[freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)
"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 common carrier status when illegal content is moved through it, but not when an ISP is a private individual. It would seem to me (and is, in this country), that courts would not make a distinction between corporations and individuals only based on the fact that they are corporations and individuals, regardles ofthe activity. On themselves, a corporation has no more protection then an indivual, if all other things are equal. 2)It remains to be seen whether 'knowing' in the sense that you see it, is followed by the courts as being enough to constitute intent. It seems rather doubtful they will. You do not 'know' that your node is being used in an illegal manner, you only know that the possibility is there that it can be used in that way. But then again, so does the company in your example. After all, they can assume that their computers can be used in an illegal way too. Yet, there you claim they can't be held responsible. You seem to be of the impression people use freenet to transfer childporn, and all the rest is just a side-effect, while it's just the opposite. Some time ago, there was a research done about the content of Freenet, and childporn was considered to make up 4% of the total content..far from being a 'major' use, now, is it? I wouldn't be surprised if the regular internet had a higher percentage. So, you do not 'know' that (or if) your node is transferring illegal stuff, nor is it reasonable to assume you have the intent of transferring childporn when you are running a node. You only know their is a possibility it can be used in that way. So your whole argumentation becomes a bit absurd. Even the supreme court in the USA has made it clear that you can not forbid something - because it can be used in an illegal manner, if it has legal uses too. You keep saying that is only true for those that produce the item, but nowhere is it inferred that the same thing does not count for people that offer a service. To be completely sure, one would need a precedent, true, but it is reasonable to assume that the courts will deem it being the case, whether it's producing it, or offering a service, providing that you can not control it (etc.) 3)The way Freenet works, it's quite possible that any offending material wasn't on your node BEFORE they asked it. This could be a case of entrapment, and in some countries this is not allowed, and if you can shed a reasonable doubt that it is entrapment, the case is thrown on its face. It would be strange indeed, if somebody got sued for having illegal material on his HD that they themselves put there. And if you claim that knowing about the possibility is enough to constitute intent, as you have done, then they 'knew' that this could happen, and thus, willfully and intentionally put illegal content on your HD. If this was true, then YOU could sue THEM. While I agree we might be over-optimistic in some legal viewpoints, it seems that you are rather biased to an interpretation of the law that is rather pessimistic and unrealistic. I doubt many courts will agree with your definition of 'knowing' and what constitutes intent; I doubt your claim that the courts would make a distinctive difference between an ISP as a corporation, or one as an individual, etc. 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 problem, IMHO. ___ 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] OS X Problems
That you don't see any activelinks and you get many 'couldn't connect' errors is not surprising, on a newbie node. It just needs more time to get integrated into the network, probably. But, there have been reports of problems with OSX and JVM 1.4.2. For all this, you can find more info on www.freenethelp.org cheers! ___ 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] OS X Problems
What about the logs? /N -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Noah Silverman Sent: den 24 augusti 2004 07:49 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-support] OS X Problems Only in the browser window. The terminal session where I start freenet seems fine. Below is a typical start... sh start-freenet.sh Detected freenet-ext.jar Detected freenet.jar Sun java detected. Sun Java 1.4.2 detected. Starting Freenet now: Command line: java -Xmx128m freenet.node.Main Done G4-17:~/Desktop/freenet noah$ INFO: Native CPUID library jcpuid not loaded, reason: 'Dont know jcpuid library name for os type 'Mac OS X'' - will not be able to read CPU information using CPUID INFO: Native BigInteger library jbigi not loaded, reason: 'Dont know jbigi library name for os type 'Mac OS X'' - using pure java Niklas Bergh wrote: - Original Message - From: Noah Silverman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 4:22 AM Subject: [freenet-support] OS X Problems Hi, I was able to download the latest package. For some reason, it won't run unless I comment out the line about: JAVA_ARGS=-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize=128m $JAVA_ARGS Once that is done, I can start freenet. Do you get any type of error message? /N ___ 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.su pport 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 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 problem, IMHO. I have yet to be convinced that the law requires a layer of meaningless snake oil. -- 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] RE: anonymity(NOT)
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 do now on the regular internet. You claim it's not that easy, and I believe you on your word, but Mr.Riaa and his ilk are not ALL stupid ninkenpoops, even if they act like they are most of the time. Finding out the CHKs is not THAT difficult, that it's beyond the means they have. As you said yourself: nothing is totally safe and secure; it allways depends on what means someone has and effort he is prepared to do for breaking the security. Currently, it's well within the means of Mr.Riaa to use the same tactics as he is already doing, even when it's harder. This means, that it's well within their means to make it very annoying for the users, which ofcourse will reflect badly on Freenet, and it's usefulness. I predict this will happen as soon as Freenet becomes wildly used. It is a too obvious weakness to miss, and too obvious to let it stand. Sooner or later, we will have to deal with it. (I prefer sooner). ___ 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] OS X Problems
Thanks, -N Howard White wrote: Been here. Did this: 1) Re-install which every Mac OS X 10.3.X or 10.2.X that you have on CD. I've done regular installs and Clean installs and both seem to work fine when writing over what ever version of Mac OS X that you have. 2) Then upgrade via Software Update everything including Java 1.4.1, BUT DON'T upgrade to Java 1.4.2. These steps have worked many times for me on various Macs. IMHO, Apple's 1.4.2 breaks LOTS OF STUFF. I have confirmed MySQL, PHP and Freenet on Mac OS X 10.3.X not working right after Java 1.4.2 updates. On 8/24/04 1:49 AM, Noah Silverman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Only in the browser window. The terminal session where I start freenet seems fine. Below is a typical start... sh start-freenet.sh Detected freenet-ext.jar Detected freenet.jar Sun java detected. Sun Java 1.4.2 detected. Starting Freenet now: Command line: java -Xmx128m freenet.node.Main Done G4-17:~/Desktop/freenet noah$ INFO: Native CPUID library jcpuid not loaded, reason: 'Dont know jcpuid library name for os type 'Mac OS X'' - will not be able to read CPU information using CPUID INFO: Native BigInteger library jbigi not loaded, reason: 'Dont know jbigi library name for os type 'Mac OS X'' - using pure java Niklas Bergh wrote: - Original Message - From: Noah Silverman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 4:22 AM Subject: [freenet-support] OS X Problems Hi, I was able to download the latest package. For some reason, it won't run unless I comment out the line about: JAVA_ARGS=-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize=128m $JAVA_ARGS Once that is done, I can start freenet. Do you get any type of error message? /N ___ 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] ___ 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 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 attacker compromising a majority of the nodes (or having the resources to create new nodes under their control in numbers exceeding the number of pre-existing nodes, so they then control a majority of the nodes anyway). ___ 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 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 of freenet to make it impossible to have this kind of breach without an attacker compromising a majority of the nodes (or having the resources to create new nodes under their control in numbers exceeding the number of pre-existing nodes, so they then control a majority of the nodes anyway). Hmm. Which kind of breach exactly? If you have a confiscated store, and you have previously searched for and found illegal content, then you can prove that it was in the store if it is present. Simply because it has to be stored in a form that the node can read. -- 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]
