > > I hope I'm not coming across as hostile. I'm not trying to make you > go away or dismiss your ideas, and if I have come across as such it > is the fault of my own stupidity.
No, I say this because if you look at the archives for the tech list, last month is 100% spam. This topic is more on charter for the tech list, but I suspect the people I want to talk to are on this list. Considering the spam, I doubt that anyone even looks at what comes across that list. But I didn't try posting there... > > > By linking many different documents to the same random numbers, I > > expose the contradiction in the law, because the law now needs to > > treat the _same_ number in several different ways. > > OK, but with my caveat that if one can identify which random number > first caused the illegal file to be published, the fact that other > people have since used it in their own formulas will probably not > deter anyone from censoring it. > So, if someone just encrypts the illegal document and posts that claiming it is good random numbers, but later reveals the key, people who have the "random" file for other purposes will want to get rid of it. That's fine. But remember, from the other files and the legal plaintext, one can regenerate the illegal document. Are they going to ban the plaintext too? Why not? On what basis can they exempt it? It gets absurd. But, if someone actually generates real random numbers (using physical methods, combined with some amount of arbitrary "stretching" since making lots of physical random numbers is hard) and posts that file, and also XOR's that file against the illegal file (and against a bunch of existing files), and posts the result (perhaps encrypted first), then each of the two new files (taken separately) is "really" random. So it becomes fairly clear that only the instructions for constructing the illegal document can be subject to ban. But given that the "random" files cannot be banned, the instructions for using them really need to be banned. The instructions are quite small. It's not going to be possible to really interdict the illegal document. It will only be possible to make it a little harder to find. > I'll concede that identifying that does not seem trivial. > > > Because he gets a bad reputation, and everyone starts ignoring him. > > Implementing this kind of thing is a challenge. Changing the copyright laws is an even bigger challenge. Doing it by asking your congressman to please fix it is impossible. The laws have to be widely seen as absurd, and enforcing them must be seen as a public-relations disaster. > > > You don't reveal the new formulas until after a delay so that it > > is likely that the new CHKs have been used in several new > > formulas. In fact, you don't reveal the _first_ formula for a > > given document until after there are many different formulas > > available. > > They may not care (my argument about jumping off cliffs.) Well, that's why we need a robust Freenet with a large amount of legal traffic, so that a lot of people will care. Also, I argue that Freenet must provide an interface to automatically accept DMCA notices demanding suppression of particular CHK's, or else it will be shut down once it becomes popular enough to warrant attention. This might also drive the child porn back under the woodwork. But, it's not really jumping off a cliff. Since not all of the formulas for the document are known, only the known files can be banned. The documents are still there. If they make running a Freenet node illegal, there will be a few hardy souls willing to go to court, and plenty of legal assistance available. -- Ed Huff _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
