Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-24 Thread Toad
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

Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-24 Thread Paul Derbyshire
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

Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-24 Thread Toad
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

Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-24 Thread Toad
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

Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-05 Thread Troed Sångberg
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

RE: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-05 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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

RE: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-05 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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)

Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-05 Thread Toad
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

Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-05 Thread Troed Sångberg
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

RE: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-05 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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

Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-05 Thread Ian Clarke
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

Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-05 Thread Zenon Panoussis
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

Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-05 Thread Zenon Panoussis
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

Re: [freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Paul
What country does respect freedoms? The US is getting to the point where emgrating becomes a serious consideration for me. I'm still young, I don't have a stable job or faimly. I'd rather live somewhere that I can be sure my future kids and myself will be free than live a richer live in the US. Is

Re: [freenet-support] Re: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Salah Coronya
-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

Re: [freenet-support] Re: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Paul Derbyshire
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

Re: [freenet-support] Re: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
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 >