> The weakness is insoluble. Unless nodes run 24x7 for LONG periods,
and> encrypt the entire store with an ephemeral key, thus wiping
it on> startup.
It is not 'insoluble' in the sense of what I just said; that you have to
make it so hard, they won't see any benefit in wasting effort in it.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 08:23:43PM -0400, Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> On 25 Aug 2004 at 0:32, Toad wrote:
>
> > The weakness is insoluble. Unless nodes run 24x7 for LONG periods, and
> > encrypt the entire store with an ephemeral key, thus wiping it on
> > startup.
>
> I thought it was a stated goal
On 25 Aug 2004 at 0:32, Toad wrote:
> The weakness is insoluble. Unless nodes run 24x7 for LONG periods, and
> encrypt the entire store with an ephemeral key, thus wiping it on
> startup.
I thought it was a stated goal of freenet to make it impossible to
have this kind of breach without an attac
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:44:42PM +0200, Newsbyte wrote:
> >I have yet to be convinced that the law requires a layer of meaningless snake oil.
>
> Then it's up to you that, a) it's not snake oil and/or b) that it's not meaningless.
>
> As I've explained before, I think it's not a matter of if, b
>I have yet to be convinced that
the law requires a layer of meaningless snake oil.
Then it's up to you that, a) it's not
snake oil and/or b) that it's not meaningless.
As I've explained before, I think it's
not a matter of if, but of when Mr. Riaa will begin with the same tactics as
they
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:09:42AM +0200, Newsbyte wrote:
> We will have to wait on the real first precedent...but I think the legal status of
> freenet and it's users is rather good. Technical imperfections, like the lack of an
> extra layer of encryption on the storage seems rather a greater pr
"You know that your node is
transmitting bad stuff ..."
No, you don't. That's just the point, and that's why I
find your whole argumentation rather doubtful. Well, that and
others:
1)You have not given a legal decision or precedent ,
whereby an ISP as a corporation gets protection as a c
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 fac
ROTECTED]
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 PROTECTE
te 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)
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
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 sen
mething 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: [free
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 d
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
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
e in the US. Is it really that childish of me to hold onto
my ideals that people should be free?
~Paul
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Findley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 22:42:44 -0500
Subject: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let me se
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
Paul Derbyshire writes:
On 4 Aug 2004 at 15:38, Mika Hirvonen wrote:
Yes, it's trivial for Them to know whether someone runs a Freenet node or
not, but knowing what the user was doing with that node is an another
matter (assuming that the node is physically secure, has encrypted drives
and the u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> On 4 Aug 2004 at 15:38, Mika Hirvonen wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, it's trivial for Them to know whether someone runs a Freenet node or
>>not, but knowing what the user was doing with that node is an another
>>matter (assuming that the no
On 4 Aug 2004 at 15:38, Mika Hirvonen wrote:
> Yes, it's trivial for Them to know whether someone runs a Freenet node or
> not, but knowing what the user was doing with that node is an another
> matter (assuming that the node is physically secure, has encrypted drives
> and the user is invulner
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 03:38:35PM +0300, Mika Hirvonen wrote:
> miguel writes:
>
> >Just wondering... with all this encryption permeating Freenet
> >there remains a gaping hole through which the nazi's could saunter through
> >with their spy tools and legal bypasses to incriminate any and all
>
miguel writes:
Just wondering... with all this encryption permeating Freenet
there remains a gaping hole through which the nazi's could saunter through
with their spy tools and legal bypasses to incriminate any and all Freenetters
they choose to incriminate... the ip address/port# of all. Even u
23 matches
Mail list logo
