Re: [freenet-support] Anonymity of browsing without downloading

2016-09-27 Thread Eric Tully
Durran, There are lots of good and legal reasons to use Freenet. Most people assume that tools like Freenet and Tor are for criminals - and yes, I have a feeling that there are some criminals who use anonymizing tools - but one good example might be computer virus

Re: [freenet-support] Anonymity of browsing without downloading

2016-09-25 Thread Arne Babenhauserheide
Dear Durran, There should not be anything which can be clearly traced to your usage, as long as you use at least "low security" (not None!). Forensic analysis might still reveal stuff, however, for example from browsers leaking memory into swap or disobeying caching policies even in incognito

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-07 Thread evolution
Quoting Troed Sångberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On the other hand, I don't live in the Fascist states of America. (See link for explanation) http://troed.se/index.php?subaction=showcommentsid=1091214452 http://troed.se - controversial views or common sense? You do operate a flog, don't you? Even

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-07 Thread Jay Oliveri
You replied to Mr. Findley, but quoted Troed. Either way this thread is way OT here and has been continued on Freenet-chat (gmane.network.freenet.general). On Saturday 07 August 2004 12:41 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Troed Sångberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On the other hand, I don't live

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-05 Thread Kendy Kutzner
On 2004-08-04T19:27:56+0200, Martin Scheffler wrote: Kendy Kutzner wrote: On 2004-08-04T14:50:52+0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote: Traffic analysis might help me figure who made a request and who served it, but I still have to break encryption before I can figure which file that request

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Zenon Panoussis
miguel wrote: 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] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Kendy Kutzner
On 2004-08-04T14:50:52+0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote: Traffic analysis might help me figure who made a request and who served it, but I still have to break encryption before I can figure which file that request concerned. That is not entirely true. The files are encrypted with keys based on the

RE: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 8:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT) Importance: Low miguel wrote: Just wondering... with all this encryption permeating Freenet there remains a gaping hole through which the nazi's could saunter

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Ian Clarke
On 4 Aug 2004, at 15:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote As for the uploader Willful blindness can not protect you if it can be shown that you had a reasonable suspicion to believe they you are committing a crime. In fact in some cases a deliberate attempt to not obtain knowledge is proof of that

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Martin Scheffler
Kendy Kutzner wrote: On 2004-08-04T14:50:52+0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote: Traffic analysis might help me figure who made a request and who served it, but I still have to break encryption before I can figure which file that request concerned. That is not entirely true. The files are

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 05:21:17AM -0700, miguel wrote: 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

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:50:52PM +0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote: Or something like that. The real and ever-present danger against freenet is not in your IP being shown to your peers. It is in (a) the integrity of its developers and (b) in the security of the software archive. If the latter

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 10:22:41AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the uploader Willful blindness can not protect you if it can be shown that you had a reasonable suspicion to believe they you are committing a crime. In fact in some cases a deliberate attempt to not obtain knowledge

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 06:09:52PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: On 4 Aug 2004, at 15:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote As for the uploader Willful blindness can not protect you if it can be shown that you had a reasonable suspicion to believe they you are committing a crime. In fact in some cases a

RE: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 1:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT) Importance: Low On 4 Aug 2004, at 15:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote As for the uploader Willful blindness can not protect you if it can be shown

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
, August 04, 2004 1:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT) Importance: Low On 4 Aug 2004, at 15:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote As for the uploader Willful blindness can not protect you if it can be shown that you had a reasonable suspicion to believe they you

RE: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 2:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT) Importance: Low On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 10:22:41AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the uploader Willful blindness can not protect you if it can be shown that you had

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Troed Sngberg
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:35:00 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They do have a choice, nothing is forcing them to run freenet. It doesn't matter that they can't see exactly what their node is doing, but only the fact that they know what their node is probably doing. If

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Ian Clarke
On 4 Aug 2004, at 19:11, Toad wrote: On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 10:22:41AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the uploader Willful blindness can not protect you if it can be shown that you had a reasonable suspicion to believe they you are committing a crime. In fact in some cases a

RE: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 2:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT) Importance: Low On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:35:00 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They do have a choice, nothing

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 08:01:22PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: While I am no fan of the Induce Act, I should point out that from my reading of the Induce Act, Freenet would *probably* be safe as none of its features are expressly intended to allow people to infringe copyright law (this is

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Zenon Panoussis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the uploader Willful blindness can not protect you if it can be shown that you had a reasonable suspicion to believe they you are committing a crime. In fact in some cases a deliberate attempt to not obtain knowledge is proof of that knowledge. In my village,

RE: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 2:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT) Importance: Low IANAL but there HAVE been recent US cases where major P2P systems have been found not to be in violation of the law

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Troed Sngberg
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 15:02:52 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's because ISPs/Mail are protected by common carrier laws, you are not. They pass laws that specifically say that if a company is incorporated as a common carrier, then the items (or data) they

RE: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 3:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT) Importance: Low [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the uploader Willful blindness can not protect you if it can be shown that you had a reasonable suspicion to believe they you are committing

RE: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Edward J. Huff
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 16:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure where your 'village' is but here it works much the same way actually. But the problem is that there is no machine that can just tell us what your intent was. So what your intent was has to be inferred from your actions and

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 04:31:11PM -0400, Edward J. Huff wrote: On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 16:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure where your 'village' is but here it works much the same way actually. But the problem is that there is no machine that can just tell us what your intent was.

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
Here's an answer from a real lawyer: http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/p2p_copyright_wp.php 2. Your two options: total control or total anarchy. In the wake of recent decisions on indirect copyright liability, it appears that copyright law has foisted a binary choice on P2P developers: either build a

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Zenon Panoussis
Toad wrote: Or something like that. The real and ever-present danger against freenet is not in your IP being shown to your peers. It is in (a) the integrity of its developers and (b) in the security of the software archive. If the latter ever gets compromised, we might all end up running a piece

Security precautions, CVS commit mails was Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 11:08:19PM +0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote: Toad wrote: Or something like that. The real and ever-present danger against freenet is not in your IP being shown to your peers. It is in (a) the integrity of its developers and (b) in the security of the software archive.

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Edward J. Huff
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 16:35, Toad wrote: On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 04:31:11PM -0400, Edward J. Huff wrote: On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 16:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure where your 'village' is but here it works much the same way actually. But the problem is that there is no

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 05:17:45PM -0400, Edward J. Huff wrote: On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 16:35, Toad wrote: On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 04:31:11PM -0400, Edward J. Huff wrote: On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 16:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure where your 'village' is but here it works much

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Zenon Panoussis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's because ISPs/Mail are protected by common carrier laws, you are not. They pass laws that specifically say that if a company is incorporated as a common carrier, then the items (or data) they transport aren't their responsibility. Do you have a pointer to those

Re: Security precautions, CVS commit mails was Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Zenon Panoussis
Toad wrote: You have taken extraordinary measures to protect against [the ftp server being hacked], haven't you? Umm, measures such as..? I don't see how you can defend against the above, really. Well, first of all the elementary stuff. No other services on the same machine. You don't want your

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Zenon Panoussis
Edward J. Huff wrote: That is up to each node operator. Failure to block some content -- like mp3's -- is a lot less serious than failure to block other content -- like kp. The node operator might decide to take the risk in the name of civil disobedience for some content but not other.

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Ian Clarke
On 4 Aug 2004, at 19:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They do have a choice, nothing is forcing them to run freenet. Shaky logic. Nothing is forcing postmen to work for the USPS, yet if it were to be found that a postman had unknowingly transported drugs it is unlikely that they could successfully

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Ian Clarke
On 4 Aug 2004, at 20:03, Toad wrote: On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 08:01:22PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: While I am no fan of the Induce Act, I should point out that from my reading of the Induce Act, Freenet would *probably* be safe as none of its features are expressly intended to allow people to

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Ian Clarke
On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:00, Ian Clarke wrote: On 4 Aug 2004, at 19:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They do have a choice, nothing is forcing them to run freenet. Shaky logic. Nothing is forcing postmen to work for the USPS, yet if it were to be found that a postman had unknowingly transported drugs

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Zenon Panoussis
Ian Clarke wrote: s/does/does not $ Error: open second argument to s Z -- Framtiden är som en babianröv, färggrann och full av skit. Arne Anka ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:02:33AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: On 4 Aug 2004, at 20:03, Toad wrote: On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 08:01:22PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: While I am no fan of the Induce Act, I should point out that from my reading of the Induce Act, Freenet would *probably* be safe as

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:00:22AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: On 4 Aug 2004, at 19:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They do have a choice, nothing is forcing them to run freenet. Shaky logic. Nothing is forcing postmen to work for the USPS, yet if it were to be found that a postman had

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Ian Clarke
On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:38, Toad wrote: On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:02:33AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: On 4 Aug 2004, at 20:03, Toad wrote: On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 08:01:22PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: While I am no fan of the Induce Act, I should point out that from my reading of the Induce Act, Freenet

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:42:49AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:38, Toad wrote: On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:02:33AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: On 4 Aug 2004, at 20:03, Toad wrote: On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 08:01:22PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: While I am no fan of the Induce

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Ian Clarke
On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:39, Toad wrote: The problem is that ignorance is indeed a goal in itself on Freenet. It's part of its very basic design features. Same is true of the postal system (otherwise they would mandate that everything is written on postcards). Ian.

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Zenon Panoussis
Toad wrote: 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. The problem is that ignorance is indeed a

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:44:37AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:39, Toad wrote: The problem is that ignorance is indeed a goal in itself on Freenet. It's part of its very basic design features. Same is true of the postal system (otherwise they would mandate that

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
This thread is on the wrong list. At least this part of this thread. On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:44:37AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:39, Toad wrote: The problem is that ignorance is indeed a goal in itself on Freenet. It's part of its very basic design features. Same is

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Ian Clarke
On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:43, Toad wrote: Which feature of Freenet is *intended* to toward the efforts of copyright holders to enforce copyright law? All of Freenet is intended to thwart those who want to eliminate content on Freenet, and eliminate the contributors and requestors of that content. Not

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Ian Clarke
On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:48, Toad wrote: On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:44:37AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:39, Toad wrote: The problem is that ignorance is indeed a goal in itself on Freenet. It's part of its very basic design features. Same is true of the postal system (otherwise they

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 02:02:18AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: In any case, I don't see any reason to think that Freenet is illegal under current US or UK law. Whereas I see every reason to expect it to be criminalized under INDUCE - which is designed to make it easy to criminalize things like

Re: Security precautions, CVS commit mails was Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Zenon Panoussis
Toad wrote: The fundamental issues revolve around changes to source code. Only in theory. In practice, the source code only affects your reputation. The binary code affects the users. If you only protect the source code (which is also what might get reviewed at some point or other), you will only

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread vinyl1
Toad remarked: Freenet is DESIGNED to actively thwart attempts to find the authors. This is a fundamental design goal. It is a motive. Whereas the postal system simply doesn't care one way or the other. In fact, right now, Freenet is so slow that only perverts and geeks use it. Or so it would be

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Phillip Hutchings
vinyl1 said: Toad remarked: Freenet is DESIGNED to actively thwart attempts to find the authors. This is a fundamental design goal. It is a motive. Whereas the postal system simply doesn't care one way or the other. In fact, right now, Freenet is so slow that only perverts and geeks use it.

Re: Re: Security precautions, CVS commit mails was Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Paul
Well, a very striped down version of OpenBSD running off a cd and freenet's cache being on an encripted disk with a one-time key (ie a new key is randomly generated at boot) would make setting up a freenet machine simple, safe, and dificult to update. :-p , 9 years with one remote hole