[freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-25 Thread Newsbyte
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.

[freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-24 Thread Newsbyte
"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

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

[freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-24 Thread Newsbyte
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

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

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 of

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)

2004-08-05 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 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

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

2004-08-05 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; 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

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

2004-08-05 Thread Troed Sngberg
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

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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

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

2004-08-05 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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

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

2004-08-05 Thread Troed Sngberg
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

[freenet-support] Re: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Mika Hirvonen
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

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

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

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 node is

[freenet-support] Re: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Mika Hirvonen
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

[freenet-support] RE: anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Matthew Findley
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

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

2004-08-04 Thread Paul
. 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