OK...
The only thing I'd like to add here is that I read somewhere--I forget
where or when, it might even have been in a former bout of this very same,
tired conversation thread, but I'm too lazy to search for it--that lots of
people seem to feel that the Internet is an anonymous place and sho
In a message dated: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:01:11 EST
Travis Roy said:
>If I see a phone number for somebody posted in a town hall, public library,
>the corner store, and somebody asks me for that persons number I'm going to
>give it to them without even thinking about it. If I see it at work, I migh
In a message dated: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:04:41 +0900
Derek Martin said:
>It is not unreasonable for people to believe you mean to violate the
>law, based on what you've said. It is very likely that the paranoid
>(i.e. the RIAA's watchdogs) will make such assumptions. It won't
>matter much if you
In a message dated: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:04:41 +0900
Derek Martin said:
>Note also that I said "basically" -- perhaps my choice of words was
>sub-optimal, but I included this word to suggest the possibility that
>this is not actually what you intend to do. Nevertheless, what you
>actually said wa
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:29:20PM -0500, Travis Roy wrote:
>
> >Derek's assertion is that there needs to be mechanism behind one's
> >ability to protect privacy. In Derek's mind Travis' actions prove this.
Now, as in the past...
> >In my mind, the mechanism doesn't exist yet - and probably won'
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, at 12:51pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I sounds like you've bought into the notion promulgated by the popular
> media that because copyrights are automatically granted, that doing
> anything without obtaining and paying for permission is a crime.
Speaking for myself:
I ce
Tom Buskey wrote:
Bruce Dawson said recently:
Can we take this thread off-line? No one else appears to be
contributing.
Amen Brother!
It's hard because Derek's email was unknown or invalid
Now that was funny...
But besides that, Derek brings up the privacy of his email address in
wh
Not that this has a lot to do with this innane thread, but this might
not be true in a relatively short while. For more information, look
here:
http://wired.com/news/business/0,1367,62500,00.html
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5021
I'm sure that there are plenty of *other* pl
> Bruce Dawson said recently:
>>>Can we take this thread off-line? No one else appears to be
> contributing.
>
> Amen Brother!
>
It's hard because Derek's email was unknown or invalid
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http:/
Travis Roy writes:
> I have that information in my head and
> can give it out to anybody I please. I've never heard of anybody
> getting sued for giving out a phone number that's listed, or giving
> out a street address.
Not that this has a lot to do with this innane thread, but this might
not be
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 14:34, Derek Martin wrote:
> Actually it wasn't. Or at least not all of it. So what? It should
> be up to ME, not YOU, when and where I decide to give up my privacy.
And it is/was up to YOU. Until you put the data on the Internet. That
is when you gave up your privacy as
GNHLUG Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)
--
_
Scott Mellott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scott.mellott.com
_
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMA
ussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)
>
>
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 14:34, Derek Martin wrote:
> My point is, I and only I should be in charge of what of my private
> information is given to whom and when. Seeing my address posted on
Derek's assertion is that there needs to be mechanism behind one's
ability to protect privacy. In Derek's mind Travis' actions prove this.
In my mind, the mechanism doesn't exist yet - and probably won't because
our society has rendered the spam problem as a "policy fix".
The only way for this to
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 14:34, Derek Martin wrote:
> My point is, I and only I should be in charge of what of my private
> information is given to whom and when. Seeing my address posted on an
> on-call list does not give you the right to give it to your neighbor,
> or anyone else. Or at least it s
Actually it wasn't. Or at least not all of it. So what? It should
be up to ME, not YOU, when and where I decide to give up my privacy.
It doesn't matter if the information was ever right or ever public;
the point is I asked you not to do it, with reason, which I've
explained before. You did it
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 02:16:32PM -0500, Travis Roy wrote:
> >And yet it failed miserably to do so. I don't live at that address,
> >and mail to any of those e-mail addresses will not reach me (with
> >certain important exceptions, which I will not detail here).
>
> At one point that data was co
This is a "check and balance" that the internet community (ISPs and
backbones, mostly) agreed to at the inception of the internet - back
when it was split from the Arpanet.
This "check and balance" is a violation of domain owners' privacy,
which should not be possible without just cause, i.e. a
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:51:38PM -0500, Greg Rundlett wrote:
> >explicit - adj. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
> >
> You're right, I was not explicit. My statement was actually 'simple'.
> That simple statement carries a lot of implied meanings for most people,
> but I
However, I think that the posting of the whois information was not only
unnecessary, but completely inappropriate to the discussion.
I believe the point was to demonstrate that the personal privacy Derek
keeps asserting is being violated is already non-existent, by his own
actions, and completely
However, since you had no way to know that, but you DO know quite well
that I do not want my e-mail address posted in a public forum and did
it anwyay, I conclude that you have no regard for your fellow man.
Spammers have been using whois data since forever to get email address.
I'm POSITIVE that
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:04:00PM -0500, Bruce Dawson wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 11:01, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
> > However, I think that the posting of the whois information was not only
> > unnecessary, but completely inappropriate to the discussion.
>
> And *I* think it was entirely app
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:36:53AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > However, I think that the posting of the whois information was not only
> > unnecessary, but completely inappropriate to the discussion.
>
> I believe the point was to demonstrate that the personal privacy Derek
> keeps asser
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:19:24AM -0500, Travis Roy wrote:
> If that is true, perhaps you shouldn't have your webpage address in
> your sig:
If you send me e-mail to any of the addresses listed in my domain
registration record, I assure you they will not reach me.
However, since you had no way
Travis Roy wrote:
How do you know that? Perhaps he wants to share legal content but
doesn't want everybody and their brother knowing his IP address, name,
and location. Bands like Guster allow sharing of their music if it's a
live show that they taped. You can get tons of their shows on
arch
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:01:23AM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
> I have stayed out of this until now, as I don't really care all that
> much about the public or private status of the GNHLUG list. I actually
> thought that it was a closed list to keep RMS from posting rants about
> how it shoul
Derek Martin wrote:
My intention is explicitly stated and legal
I beg to differ on that.
explicit - adj. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
You're right, I was not explicit. My statement was actually 'simple'.
That simple statement carries a l
However, I think that the posting of the whois information was not only
unnecessary, but completely inappropriate to the discussion.
And *I* think it was entirely appropriate given the context of the
discussion. Whois information is publically available - just like your
voting information, prope
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, at 12:04am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, my first question...Is a Linksys Router doing 'firewall' duty and NAT
easy to get past?
Absolutely. But not through the vectors you think.
Those SOHO routers are pretty simple.
Then why bother with the anonymity? If your sharing with your friends,
then simply set up a password protected area! If the RIAA somehow
charges you for that then I would think you could sue them for hacking
your systems.
Perhaps because he wants to share legal content with more then just
the p
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 11:01, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
> However, I think that the posting of the whois information was not only
> unnecessary, but completely inappropriate to the discussion.
And *I* think it was entirely appropriate given the context of the
discussion. Whois information is publi
Bill Mullen wrote:
I have no experience with other P2P apps than BitTorrent (and no interest
in them, really), but I can tell you that to get the most out of BT, you
need to tell your router to forward ports 6881 through 6889 inclusive to
the internal machine running BT. You also need t
On 12 Mar 2004, at 11:01am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have stayed out of this until now, as I don't really care all that much
> about the public or private status of the GNHLUG list.
If the majority of our membership wanted to come up with some kind of
entrance requirement, I would facilitate
Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 07:19, Travis Roy wrote:
Then I suggest you look at the archives of some mailing list software
mailing lists... The idea is often brought up there, for the very
same reasons I brought them up here (originally). Personally, I find
the notion that I
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 07:19, Travis Roy wrote:
> > Then I suggest you look at the archives of some mailing list software
> > mailing lists... The idea is often brought up there, for the very
> > same reasons I brought them up here (originally). Personally, I find
> > the notion that I should be r
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, at 2:01pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:40:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > You're the only person I have ever met who thinks a publicly archived,
> > publicly accessible, open-to-anyone-who-subscribes mailing list has any
> > expectation of p
Then I suggest you look at the archives of some mailing list software
mailing lists... The idea is often brought up there, for the very
same reasons I brought them up here (originally). Personally, I find
the notion that I should be required to provide personally identifying
information to the wh
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:40:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You're the only person I have ever met who thinks a publicly archived,
> publicly accessible, open-to-anyone-who-subscribes mailing list has any
> expectation of privacy.
Then I suggest you look at the archives of some mailin
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, at 11:59am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I agree that the nature of this specific list is much more public than
> private, but I will maintain that the requirement to sign up in order to
> participate makes it a closed, i.e. semi-private, list.
You can maintain whatever you wa
Derek Martin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 01:01:48PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, at 1:04am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(and this is a wholely public forum).
I disagree there, also.
Derek: *GET OVER THIS*.
Thank you, but no.
I agree that the nature of this specif
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 01:01:48PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, at 1:04am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> (and this is a wholely public forum).
> >
> > I disagree there, also.
>
> Derek: *GET OVER THIS*.
Thank you, but no.
I agree that the nature of this specific
Mark J. Dulcey said:
>
> At least two Linux companies, Red Hat and Lindows, have been using
> BitTorrent to distribute recent versions of their products. Red Hat offered
> RH9 by BitTorrent, and BT is the primary means of distribution of Fedora
> Core.
>
Slackware is now also on the BitTorrent
bmcculley said:
>
> I haven't kept up with the current status of this field, but I
> remember when there was an outfit named Zero Knowledge Systems
> establishing something called "Freedom Net" to anonymize net
> access.
The last I knew (per news at The L0pht BBS and HNN, both now morphed into
A
Derek Martin said:
>
> And again, even if you actually don't intend to share files illegally, few
> would believe you...
>
Actually, I found the intial post to be exactly as the Subject suggests, "p2p,
anonymity and security.
My background is in medicine, law, and politic
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Greater NH Linux User Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: p2p, anonymity and security
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, at 12:04am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > So, m
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, at 12:37pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How do you know that? Perhaps he wants to share legal content but doesn't
> want everybody and their brother knowing his IP address, name, and
> location.
If you encountered someone standing in front a bank, carrying a set of
safe-crac
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, at 12:04am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So, my first question...Is a Linksys Router doing 'firewall' duty and NAT
> easy to get past?
Absolutely. But not through the vectors you think.
Those SOHO routers are pretty simple. They do stateful tracking of TCP
and UDP, and bl
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, at 1:04am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> (and this is a wholely public forum).
>
> I disagree there, also.
Derek: *GET OVER THIS*.
This is a public forum. Always has been, by intent and in practice.
Anyone who wants to can join. Anywho who wants to can read. Anyone
Derek Martin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:04:57AM -0500, Greg Rundlett wrote:
I also want to get a general purpose p2p tool similar to Napster, for
sharing ogg, mp3 or other multimedia files. The number one prerequisite
here is which tool/protocol offers the best anonymity.
I feel obliga
You confused me a bit with this wording. I think you meant to say that
you agree there are thousands of legitimate uses for this technology,
and only the naive here will forget all the fair-use rights bestowed
upon us all. Or else you were saying that I could share all the
Grateful Dead son
(and this is a wholely public forum).
I disagree there, also. In order to post to the list, you must sign
up... It is not possible to post unless you are a member. In order
to sign up, you must provide some amount of personally identifying
information (an e-mail address). That e-mail addre
Greg Rundlett wrote:
I am not advertising any intention to violate any law. My intention is
explicitly stated and legal (and this is a wholely public forum). I
think it's a good idea to discuss anything. Who gets to discuss illegal
things? Only lawyers?
To the legal eagles ready to take my
Greg Rundlett wrote:
So, my first question...Is a Linksys Router doing 'firewall' duty and
NAT easy to get past? If the answer is yes, then what should I do? Use
a firewall-specific distro to convert my old P133MHz box into a Linux
firewall? Maybe someone wants $100 to come over and show me
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 01:57:48AM -0500, Greg Rundlett wrote:
> To the legal eagles ready to take my rights away, there are much bigger
> fish to catch: http://www.archive.org/audio/etree.php
There's no one to catch there... The site obtains permission to
archive the material they archive there
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Greg Rundlett wrote:
> I would like to get bittorrent working, to be able to download ISO's and
> free software more quickly than perhaps I've been able to in the past,
> and at the same time donate my spare bandwidth to those around me who
> are looking for the same files.
[s
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 01:57:48AM -0500, Greg Rundlett wrote:
> Derek Martin wrote:
>
> >I feel obligated to point out that you are basically advertising in a
> >relatively public forum your intention to violate Federal law. This
> >is rather a bad idea, particularly in today's climate.
> I am n
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 01:57 -0500, Greg Rundlett wrote:
> You confused me a bit with this wording. I think you meant to say that
> you agree there are thousands of legitimate uses for this technology,
> and only the naive here will forget all the fair-use rights bestowed
> upon us all. Or e
Derek Martin wrote:
I feel obligated to point out that you are basically advertising in a
relatively public forum your intention to violate Federal law. This
is rather a bad idea, particularly in today's climate.
I am not advertising any intention to violate any law. My intention is
explicitly
Original message
>From: Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>As you point out yourself, there's virtually no way to
>guarantee your anonimity using these networks. It would only
>work if you were using some sort of anonimizing service.
>Anonymizer will do this for web content, but I
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:04:57AM -0500, Greg Rundlett wrote:
> I also want to get a general purpose p2p tool similar to Napster, for
> sharing ogg, mp3 or other multimedia files. The number one prerequisite
> here is which tool/protocol offers the best anonymity.
I feel obligated to point out
I have several goals in the area of peer-to-peer technologies (or
distributed client-server, whatever you want to call it.) I figured
this would be a great topic of discussion, and although I certainly have
more questions than answers at this point, I'd bet it would make a great
topic at an up
61 matches
Mail list logo
