Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)
On 2004-08-04T19:27:56+0200, Martin Scheffler wrote: Kendy Kutzner wrote: On 2004-08-04T14:50:52+0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote: Traffic analysis might help me figure who made a request and who served it, but I still have to break encryption before I can figure which file that request concerned. That is not entirely true. The files are encrypted with keys based on the file's content. When the file content is known, then routing keys can be computed. No, this description is inaccurate! When you know the _exact_ file contents, you don't need freenet. And besides, the very same text or data with just one bit changed is a new key, this means you are only able to scan for well-known data. No doubt in that. When I'm talking about file content, of course I mean _exact_ file content. And why Alice, Bob and Carol don't need Freenet when Eve also can browse the freesites? The SHA1 hash from the original and unencrypted data is used as encryption key. The data is encrypted with that (You can not get back the encryption key without decrypting first). Then, some other data is added for routing and checking, and the SHA1 hash of the whole piece makes up the routing key, this is what you see while proxying and caching the key data. So where is the inaccuracy in 'when the [exact] file content is known, then routing keys can be computed'? What I wanted to say: Eve also can spider Freenet and can know a lot of content _exactly_. Therefore it can compromise intermediate hosts and do much easier traffic analysis. Kendy -- pgpnvzH5rx5vd.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)
Matthew Findley wrote: Let me see if I can get caught up on whats gone on since I left work. Oh, you were posting on your employer's time? I personally believe in the presumed innocent until proven guilty, so rather than assuming you guilty of misusing your work time for private activities, I'll presume that posting here is part of your work. That would also explain the FUD without holding you personally accountable for it. Yeah, this presumption of innocence thingy is just great, isn't it? Of course you may correct me if I'm wrong, but you do have the right to remain silent ;) First I should probably clear this up. I am not a lawyer. I work at the U.S. Attoreny's Office yes; but, only as a clerk. So nothing I say is legal advice, the postion of the DOJ, to be considered an offical interpretation of the laws, ect Still, I asked you several times for a pointer to law or precedent that would support your view and you fail to provide it. You could ask a colleague who is a lawyer, perhaps? Someone asked if attempting to block KP would eliminate intent. This question would be up to the jury. While you would probably need 100% blocking to win in a civial trial. This would be much more likely to satisfy a criminal jury. Civil lawsuit for kiddie porn? And who is materially entitled to sue, pray? The abused child(ren) depicted in the porn, sure, and hardly anyone else at all. I kinda fail to see where such a lawsuit would come from. Someone else pointed out that ISPs are not officaly common carriers. This is of course correct. But the hybrid nature of what they do gives them a sort of grey status. So while no responsable for what goes on across their networks in general. They are responsable if a problem is brought to their attention and they fail to act. I was the one to point that out and I insist that ISPs are not being held responsible for questionable content even if it is brought to their attention and they refuse to act, except in certain DMCA situations. That person also used the example of an employ abuseing a company computer. In that case the company isn't criminaly responsable beacuse they didn't know what the employ was useing the computer for. You can not be held responsable for something you fail to forsee and prevent. If you run a company with anything more than three employees, you can be sure that sooner or later someone will do something illegal on the net. If you run a company with hundreds of employees, you can be sure that someone does something illegal on the net every day. Common sense says so. Due diligence is easy: all you have to do is install a proxy and add some automated monitoring of employee activities. Many companies do that for their own sake. It's not perfect, but it's cheap, it's easy, and it's in the company's own interests. With your view on passive facilitation and willful blindness, every company that doesn't implement at least some kind of elementary protection can be held criminally accountable for employees' actions. Yet we haven't seen a lawsuit like that to this day. How come? Is the DoJ too busy posting on mailing lists to prosecute some companies, or has Our Beloved Leader issued a decree ordering his campaign contributors to be left alone? Quote 'IANAL (BIKAF), but I would expect that for ignorance to be willful it can't be a side-effect of a goal, it must be a goal in itself. There are plenty of reasons why someone might want to use Freenet other than obtaining illegal content.' That is very true. Other wise we could hold people responsable for virus on their computer. You can not arrest someone for what they didn't know and thus couldn't see. But you can for something they did know but chose to ignore. You know that your node is transmitting bad stuff and its doing so by your choice to activate it, ignoreing it simply beacuse you can't see it is not a defense. Nobody can escape the deluge of warnings - on the net, from the newspapers, at work, in society at large - which say that if you run an unprotected and unpatched machine it *will* get infected. Connecting a Win98 box to the net and not even having a virus scanner is, according to your own reasoning, willful blindness. Yet you say that a person doing that won't be arrested, but anybody running freenet would and should be. I have to admit that I can't follow your reasoning. The question is: is it your reasoning that's inconsistent or is the law inconsistent? If it's the latter, wouldn't you be all for making it consistent and jailing people who connect vulnerable computers to the net? Let me put it this way. When you all fire up your nodes you know there is a very strong likelyhood that it will end up houseing and transmiting illegal material, correct? We don't all fire up our nodes. This is not a conspiracy, if that's what you're getting to. When *I* fire up *my* node, I know that some illegal content *might* pass through it; not that it will. However, I do not fire
[freenet-support] (no subject)
On 5 Aug 2004 04:42:44 [EMAIL PROTECTED]| (Matthew Findley) writes | Let me see if I can get caught up on whats gone on since I left work. | First I should probably clear this up. I am not a lawyer. I work at the | U.S. Attoreny's Office yes; but, only as a clerk. So nothing I say is | legal advice, the postion of the DOJ, to be considered an offical | interpretation of the laws, ect In other words, you were reprimanded at work for stirring up shit from an @usdoj.gov email address and now it's time to interject the disclaimers. If you weren't yet, you will be. I've been in a similar position, though not quite exactly the same, I made the same mistake, using a uniform email address in a civilian conversation, and I've felt the heat for it. On the one hand, I sympathize with you. Why would Anonymous issue an apology? Because even Anonymous can and perhaps will be identified via linguistic analysis, though I've done my best to pervert this message in such a manner that it cannot be connected with its author. On the other hand, I must assert that whomever initiated or will initiate the stink, it didn't start or won't start with me. Although, believe me, I have considered it since your first post to this list from an official address, and long before the current thread was borne. You go on to state | Let me put it this way. When you all fire up your nodes you know there | is a very strong likelyhood that it will end up houseing and transmiting | illegal material, correct? I would ask Who is 'you all'? and I would posit that the response is not 'correct.' (I would also insert a 'you people' and 'H Perot' reference, but that would be controversial and too demonstrable of knowledge of U.S. politics, no?) Freenet is comprised of a wide variety of users. Many of those users whom have been and continue to remain early adopters of Freenet are those same people what were and continue to be early adopters of other emerging technologies. They're in it for the tech, they're in it for the ideals, they're in it to support the ability of oppressed citizenries (I must wonder if that now applies to you in the States?) to have the continued freedom to express their ideas. And for fuck's sakes, some of them are just in it for the challenge of programming something new in Java. More to a point, there are Freenet node operators what have no idea that they may end up storing or transmitting illicit material. There are Freenet node operators what have been convinced by acquaintances to try out a new software program, one which is at the bleeding edge of networking, one which hopes to offer anonymity to its users, and what have installed Freenet to this very end. There are Freenet node operators what run a node but don't make any use of its existance. There are Freenet node operators what run a node simply because they have a machine with a nice linkup and a friend what asked a favor of them. You made a statement | The fact is that everyone knows there lots of illegal stuff floating | around freenet, and one can simply not avoid responsibility for a | crime by deliberately ignoring what is obvious. Although I'm not under your jurisdiction, I live in a country what seems to have a keen and cooperative eye on what the States consider to be the latest incarnation of Truth and Justice. As such this statement makes my skin crawl on its end. Even more so that it was made from an official of the Department of U.S. Justice. You are saying that a resident of a disadvantaged community has no defense that a drugs deal was committed in his yard, because he knows what there are drugs dealers floating around his community, and thus he can't avoid responsibility for the crime by ignoring the obvious. You're saying that, by ignoring the obvious, the bystander has committed a crime. Would this not incriminate everyone what lives in a disadvantaged community? Drat, forgot, the States has imprisoned a higher percentage of its population than any other country around. Your messages Mr. Findley make me worried, but not for Freenet. Your messages make me worried for the internet at large and for what the United States intends to bring upon it. ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] FIX: Freenet thrashing the disk
woah, that's weird. afaicr, default==192 Since 5088 my Windows XP has been thrashing the disk like nothing I'd ever seen before. Memory load was high (440 Mb virtual on a 192 MB physical machine) but not extremely unusual. According to Task Manager Java and Freenet weren't taking large amountas of memory. I put it down to being associated with general network issues. But with 5089 it was still a problem. My computer was virtually unusable and I don't think my node was performign well. I wasn't getting any error messages about out of memory (although periodically Windows would advise that my Virtual memory was too low and increase it). The node was working, but like the whole computer was very slow, and the disk was going all the time. THE SOLUTION: In the file flaunch.ini (located in \program files\freenet ) I changed the line JavaMem=default to become: JavaMem=192 Rebooted and restarted Freenet and now my node is working the best I've ever seen and the disk thrashing has stopped. I don't know if 192 is a good choice. I don't know why default became bad - too many node references? Crassoing some threshold? I did increase by datastore size a week earlier...or was it the BigInteger(?) optimisations introduced in 5088? I'm posting this in case anyone else finds it useful, and also so that if someone has a chance to think about what default means in flaunch.ini it sure wasn't a good choice for me. ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)
Paul wrote: What country does respect freedoms? The US is getting to the point where emgrating becomes a serious consideration for me. I lived in Greece during the 1967-1974 dictatorship. Later I've lived in England, in Germany, in Sweden and the Netherlands. Of all these countries, Greece is the one whose laws afforded its citizens the least freedom. A bloody dictatorship is what it was back then, complete with torture by police and military and exile on uninhabited islands for dissidents, even though the conditions on those islands were far better than those in Guantánamo today. Yet, the total inefficiency and incompetence of the state at that time allowed for quite a lot of informal freedom. Basically, as long as you were a bit discreet and didn't advertise what would get you in trouble, you were fine most of the time. There was no freedom of press whatsoever, yet the press learned to write very clear text between the lines and the citizen learned to read that text. Rumors spread faster than forest fires in the summer and were, most of the time, accurate and detailed. Despite efforts of the government to block access to foreign news, its interference transmitters were an utter failure and the Greek could listen to BBC, the voice of America, radio Moscow or radio Peking according to his preferences on the standard AM radio that could be found in every home. Hell, you were supposed to be badly beaten and go to jail for singing songs of the communist resistence, yet people kept gathering and singing them all over the place in sheer defiance even though there weren't even communists. Comparing that situation to these days, technology has not only brought new possibilities, but also new problems. While the internet has made possible a tremendous flow of information in both directions, not only to the citizen but also from him, it has also made monitoring him so much easier. TV and FM radio are so commonplace that hardly anyone has a long/medium/short wave AM receiver any more; these could be outlawed tomorrow and nobody but the usual suspects would protest. The eagerness of governments to know everything and to control everything has been constantly increasing in pace with their ability to do so and under every kind of pretext. Before Our Beloved Leader's war on terrorism, Our Great Leader's war on drugs was the patent pretext for total control. Tomorrow it will be something else, but I don't see the trend changing any soon. All in all, if you're looking for more freedom through relocation, I'd say don't bother looking for a country with good laws. Look for a country with an impoverished and unstable government instead, and try to pick one that is not next on the list to be liberated. The one thing you really don't want is to find yourself in the same situation as the German Jew who emigrated to France in 1935 to avoid persecution, only to find himself in a cattle wagon headed back to Germany in 1942. If you're American, Paraguay and thereabouts could be a good choice. Z -- Framtiden är som en babianröv, färggrann och full av skit. Arne Anka ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Re: FIX: Freenet thrashing the disk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: woah, that's weird. afaicr, default==192 I thought it was 128... Since 5088 my Windows XP has been thrashing the disk like nothing I'd ever seen before. Memory load was high (440 Mb virtual on a 192 MB physical machine) but not extremely unusual. According to Task Manager Java and Freenet weren't taking large amountas of memory. I put it down to being associated with general network issues. But with 5089 it was still a problem. My computer was virtually unusable and I don't think my node was performign well. I wasn't getting any error messages about out of memory (although periodically Windows would advise that my Virtual memory was too low and increase it). The node was working, but like the whole computer was very slow, and the disk was going all the time. THE SOLUTION: In the file flaunch.ini (located in \program files\freenet ) I changed the line JavaMem=default to become: JavaMem=192 Rebooted and restarted Freenet and now my node is working the best I've ever seen and the disk thrashing has stopped. I don't know if 192 is a good choice. I don't know why default became bad - too many node references? Crassoing some threshold? I did increase by datastore size a week earlier...or was it the BigInteger(?) optimisations introduced in 5088? I'm posting this in case anyone else finds it useful, and also so that if someone has a chance to think about what default means in flaunch.ini it sure wasn't a good choice for me. ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)
On 5 Aug 2004, at 04:42, Matthew Findley wrote: Let me put it this way. When you all fire up your nodes you know there is a very strong likelyhood that it will end up houseing and transmiting illegal material, correct? So you know your computer will be doing something illegal and yet choose to do it anyway simply because you can not see it. That is willful blindness and is not a defense that will stand up in court. If that was true then the postal system would be in trouble, since I am sure most people within the USPS acknowledge that illegal materials (such as child pornography) are probably transmitted through the postal system, yet they do not open every letter and every package to prevent this from occurring, nor are they expected to. Ian. ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Question about the bunny app
Is it possible to add additional commandline parameters to the flaunch.ini that is used by the bunny app to start freenet. So I can for ex. add the server switch for java to it instead of starting freenet via a batch file? It's nothing important, just something that might be usefull. ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] 5088 - New Build 5089 Doesn't Show On FProxy Main Page
Since the 5089 announcement, I've been checking the FProxy main page for an indication that 5089 is available, but it doesn't show that it is available. I have been able to upgrade to 5089, but I'm concerned that there are nodes out there that won't know that it's time to upgrade. How is the FProxy main page made aware up a new version? ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Re: Node not finishing start up under W2k
Hessi James schrieb: Hey there, I just updated to 5089. However, the node does not finish starting up. Go to: http://www.freenetproject.org/snapshots and get a new seednodes.ref If you still have trouble starting the node with it use an editor and cut the ref down in its size (this is because the big file takes an insane amount of memory to process). ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [freenet-support] (no subject)
Ignorance is not a defense and nor should it be. If it was it would be almost impossible to arrest anyone. All you would need to do is have someone ask you to do it beforehand. Someone asks you to hold their box of drugs. Oh but you didn't know what was in the box it must be a big mistake. Someone asks you to help him into his locked house. Oh but you didn't know that it wasn't his house. Someone asks you to hide him from the cops. I guess it's alright because you didn't know he committed a crime. If you allow people to hide behind the fact that they simply didn't know with 100% certainty that what they were doing was a crime no one would ever be guilty. It's called personal responsibility, if your doing something it's up to you to ensure its legal. Someone that has drug deals happen in his yard does have a defense. He didn't let them. If he had said 'Sure come on in and use my yard to deal drugs' (like when you run a freenet node) then he would be guilty. Ignoring an obvious crime is not a crime, you can watch someone get shot and killed if you wanted. Ignoring your obvious crime however is quite punishable. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 5:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [freenet-support] (no subject) Importance: Low On 5 Aug 2004 04:42:44 [EMAIL PROTECTED]| (Matthew Findley) writes | Let me see if I can get caught up on whats gone on since I left work. | First I should probably clear this up. I am not a lawyer. I work at the | U.S. Attoreny's Office yes; but, only as a clerk. So nothing I say is | legal advice, the postion of the DOJ, to be considered an offical | interpretation of the laws, ect In other words, you were reprimanded at work for stirring up shit from an @usdoj.gov email address and now it's time to interject the disclaimers. If you weren't yet, you will be. I've been in a similar position, though not quite exactly the same, I made the same mistake, using a uniform email address in a civilian conversation, and I've felt the heat for it. On the one hand, I sympathize with you. Why would Anonymous issue an apology? Because even Anonymous can and perhaps will be identified via linguistic analysis, though I've done my best to pervert this message in such a manner that it cannot be connected with its author. On the other hand, I must assert that whomever initiated or will initiate the stink, it didn't start or won't start with me. Although, believe me, I have considered it since your first post to this list from an official address, and long before the current thread was borne. You go on to state | Let me put it this way. When you all fire up your nodes you know there | is a very strong likelyhood that it will end up houseing and transmiting | illegal material, correct? I would ask Who is 'you all'? and I would posit that the response is not 'correct.' (I would also insert a 'you people' and 'H Perot' reference, but that would be controversial and too demonstrable of knowledge of U.S. politics, no?) Freenet is comprised of a wide variety of users. Many of those users whom have been and continue to remain early adopters of Freenet are those same people what were and continue to be early adopters of other emerging technologies. They're in it for the tech, they're in it for the ideals, they're in it to support the ability of oppressed citizenries (I must wonder if that now applies to you in the States?) to have the continued freedom to express their ideas. And for fuck's sakes, some of them are just in it for the challenge of programming something new in Java. More to a point, there are Freenet node operators what have no idea that they may end up storing or transmitting illicit material. There are Freenet node operators what have been convinced by acquaintances to try out a new software program, one which is at the bleeding edge of networking, one which hopes to offer anonymity to its users, and what have installed Freenet to this very end. There are Freenet node operators what run a node but don't make any use of its existance. There are Freenet node operators what run a node simply because they have a machine with a nice linkup and a friend what asked a favor of them. You made a statement | The fact is that everyone knows there lots of illegal stuff floating | around freenet, and one can simply not avoid responsibility for a | crime by deliberately ignoring what is obvious. Although I'm not under your jurisdiction, I live in a country what seems to have a keen and cooperative eye on what the States consider to be the latest incarnation of Truth and Justice. As such this statement makes my skin crawl on its end. Even more so that it was made from an official of the Department of U.S. Justice. You are saying that a resident of a disadvantaged community has no defense that a drugs deal was committed in his yard, because he
RE: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)
The USPS is a business (well not technically... but it's close enough to call it that for now) that's purpose is to deliver mail. It can not be held accountable if someone uses it's service illegally with out its knowledge. You as an individual are accountable if you do something illegal; especially so if you had reason to believe you were doing something illegal in the first place. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 7:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT) Importance: Low On 5 Aug 2004, at 04:42, Matthew Findley wrote: Let me put it this way. When you all fire up your nodes you know there is a very strong likelyhood that it will end up houseing and transmiting illegal material, correct? So you know your computer will be doing something illegal and yet choose to do it anyway simply because you can not see it. That is willful blindness and is not a defense that will stand up in court. If that was true then the postal system would be in trouble, since I am sure most people within the USPS acknowledge that illegal materials (such as child pornography) are probably transmitted through the postal system, yet they do not open every letter and every package to prevent this from occurring, nor are they expected to. Ian. ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 09:20:24 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you run a freenet node you know it's doing something illegal No. I've already explained this to you. Short memory? Do you get paid to post FUD? ___/ _/ -- http://troed.se - controversial views or common sense? ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)
Can we continue this on chat? I would bounce all the messages there but I don't know a quick way to bounce a message and reset the reply-to. On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 12:25:05PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The USPS is a business (well not technically... but it's close enough to call it that for now) that's purpose is to deliver mail. It can not be held accountable if someone uses it's service illegally with out its knowledge. You as an individual are accountable if you do something illegal; especially so if you had reason to believe you were doing something illegal in the first place. I am a business, called Amphibian Computer Services. At least for tax purposes. -- 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 ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)
And as I explained one does not need 100% certain knowledge of a crime to fit the legal requirement of knowing. It only needs to be proven that you had a good reason to suspect that it is so. The very fact that we're having this conversation or the fact that it's in the FAQ on the site is more then enough to prove you had knowledge that a crime is taking place. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 12:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT) Importance: Low On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 09:20:24 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you run a freenet node you know it's doing something illegal No. I've already explained this to you. Short memory? Do you get paid to post FUD? ___/ _/ -- http://troed.se - controversial views or common sense? ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)
Ok. As for your business. I'm not totally sure how it works, businesses really aren't my thing, but as long as you stated that you'd be running freenet as part of your business and they rubber stamped it you should be ok. As for everyone else though Here's something that may help illustrate my point better. Its the definition of criminal facilitation. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c82/a25.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 2:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT) Importance: Low Can we continue this on chat? I would bounce all the messages there but I don't know a quick way to bounce a message and reset the reply-to. On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 12:25:05PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The USPS is a business (well not technically... but it's close enough to call it that for now) that's purpose is to deliver mail. It can not be held accountable if someone uses it's service illegally with out its knowledge. You as an individual are accountable if you do something illegal; especially so if you had reason to believe you were doing something illegal in the first place. I am a business, called Amphibian Computer Services. At least for tax purposes. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 14:24:35 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And as I explained one does not need 100% certain knowledge of a crime to fit the legal requirement of knowing. It only needs to be proven that you had a good reason to suspect that it is so. The very fact that we're having this conversation or the fact that it's in the FAQ on the site is more then enough to prove you had knowledge that a crime is taking place. You're seemingly incapable of logic reasoning, but I'll try this once again: *) See world. *) See world outside USA. *) See world outside USA lots lots bigger. *) See people don't care about USA. Comprende? You're free to mail me privately and ask for additional legal help. ___/ _/ -- http://troed.se - controversial views or common sense? ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] What is the recommended MaxDirectMemorySize
What is the recommended MaxDirectMemorySize for fred with 150 connections? Don't tell me 256MB or something like this, I really don't think it must be that high. ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] What is the recommended MaxDirectMemorySize
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 11:10:26PM +0200, Someone wrote: What is the recommended MaxDirectMemorySize for fred with 150 connections? Don't tell me 256MB or something like this, I really don't think it must be that high. The recommended size is however big the main memory setting is. -- 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 ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Mr Matthew Findley You made certain claims on this list regarding the possible penal consequences of running a freenet node. I challenged you to provide law and/or precedent references to support your claims. You failed to do so. In fact, you silently ignored this challenge. I also challenged you to explain the fact that you yourself run a freenet node, in view of the facts that you (a) consider it illegal to do so and (b) post from a US department of justice address. You chose to silently ignore this challenge too. Based on your own claims regarding the legality of operating a freenet node and your disclaimer regarding the relation of the contents of your postings on this list to your employment, you are, according to yourself, either a liar or a criminal. Your period of grace with me is coming to an end. Unless you provide this list with an adequate - at my discretion - explanation of these discrepancies in your arguments, I will cause a formal complaint against you to be filed with the US department of justice for running a freenet node and thereby knowingly distributing illegal material. What all this boils down to is that, following a formal complaint, the US department of justice will only have two options: to prosecute you or to not prosecute you. If it fails to prosecute you, it will be setting a precedent very useful to freenet. If it does prosecute you, all freenet operators will be able to benefit from your defence in the case, no matter whether you finally get convicted or acquitted. The way I see it, both alternatives are good for freenet. You and your employer are just about to become tools for the promotion of freenet's goals. The lack of honesty and integrity on the part of both yourself and your employer is no hindrance to this. Taking all this into account, I would suggest that you talk with your boss and decide on a strategy. You can create some rather impressive FUD by going to prison, or you can drop the FUD and acknowledge that the operation of freenet nodes is not illegal. It's your call. I will wait 18 hours from the time stamp of this mail and then act. Sincerely, ZP ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] (no subject)
I'd think the sixth admendment (protection from unreasionable search and seizure) helps people get away with crimes all the time. Should we ditch that too? ~Paul On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:55:58 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ignorance is not a defense and nor should it be. If it was it would be almost impossible to arrest anyone. All you would need to do is have someone ask you to do it beforehand. Someone asks you to hold their box of drugs. Oh but you didn't know what was in the box it must be a big mistake. Someone asks you to help him into his locked house. Oh but you didn't know that it wasn't his house. Someone asks you to hide him from the cops. I guess it's alright because you didn't know he committed a crime. If you allow people to hide behind the fact that they simply didn't know with 100% certainty that what they were doing was a crime no one would ever be guilty. It's called personal responsibility, if your doing something it's up to you to ensure its legal. Someone that has drug deals happen in his yard does have a defense. He didn't let them. If he had said 'Sure come on in and use my yard to deal drugs' (like when you run a freenet node) then he would be guilty. Ignoring an obvious crime is not a crime, you can watch someone get shot and killed if you wanted. Ignoring your obvious crime however is quite punishable. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 5:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [freenet-support] (no subject) Importance: Low On 5 Aug 2004 04:42:44 [EMAIL PROTECTED]| (Matthew Findley) writes | Let me see if I can get caught up on whats gone on since I left work. | First I should probably clear this up. I am not a lawyer. I work at the | U.S. Attoreny's Office yes; but, only as a clerk. So nothing I say is | legal advice, the postion of the DOJ, to be considered an offical | interpretation of the laws, ect In other words, you were reprimanded at work for stirring up shit from an @usdoj.gov email address and now it's time to interject the disclaimers. If you weren't yet, you will be. I've been in a similar position, though not quite exactly the same, I made the same mistake, using a uniform email address in a civilian conversation, and I've felt the heat for it. On the one hand, I sympathize with you. Why would Anonymous issue an apology? Because even Anonymous can and perhaps will be identified via linguistic analysis, though I've done my best to pervert this message in such a manner that it cannot be connected with its author. On the other hand, I must assert that whomever initiated or will initiate the stink, it didn't start or won't start with me. Although, believe me, I have considered it since your first post to this list from an official address, and long before the current thread was borne. You go on to state | Let me put it this way. When you all fire up your nodes you know there | is a very strong likelyhood that it will end up houseing and transmiting | illegal material, correct? I would ask Who is 'you all'? and I would posit that the response is not 'correct.' (I would also insert a 'you people' and 'H Perot' reference, but that would be controversial and too demonstrable of knowledge of U.S. politics, no?) Freenet is comprised of a wide variety of users. Many of those users whom have been and continue to remain early adopters of Freenet are those same people what were and continue to be early adopters of other emerging technologies. They're in it for the tech, they're in it for the ideals, they're in it to support the ability of oppressed citizenries (I must wonder if that now applies to you in the States?) to have the continued freedom to express their ideas. And for fuck's sakes, some of them are just in it for the challenge of programming something new in Java. More to a point, there are Freenet node operators what have no idea that they may end up storing or transmitting illicit material. There are Freenet node operators what have been convinced by acquaintances to try out a new software program, one which is at the bleeding edge of networking, one which hopes to offer anonymity to its users, and what have installed Freenet to this very end. There are Freenet node operators what run a node but don't make any use of its existance. There are Freenet node operators what run a node simply because they have a machine with a nice linkup and a friend what asked a favor of them. You made a statement | The fact is that everyone knows there lots of illegal stuff floating | around freenet, and one can simply not avoid responsibility for a | crime by deliberately ignoring what is obvious. Although I'm not under your jurisdiction, I live in a country what seems to have a keen and cooperative eye on what the States
