On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 20:04:47 -0800 Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From Wired News, available online at:
> http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,40816,00.html
>
> Oh dear, looks like it is time once again to don my fireman's hat
> and
> quench the flames of misinformation and unquestioned self-publicity
> with
> the hose of facts and common sense. There are so many holes in
> this
> article, and the technology which it describes, that I scarcely know
> where
> to start - so I will start at the top.
YAY!!! My hero!! :)
>
> > Thanks to new software applications hitting the market, content
> > providers are now able to track users that share music, movie and
> > other media files across file-trading networks like Napster. Even
> > Freenet -? the fiercely protective network -- appears to be
> vulnerable
> > to the new programs.
>
> Just so it is clear, I have heard or read nothing about their
> technology
> which suggests that it is capable of compromising Freenet's aims of
> providing anonymity to the producers and consumers of
> information. Further, I have heard or read nothing that suggests
> they
> could effectively identify a significant number of Freenet node's,
> and
> even if they could, that there are any effective measures which
> could be
> taken.
>
So permanent nodes are safe from legal battles? I hope so. :)
> > One service, Copyright Agent, allows content owners to provide
> ISPs
> > with lists of files to remove and, in many cases, to have
> Internet
> > access to certain users cut off completely. The systems work by
> > automating the take down and removal policies in the Digital
> > Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, many of which have been too
> unwieldy
> > for service providers to monitor.
>
> In the case of Freenet, it would be impossible for an ISP to monitor
> what
> information was being communicated between Freenet nodes, and
> extremely
> difficult for ISPs to identify Freenet nodes at all. In the case
> of
> broadband connections such as cable, even if you can identify that
> a
> particular IP address is running a Freenet node, and even if the ISP
> can
> be persuaded to try to remove the user, there is no way for the ISP
> to tie
> the IP address to a given user over a cable local loop, and thus no
> way to
> deny them access.
Huh? Are you saying that cable users have rotating real IP addresses
with static virtual IP addresses? I don't understand. If someone is
able to identify the ISP of a permanent node, that means they at least
have most of the IP address recorded, if not the whole thing. My IP
address rotates every time I log in, because I'm on dial-up access, so
therefore I have only a transient node. :)
If cable users get their IP addresses from a DHCP, either much like, or
JUST like, I do then how do they manage to run a permanent node?
Wouldn't they be transient nodes too? Since they don't really have a
permanent IP address.
>
> Further, IANAL but AFAIK an ISP does not have liability for the
> bits
> communicated over their networks, so I don't see why ISPs would go
> to the
> trouble of installing this software *and* potentially annoying
> their
> users, *and* when the software is very unlikely to be effective
> anyway!
Of course they don't, but they are held responsible for web content and
such, right? So someone's web page could be shut down, but the freenet
nodes can't be?
>
> > "Unlike encryption and digital rights management solutions, you
> need
> > something to go out and make sure that any leaks out there are
> stopped
> > because those leaks mean you are losing revenue," said Tim Smith,
> > president of Copyright.net, the maker of Copyright Agent. "Our
> > software all developed around the DMCA. We've Web-enabled the
> DMCA."
>
> The DMCA is idiotic, and so any software which is based on it is
> also
> likely to be idiotic. This certainly seems to be the case here.
YAY!!! :)
>
> > According to the DMCA, Smith said ISPs are required to remove
> > materials from their system once copyright owners have identified
> the
> > infringing content.
>
> This cannot be achieved with Freenet since the process of checking
> to see
> whether content is on a machine will actually place the content on
> that
> machine regardless of whether it was there before, so it is *this
> software* which will cause the propagation of the infringing content
> - by
> their reasoning, therefore, it is their own software which should
> be
> banned. We call this the "I'm Sparticus" strategy.
Yep, it is a dillema. You cannot find content unless you cause the
content to be placed on the computer that your looking for the content
on. So if the content exists on Freenet you will litteraly be causeing
it to spread. Just like scratching an itch thereby spreading the
irritant to other parts of your body. :)
>
> > This gives the ISPs a manageable list of materials to remove from
> its
> > system.
>
> And how does an ISP do that? Hack into their users computers and
> start
> deleting files?
>
> > Its application tracks the MD5 checksum, which uniquely identifies
> the
> > original source of a song, allowing Emusic to track files that
> were
> > being made available.
>
> Ah yes, change one bit of the mp3 file and you get a different
> checksum
> rendering this mechanism worthless. That's *really* smart.
>
Or put the MP3 in an entirely different file, like useing UC2 to compress
the file then encrypt the file. The MD5 checksum would then be different
depending on the password used to encrypt the file, and also the fact
that the file is compressed makes it so the original checksum of the MP3
just isn't there to readily see. At least thats how I think it works. I
could be entirely wrong. :)
> > The system would also track the IP addresses of the infringing
> users,
> > which would enable Emusic to send a take-down notice directly to
> the
> > user's ISP if necessary.
>
> Yes, I can just see an Indian or Russian ISP quaking in their boots
> over
> violating a dumb American law on their own soil!
>
Hehehe. :) What if the Russian government decides to use Freenet to
transport stolen information from the US to Russia? Heheeh. :) Then I
would think that Freenet would have a safe haven. :)
> > But these new systems might be overstepping the bounds of the
> law.
>
> Not to mention the bounds of common sense.
It makes sense that they are overstepping the bounds of common sense,
they do it all the time when it comes to the internet and computers. :)
>
> > While helping ISPs track users who are committing copyright
> > infringement, attorney Fred von Lohmann said the new automated
> systems
> > might actually be putting ISPs at the mercy of content owners.
>
> Ah, a smidgen of common sense at last.... My faith in Brad is
> at-least
> partially restored.
YAY!!! :)
>
> > "I don't think that the user should be terminated just because
> they
> > might be trafficking infringing materials," von Lohmann said.
> "The
> > take-down policy only applies to links and Web pages. We don't
> want a
> > world where content owners can, just with an accusation,
> terminate
> > users' Internet access.
>
> Er, so it just applies to links and webpages - so how is this
> supposedly a
> threat to Freenet? ...yet another hole in the reasoning here.
Aha!! :) If it only applies to HTTP documents then how can it possibly
apply to Freenet which doesn't store it's content on any HTTP servers?
Oh, the Keylists and Keydirectories that still exist on HTTP systems
could be taken down by the law becuase THEY are putting up LINKS and
CONTENT that isn't Legal!! HA! Once Freenet has abandoned it's crutches
there will be no way to stop Freenet. :)
>
> > "If it's some teenager in New Jersey, it might not be the end of
> the
> > world to lose your connections, but imagine a person at home with
> a
> > DSL line, and their livelihood depends on it."
>
> ...and the livelihood of the ISPs depends on *not* cutting-off their
> own
> customers!
Yes, But, if they can be fined heavily for NOT cutting off their users,
enough that it makes it less expensive for them to just do it, then they
will go allong with it.
>
> > The system can even track users through Freenet, the brainchild of
> Ian
> > Clarke, which is supposed to provide total anonymity.
>
> Oh really? Let's look a bit closer...
Yes, I'm affraid of what we will see....
>
> > While Mediaenforcer President Travis Hill said the system can't
> track
> > everyone on Freenet, he claims it can track the last person to
> come in
> > contact with the information, which might be enough to slow down
> the
> > growth of the file-trading system.
>
> Er, so let me get this straight. He gets the IP address of a
> Freenet
> node, and requests the information from that node, this process
> *may*
> result in the information being cached on that node BECAUSE of his
> request! He then thinks that he has legitimate cause to blame that
> user
> for the content being there, even though it wouldn't be there had he
> not
> requested it. I would love to see him in court trying to explain
> that
> one... :-)
HAHA!! Yes, this would make an excelent Judge Judy case. :) Or People's
Court with her Husband Judge Jerry. :)
>
> > "People claim if you don't know the original provider on Freenet,
> you
> > can't do anything," Hill said. "When all these people are running
> > Freenet, we connect to each one of them, throw in a query and if
> a
> > particular node responds to that key, we consider that IP address
> to
> > be infringing.
>
> 1) *You* might consider it to be infringing - but who cares given
> that it
> is only infringing as a result of your actions?
Yep!!! HAAHAHAHA!!
>
> 2) Even if the ISP cares (and as pointed out in the article, it is
> very
> unlikely that they would want to get involved), in the case of a
> Cable
> user there is no way to reliably match the IP address to a user
> so that
> they can be disconnected.
I still don't get that one, but whatever. If the IP address is assigned
by the DHCP server when the computer boots, just like on a Dial-up every
time it dials up, then how can they run a permanent node without a
permanent IP address? I don't get it. If you can run a permanent node
without a permanent IP address then why must I have a transient node?
>
> > "Then you can go to the ISP and hand them that IP address. The
> > disadvantage to being anonymous is that the only way to stop the
> > infringement, if you're an end user, is to stop using Freenet."
>
> Nope, the only way is for Travis to stop requesting the content
> from
> Freenet!
Yea, since it isn't the END USERS who's IP addresses are being captured,
only the addresses of the ISPs who have permanent nodes running on them.
So there, nya!! :)
>
> > Clarke agreed that certain users could be tracked today, but wrote
> in
> > an e-mail that ultimately these tracking systems will fall short.
> > "Freenet's primary concern is hiding the identity of information
> > producers and consumers, not so much the nodes themselves,"
> Clarke
> > wrote. "However, Freenet traffic cannot really be distinguished
> from
> > other encrypted traffic on a network ?- not reliably anyway -- and
> we
> > will shortly be introducing changes to make it even more
> difficult.
>
> I also pointed out at great length that not only will this software
> "fall
> short", but that it is the mother of all dumb ideas for the reasons
> I have
> outlined.
Then why didn't they say that? Oh I know, because they are casting YOU
and Freenet as the enemy and therefore are trying to make you and
everyone else here look like evil idiots. :)
>
> > He also pointed out that the upgrades to Freenet and other
> open-source
> > file-trading networks could outpace the policing technology.
>
> Er, Freenet (along with some other technologies) outpaced this kind
> of
> technology before it left the drawing board...
>
I sure hope so. :)
>
> > "The whole issue is that if you are making available something
> that is
> > infringing, you lose all rights to privacy," Hill said.
>
> Brad - how can you let him get away with this unquestioned?! By
> this
> reasoning you lose all rights to privacy just by being on the
> Internet
> since you could be contributing towards "making something
> available".
I don't get this one, but Ok. :)
>
> Sorry to kill the fun, but it really irritates me when people's
> rampant
> self-publicity is indulged in an otherwise reputable publication.
>
> Ian
I agree, and YAY!!! You are my Hero Ian Clarke. :)
So, I can insert copyrighted material without fear of the law comming
down an anyone? I hope so. :)
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
_______________________________________________
Freenet-chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-chat
