[freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)
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. Maybe a perfect solution will not be possible, but that isn't needed here. There have been suggestions, which you found to be 'not good enough'...but maybe you are taking the wrong premisse and focussing too much on an absolute way of solving it. If you just make it hard enough so the wasted effort/money/etc. outweighs the benefits they get from it, you have already won. In fact, seeing it in the context of an eternal catmouse game, even my first example of making something light as an extra layer may well do the trick, provided you make it modular and easily changeable. You were right they may make an easy tool... but it's still not clear if they can force you to run a third-party tool (without court-order). I think they can't, at least not in my country. And if they have to get a courtorder every time they want to compel someone to run their tool, the costs will vastly outweigh the benefits, which will meanwe win. It's also not clear if they can even make such a tool to bypass the encryptionlayer, even in the USA, because that would violate the DMCA which they themselves helped lobby. It clearly makes it illegal to bypass such a thing,and they still have not THAT much power they can compel someone to do illegal things in the name of copyright-infringement.Certainly, courts can order to do so, but then (again), their incentive will become obsolete. But even if none of the above would count; if you made it modular and easy to remove/reinstall, then you could simply play along in the catmouse game, and everytime they managed to get a tool out, replace the system with a new module, so they can start over again. I'm just saying; maybe you are bit too pessimistic. You can call it snake oil to shrug it off, but if it manages to make things hard enough as to be not beneficial (for them) anymore, Mr.Riaa and co will not have enough incentive to go for 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]
[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]
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] 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]
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
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]
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]
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] Re: anonymity(NOT)
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 using a third party dns service wouldn't help. Maybe not this day, but in light of current trends in government policies, in the not-too-distant future they will be slipping in and snagging whomever they choose by the ip address and will thus render useless all Freenet anonymity measures. Is there not a way to spoof the ip addresses, or mask the ip addresses so that our uncles and big brothers can't come in and bring down the house(s)? 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 invulnerable to rubber-hose cryptography). It is possible to write alternate transports for Freenet, though. For example, nodes could use email disguised as spam, Usenet messages or other non-obvious ways of communicating with each other. However, for this to work at all, routing needs to be much more accurate, because the latency is several orders of magnitude greater. -- Mika Hirvonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://nightwatch.mine.nu/ Get Freenet from: http://cs181027153.pp.htv.fi:8891/J0~0J7ajDJE/ ___ 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 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 Freenetters they choose to incriminate... the ip address/port# of all. Even using a third party dns service wouldn't help. Maybe not this day, but in light of current trends in government policies, in the not-too-distant future they will be slipping in and snagging whomever they choose by the ip address and will thus render useless all Freenet anonymity measures. Is there not a way to spoof the ip addresses, or mask the ip addresses so that our uncles and big brothers can't come in and bring down the house(s)? 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 invulnerable to rubber-hose cryptography). It's not quite that easy; at least it shouldn't be (you can't portscan). But it is very easy to find large numbers of Freenet node operators. It is possible to write alternate transports for Freenet, though. For example, nodes could use email disguised as spam, Usenet messages or other non-obvious ways of communicating with each other. However, for this to work at all, routing needs to be much more accurate, because the latency is several orders of magnitude greater. It would also have to work on a trusted mesh topology, to minimize damage by defeating harvesting. -- 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)
-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 node is physically secure, has encrypted drives and the user is invulnerable to rubber-hose cryptography). Erm ... rubber-hose cryptography? WTH is that? ___ 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] Actually it should be rubber-hose cryptanalysis from http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/R/rubber-hose-cryptanalysis.html: The technique of breaking a code or cipher by finding someone who has the key and applying a rubber hose vigorously and repeatedly to the soles of that luckless person's feet until the key is discovered. Shorthand for any method of coercion: the originator of the term drily noted that it ?can take a surprisingly short time and is quite computationally inexpensive? relative to other cryptanalysis methods. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBETu3hctESbvQ8ZwRAlYhAJ93BIfEAV6zHnYySqF3N82hv5tHrgCdGRCJ rPYUP2kmQ+dlazHN84Ma9SU= =SdpP -END 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]
[freenet-support] Re: anonymity(NOT)
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 user is invulnerable to rubber-hose cryptography). Erm ... rubber-hose cryptography? WTH is that? Spraying the user with water until he/she tells you the decryption keys. In other words, any means of intimidation/coercion/torture to make the user tell you the correct decryption key(s), -- Mika Hirvonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://nightwatch.mine.nu/ Get Freenet from: http://cs181027153.pp.htv.fi:8891/J0~0J7ajDJE/ ___ 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)
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 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. 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.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 the company had known what he was useing the computer for and failed to act then they can be held responsable. Your intent can only be establashed by your actions and knowledge. The company had no knowdedge of what you were doing. 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. 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. ___ 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)
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 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 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 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. 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. 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 the company had known what he was useing the computer for and failed to act then they can be held responsable. Your intent can only be establashed by your actions and knowledge. The company had no knowdedge of what you were doing. 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. 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. ___ 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]
