Re: [freenet-support] Request for help: Stable reset

2004-08-04 Thread Zenon Panoussis
Mailed this from the wrong address - it got caught for moderator approval. Please don't approve that posting. Toad wrote: Anyone who wants in on the new stable network before it is officially rolled out, please contact me, and get the new seednodes and jar file from:

[freenet-support] on-the-fly storesize change

2004-08-04 Thread ManniHuber
Hi, i changed the storesize in freenet.ini while running Freenet. When Freenet checked the file at the next time, it generated the following error message: 04.08.2004 13:36:02 (freenet.node.NodeConfigUpdater, YThread-59, ERROR): Option storeSize changed to 1024M but no handler was available.

[freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread miguel
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

[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] 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]
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. As for the downloader While true, the mere

Re: [freenet-support] on-the-fly storesize change

2004-08-04 Thread Martin Scheffler
Am Mittwoch, 4. August 2004 13:45 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, i changed the storesize in freenet.ini while running Freenet. When Freenet checked the file at the next time, it generated the following error message: 04.08.2004 13:36:02 (freenet.node.NodeConfigUpdater, YThread-59, ERROR):

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

[freenet-support] Re: on-the-fly storesize change

2004-08-04 Thread Manfred Huber
Yes, but that is not fatal to the running node. It just means you have to stop and restart your node make this change. So what's the place to report non-fatal bugs and observations? -- NEU: WLAN-Router für 0,- EUR* - auch für DSL-Wechsler! GMX DSL = supergünstig kabellos

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] Re: on-the-fly storesize change

2004-08-04 Thread Martin Scheffler
Am Mittwoch, 4. August 2004 19:13 schrieb Manfred Huber: Yes, but that is not fatal to the running node. It just means you have to stop and restart your node make this change. So what's the place to report non-fatal bugs and observations? This is not really a bug, it's just not implemented to

Re: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet not starting on Mandrake 10 + J2SE 1.4.2_05

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:14:33PM -0700, Scott Call wrote: On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 03:01:02 +0200, Martin Scheffler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Mittwoch, 4. August 2004 02:01 schrieb Scott Call: I get the following when I run start-freenet under mandrake 10 (log level debug): ...

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] 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] 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]
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 someone gives you a package in Mexico and ask you to carry it across the boarder. You do

Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
IANAL but there HAVE been recent US cases where major P2P systems have been found not to be in violation of the law. Otherwise INDUCE would be unnecessary. On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:35:00PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They do have a choice, nothing is forcing them to run freenet. It

RE: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I wasn't aware of any cases where they hadn't had victory As for the INDUCE act (from what I've read) it applies to the creation of products used for illegal activities. It would make it against the law to create a product that's primary use is also against the law. In other words, it

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]
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. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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]
That's the systems themselves. Freenet itself is perfectly legal, so are guns. But that doesn't give you the freedom to do what ever you want with them. You can't upload/download kiddy porn just like you can't go around shooting people. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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] 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

RE: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)

2004-08-04 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 your knowledge. The fact is that everyone knows there

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: Re: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet not starting on Mandrake 10 + J2SE 1.4.2_05

2004-08-04 Thread Scott Call
It's supposed to infinite loop. Hence waiting. It's waiting for I/O or something. What do you see on normal? On minor? D'oh sorry, that's my misunderstanding then. With minor I get: Aug 4, 2004 1:31:49 PM (freenet.node.Main, main, MINOR): Granularity is between 2ms and 2ms, average is 2 Aug

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

[freenet-support] Stable build 5089, network reset

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
Stable build 5089 is now available. Please upgrade. You will probably need to reseed. The current seednodes.ref at http://freenetproject.org/snapshots/ will be sufficient. To upgrade: On Windows, use the update option on the start menu, if it is there. On linux, stop the node, run update.sh, and

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: Re: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet not starting on Mandrake 10 + J2SE 1.4.2_05

2004-08-04 Thread Toad
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 01:34:53PM -0700, Scott Call wrote: It's supposed to infinite loop. Hence waiting. It's waiting for I/O or something. What do you see on normal? On minor? D'oh sorry, that's my misunderstanding then. With minor I get: Aug 4, 2004 1:31:49 PM (freenet.node.Main,

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.

[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
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

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