[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. 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)

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 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)

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 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)

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 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)

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 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)

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 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)

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
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)

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 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)

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 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)

2004-08-05 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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)

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 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)

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 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)

2004-08-05 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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)

2004-08-05 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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)

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 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)

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 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)

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 
 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)

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 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]


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 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)

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 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)

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 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)

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 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]