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
 researchers.

You want to be a better programmer, you want to study existing viruses,
you want to develop tools to eliminate viruses, and you want to learn to
write software that doesn't contain vulnerabilities in the first place. 
 In the process of researching viruses, you could possibly visit web
sites that try to infect your computer - or they have pop-up ads on
their site that have less than honorable content.  With all of the
javascript, html, and images loaded behind the scenes that you didn't
specifically request - and may never have seen on your screen - you
could end up with cache that contains material that your HR department
could use to fire you or that police could use to put you in jail.

 So... with that much to risk, you don't want to use a commercial
 product that won't let you look under the hood.  Imagine buying
 "Anonymity" software that runs and makes all sorts of promises
 about how you're completely invisible.  Since you can't see the
 source code,  you have NO IDEA whether they're telling the truth or
 not.  And here's the important part:  THEY HAVE EVERY REASON TO
 EXAGGERATE HOW WELL THEIR SOFTWARE WORKS.  They could lie to make
 the sale, sell you the software, and when it turns out to be a lie,
  who goes to jail?  Hint:  Not them.

 But here's the thing:   When you decide to use open source software
 so that you can avoid that trap,  you can't just send out an email
 and say, "Hey, does this stuff really work?"  Because, just like
 the commercial software, you're going to get answers... and if
 those answers turn out to be wrong,  who goes to jail?   Still not
 them.

 No matter whether you're a virus researcher... or a bad guy who
 wants to commit crime anonymously... are you really going to trust
 the word of a complete stranger who you've never met, can't see,
 and who doesn't owe you anything?  If you're REALLY concerned about
 the consequences of getting caught (whether you're a good guy or a
 bad guy),  asking the question "Does this stuff really work?"  is
 completely the wrong way to be safe.   If you're REALLY concerned, 
 there's only one way:   learn to program,  read the code,  learn
 how browsers and operating systems work, study the Freenet source
 code,  and then TEST TEST TEST.   For example,  scan your hard
 drive for a bunch of blue pixels.  If you don't find any, put an
 image with all blue pixels up on Freenet and surf for that image
 using Freenet.  Then hire some forensics guys to search your hard
 drive for blue pixels.  If they find any,  then you KNOW that the
 stuff doesn't work.  If they don't find any, then you're getting
 closer to trusting the software.  Then interview more forensics
 guys and ask them what they know that the first forensics guys
 didn't know.  And have them scan your hard drive.  The more you
 learn, the more confidence you'll have about how to use anonymizing
 tools correctly and how well they work.

 But if you just ask, "Is this stuff any good?" and someone says,
 "It's perfect",  is that really going to make you feel better when
 you get fired or arrested or your girlfriend leaves you?   

 And if you ask, "Is this stuff any good", and someone says, "There
 SHOULD not be anything which can be CLEARLY traced to your usage,
 AS LONG AS you use...",  there are so many qualifications in that
 sentence that it's pretty much not even an answer.  (I mean, good
 for Arne for being clear that he's not 100% certain that it's
 perfect).  When you get an answer like that,  it should be clear to
 you that asking online isn't going to help you when you end up in
 court.  This is one of those times when you can't rely on a free
 answer you get on the Internet,  you need to LEARN and TEST if
 you're actually concerned.

 Of course, if you're just trying to keep your mom from knowing that
 you used the computer to look at boobs,  then maybe that answer is
 good enough.


- Eric





On Sun, Sep 25, 2016, at 06:01 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> 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 mode, or from not completely deleted files.
> 
> To be more secure, encrypt your disk (then deletions work more
> securely).
> 
> There will be encrypted fragments of many different kinds of files on
> your 

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 mode, or from not completely deleted files.

To be more secure, encrypt your disk (then deletions work more
securely).

There will be encrypted fragments of many different kinds of files on
your computer, but these do not need to correspond to files you
requested yourself.

Best wishes,
Arne

Durran Mix writes:

> Spam detection software, running on the system "freenetproject.org",
> has identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original
> message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
> similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
> the administrator of that system for details.
>
> Content preview:  Hello, If I browse freenet sites without downloading any 
> content,
>while using incognito mode, will there be anything incriminating on my 
> computer?
>Also, same scenario but what if i fully delete and uninstall freenet after
>each browsing session? [...] 
>
> Content analysis details:   (5.5 points, 5.0 required)
>
>  pts rule name  description
>  -- --
>  2.0 FREENET_FROM_BACKUPMX  Received from the backup-MX server
>  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM  Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail 
> provider
> (zep_rocks[at]hotmail.com)
>  0.8 BAYES_50   BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
> [score: 0.5502]
>  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE   BODY: HTML included in message
> -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK 
> signature
>  0.1 DKIM_SIGNEDMessage has a DKIM or DK signature, not 
> necessarily valid
> -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU  Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from 
> author's
> domain
>  0.8 RDNS_NONE  Delivered to internal network by a host with no 
> rDNS
>  2.0 FREENET_LOC_SHORT  Contains short body and URI
>
> The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to
> open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus,
> or confirm that your address can receive spam.  If you wish to view
> it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.
>
> ___
> Support mailing list
> Support@freenetproject.org
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
> Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
> Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe


-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe

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 just a mirror of troed.se?

-todd

___
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] 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 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 just a mirror of troed.se?

 -todd

-- 
Jay Oliveri
GnuPG ID: 0x5AA5DD54
FCPTools Maintainer
www.sf.net/users/joliveri
___
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] 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 concerned.
 
  That is not entirely true. The files are encrypted with keys
  based on the file's content. When the file content is known, then
  routing keys can be computed.
 
 No, this description is inaccurate!
 When you know the _exact_ file contents, you don't need freenet. And 
 besides, the very same text or data with just one bit changed is a new 
 key, this means you are only able to scan for well-known data.

No doubt in that. When I'm talking about file content, of course
I mean _exact_ file content. And why Alice, Bob and Carol don't
need Freenet when Eve also can browse the freesites?

 The SHA1 hash from the original and unencrypted data is used as encryption 
 key. The data is encrypted with that (You can not get back the encryption 
 key without decrypting first).
 
 Then, some other data is added for routing and checking, and the SHA1 hash 
 of the whole piece makes up the routing key, this is what you see while 
 proxying and caching the key data.

So where is the inaccuracy in 'when the [exact] file content is
known, then routing keys can be computed'?

What I wanted to say: Eve also can spider Freenet and can know a
lot of content _exactly_. Therefore it can compromise
intermediate hosts and do much easier traffic analysis.

Kendy

-- 



pgpnvzH5rx5vd.pgp
Description: 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]

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 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)?  
But the IP where a request originates and the IP of the machine
where a requested file is stored *are* masked by the proxying
system.
Assume I'm the Gestapo and I'm running one or several freenet
nodes and logging everything that goes on. I see a request
coming from your IP. I can't figure what is being requested,
because the key is encrypted. I can't figure who requested it,
because your machine might be - and probably is - proxying
the request for some other node. Unless the requested file is
served from my own node, all I can do is pass on the request
to yet another node and I'll never know which node or nodes
finally served the file.
Now, if I'm not the Gestapo but something much worse, like, say,
Homeland Security, I could monitor the traffic of my peers in
order to discover their peers and then monitor their traffic
too until I have a good picture of the entire network. 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.
Being the almighty Homeland Security, I do break the encryption.
Fine, now I know that X requested kiddie porn and Y served it.
However, I can't get anyone prosecuted for this. Y is going to
deny - quite truthfully - that he knew that he was serving
kiddie porn, X is going to claim that he just clicked on a
link not knowing what it was and was appalled to find out,
and I will have disclosed that I have broken freenet. That
last part is the worst, because then all the leftists, the
anti-globalists, the anti-war pack and other such terrorists
will know to not use freenet any more. Of course, the same
will happen if I get freenet forbidden: then the entire world
will keep using it, except my local gulag population, which
is the easiest one for me to monitor. Thus, I have to let
freenet live and let the kiddie porn pass and concentrate on
finding out who inserts subversive propaganda against our
Beloved Leader.
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 of Big
Broher-owned spyware called freenet.
Z
--
Framtiden r som en babianrv, frggrann 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] 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 file's content. When the file content is known, then
routing keys can be computed.

Kendy

-- 



pgpmJ2URMsbhA.pgp
Description: 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]

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 act of downloading contraband will probably not land you in jail 
by itself.  It is however most likely sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant and if 
you really are downloading kiddy porn you will end up in jail.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf 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 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)?  

But the IP where a request originates and the IP of the machine
where a requested file is stored *are* masked by the proxying
system.

Assume I'm the Gestapo and I'm running one or several freenet
nodes and logging everything that goes on. I see a request
coming from your IP. I can't figure what is being requested,
because the key is encrypted. I can't figure who requested it,
because your machine might be - and probably is - proxying
the request for some other node. Unless the requested file is
served from my own node, all I can do is pass on the request
to yet another node and I'll never know which node or nodes
finally served the file.

Now, if I'm not the Gestapo but something much worse, like, say,
Homeland Security, I could monitor the traffic of my peers in
order to discover their peers and then monitor their traffic
too until I have a good picture of the entire network. 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.

Being the almighty Homeland Security, I do break the encryption.
Fine, now I know that X requested kiddie porn and Y served it.
However, I can't get anyone prosecuted for this. Y is going to
deny - quite truthfully - that he knew that he was serving
kiddie porn, X is going to claim that he just clicked on a
link not knowing what it was and was appalled to find out,
and I will have disclosed that I have broken freenet. That
last part is the worst, because then all the leftists, the
anti-globalists, the anti-war pack and other such terrorists
will know to not use freenet any more. Of course, the same
will happen if I get freenet forbidden: then the entire world
will keep using it, except my local gulag population, which
is the easiest one for me to monitor. Thus, I have to let
freenet live and let the kiddie porn pass and concentrate on
finding out who inserts subversive propaganda against our
Beloved Leader.

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 of Big
Broher-owned spyware called freenet.

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]
___
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] 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 knowledge.
Its an interesting question; can it be willful blindness if you don't 
have a choice?  It isn't that people choose not to see the information, 
its that they can't.  Now perhaps they don't want to either, but it is 
hard to see how someone can be said to willfully avoid doing something 
they couldn't do if they wanted 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] 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 encrypted with keys
 based on the file's content. When the file content is known, then
 routing keys can be computed.

No, this description is inaccurate!
When you know the _exact_ file contents, you don't need freenet. And 
besides, the very same text or data with just one bit changed is a new 
key, this means you are only able to scan for well-known data.

The SHA1 hash from the original and unencrypted data is used as encryption 
key. The data is encrypted with that (You can not get back the encryption 
key without decrypting first).

Then, some other data is added for routing and checking, and the SHA1 hash 
of the whole piece makes up the routing key, this is what you see while 
proxying and caching the key data.

good byte
___
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] 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 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)?  

No. Freenet as presently designed is not intended to make node operators
invisible. It is intended to make authors and retrievers of specific
content untraceable, and provide plausible deniability for node
operators. At some point in the future Freenet may employ various
techniques to operate better in environments where just running a node
leads to problems, but this will probably happen after 1.0 as we need to
get routing working first. Have a nice day!
-- 
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] 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 ever gets
 compromised, we might all end up running a piece of Big
 Broher-owned spyware called freenet.

Well, most PCs run insecure software, infrequently updated. Even of
those that are relatively secure their operators don't have the
understanding or the time to make them secure. And even if they do there
are always more vulnerabilities, as programmers are human beings. They
can probably compromize the vast majority of PCs pretty easily.
-- 
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] 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 is proof of that knowledge.

That is unclear. Otherwise the recent P2P cases where the RIAA has not
achieved victory would not have happened. This is precisely why they
need INDUCE to pass (which probably WOULD criminalize Freenet).
 
 As for the downloader
 While true, the mere act of downloading contraband will probably not land you in 
 jail by itself.  It is however most likely sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant 
 and if you really are downloading kiddy porn you will end up in jail.
-- 
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] 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 deliberate attempt to not obtain knowledge is 
 proof of that knowledge.
 
 Its an interesting question; can it be willful blindness if you don't 
 have a choice?  It isn't that people choose not to see the information, 
 its that they can't.  Now perhaps they don't want to either, but it is 
 hard to see how someone can be said to willfully avoid doing something 
 they couldn't do if they wanted to.

Sadly it will go out the window if INDUCE passes. :|
-- 
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] 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 so and customs finds it full of drugs.  It doesn't matter that you didn't see 
what was in there or even if it was locked and you couldn't see what was in there.  
All that matters is that a reasonable person would know what's in there.

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

Its an interesting question; can it be willful blindness if you don't 
have a choice?  It isn't that people choose not to see the information, 
its that they can't.  Now perhaps they don't want to either, but it is 
hard to see how someone can be said to willfully avoid doing something 
they couldn't do if they wanted 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] 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 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 so and customs finds it full of drugs.  It doesn't matter that you didn't 
 see what was in there or even if it was locked and you couldn't see what was in 
 there.  All that matters is that a reasonable person would know what's in there.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[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 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.
 
 Its an interesting question; can it be willful blindness if you don't 
 have a choice?  It isn't that people choose not to see the information, 
 its that they can't.  Now perhaps they don't want to either, but it is 
 hard to see how someone can be said to willfully avoid doing something 
 they couldn't do if they wanted 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]

-- 
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] 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 would outlaw 
iyour/i willful blindness about what freenet is really used for.  It wouldn't just 
criminalize freenet, but it would criminalize you even making it.
I'm very much against this law by the way.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL 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 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.

That is unclear. Otherwise the recent P2P cases where the RIAA has not
achieved victory would not have happened. This is precisely why they
need INDUCE to pass (which probably WOULD criminalize Freenet).
 
 As for the downloader
 While true, the mere act of downloading contraband will probably not land you in 
 jail by itself.  It is however most likely sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant 
 and if you really are downloading kiddy porn you will end up in jail.
-- 
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] 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 someone gives you a package in Mexico and ask you to carry it across  
the boarder.  You do so and customs finds it full of drugs.  It doesn't  
matter that you didn't see what was in there or even if it was locked  
and you couldn't see what was in there.  All that matters is that a  
reasonable person would know what's in there.
FUD - since Freenet has other legitimate uses. We don't prosecute ISPs  
even though we _know_ with 100% certainty that some of the groups contain  
childporn. We don't prosecute car manufacturers even though we _know_ with  
100% certainty that some cars will be used to transport drugs over  
national borders. We don't prosecute postal offices even though we know  
with 100% certainty that some packages contain childporn and some contain  
drugs.

No one running a Freenet node _knows_ with 100% certainty that he/she is  
trafficking anything illegal.

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
regards,
Troed
--
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] 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 deliberate attempt to not obtain knowledge is 
proof of that knowledge.
That is unclear. Otherwise the recent P2P cases where the RIAA has not
achieved victory would not have happened. This is precisely why they
need INDUCE to pass (which probably WOULD criminalize Freenet).
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 merely a side-effect of Freenet's actual goal).

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] 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]
[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 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 so and customs finds it full of drugs.  It doesn't  
 matter that you didn't see what was in there or even if it was locked  
 and you couldn't see what was in there.  All that matters is that a  
 reasonable person would know what's in there.

FUD - since Freenet has other legitimate uses. We don't prosecute ISPs  
even though we _know_ with 100% certainty that some of the groups contain  
childporn. We don't prosecute car manufacturers even though we _know_ with  
100% certainty that some cars will be used to transport drugs over  
national borders. We don't prosecute postal offices even though we know  
with 100% certainty that some packages contain childporn and some contain  
drugs.

No one running a Freenet node _knows_ with 100% certainty that he/she is  
trafficking anything illegal.

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

regards,
Troed

-- 
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] 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 merely a side-effect of Freenet's actual goal).

Umm, and clasical P2P systems don't have noninfringing uses?
 
 Ian.
-- 
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] 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, intent to commit an illegal act is a prerequisite to
the committment of that act constituting a penal offence. Additionally,
not preventing others from committing penal offences is not an offence
in itself.
The mere fact that you unknowingly and unintentionally facilitate
the transfer of illegal material cannot be construed as an intentional
active participation in that transfer. If it could, then every single
ISP would be in jail because they all provide facilities which can be
used and are actually used for the transfer of illegal material and
they all damn well know that plenty of illegal material gets transferred
through their systems along with the legal.
As long as a system can and is meant to be used legally, you can't
go after the provider of the system just because some abuse also
occurs. At least here, we don't arrest the bus driver who happened
to drive a drug dealer to his drop-off point. We don't jail the
postman who happened to deliver a package with stolen goods to a
fence, even though the postman damn well knows that, among all the
packets he delivers, here are bound to be some with illegal content.
And so on.
Let me also remind you that the uploader on freenet is too
complicated a term to be used as loosely as you do. The fact that
a file is served from my system does not mean that I put it there.
Nor does it mean that it will still be there next week when some
over-zealous junior prosecutor raids me. And it certainly doesn't
mean that I am obliged to check every byte that other people (or
the system) put on my machine before I allow it to be put there.
With your definition of the uploader, every owner of every forum
and blog and news server and mail server on or through which
something illegal got posted, would be headed for jail.
Of course, YMMV. In countries where the law hardly matters, where
money buys acquittals and where prosecutors work to get convictions
rather than justice, irrespective of actual guilt, you might find
yourself in a sore spot no matter that what you did might have
been fully legal.
As for the downloader
While true, the mere act of downloading contraband will probably
not land you in jail by itself.  It is however most likely sufficient 
evidence to obtain a warrant and if you really are downloading kiddy 
porn you will end up in jail.
You are now assuming (a) that Big Brother has cracked freenet
and (b) that he doesn't care if that fact gets known and (c) that
a search warrant will yield more evidence than traffic monitoring
did. None of this needs be true and any one out of three is enough
to keep you out of jail, provided that traffic monitoring didn't
already provide sufficient evidence for a conviction, in which
case a warrant and a search are superfluous.
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] 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]
[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. 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 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 so and customs finds it full of drugs.  It doesn't matter that you didn't 
 see what was in there or even if it was locked and you couldn't see what was in 
 there.  All that matters is that a reasonable person would know what's in there.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[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 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.
 
 Its an interesting question; can it be willful blindness if you don't 
 have a choice?  It isn't that people choose not to see the information, 
 its that they can't.  Now perhaps they don't want to either, but it is 
 hard to see how someone can be said to willfully avoid doing something 
 they couldn't do if they wanted 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]

-- 
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] 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  
transport aren't their responsibility.
*knocks on head*
See world.
See world outside USA.
See world outside USA lots lots bigger.
See people don't care about USA.
regards,
Troed
(this is the last I'll write here about this. You'll find me at various  
places over the net when you want to be lectured)

--
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] 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 lots of illegal stuff floating around freenet, 
and one can simply not avoid responsibility for a crime by deliberately ignoring what 
is obvious.
So even though you didn't want to transmit kiddy porn you made the choice to run a 
freenet node fully aware that it could and would result in KP being distributed.  That 
right there is enough to establish intent.

As for why ISPs, Mail carriers, Bus, and others aren't reasonable is because they are 
common carriers and protected by law.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 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 a 
 crime.  In fact in some cases a deliberate attempt to not obtain 
 knowledge is proof of that knowledge.

In my village, intent to commit an illegal act is a prerequisite to
the committment of that act constituting a penal offence. Additionally,
not preventing others from committing penal offences is not an offence
in itself.

The mere fact that you unknowingly and unintentionally facilitate
the transfer of illegal material cannot be construed as an intentional
active participation in that transfer. If it could, then every single
ISP would be in jail because they all provide facilities which can be
used and are actually used for the transfer of illegal material and
they all damn well know that plenty of illegal material gets transferred
through their systems along with the legal.

As long as a system can and is meant to be used legally, you can't
go after the provider of the system just because some abuse also
occurs. At least here, we don't arrest the bus driver who happened
to drive a drug dealer to his drop-off point. We don't jail the
postman who happened to deliver a package with stolen goods to a
fence, even though the postman damn well knows that, among all the
packets he delivers, here are bound to be some with illegal content.
And so on.

Let me also remind you that the uploader on freenet is too
complicated a term to be used as loosely as you do. The fact that
a file is served from my system does not mean that I put it there.
Nor does it mean that it will still be there next week when some
over-zealous junior prosecutor raids me. And it certainly doesn't
mean that I am obliged to check every byte that other people (or
the system) put on my machine before I allow it to be put there.
With your definition of the uploader, every owner of every forum
and blog and news server and mail server on or through which
something illegal got posted, would be headed for jail.

Of course, YMMV. In countries where the law hardly matters, where
money buys acquittals and where prosecutors work to get convictions
rather than justice, irrespective of actual guilt, you might find
yourself in a sore spot no matter that what you did might have
been fully legal.

 As for the downloader
 While true, the mere act of downloading contraband will probably
 not land you in jail by itself.  It is however most likely sufficient 
 evidence to obtain a warrant and if you really are downloading kiddy 
 porn you will end up in jail.

You are now assuming (a) that Big Brother has cracked freenet
and (b) that he doesn't care if that fact gets known and (c) that
a search warrant will yield more evidence than traffic monitoring
did. None of this needs be true and any one out of three is enough
to keep you out of jail, provided that traffic monitoring didn't
already provide sufficient evidence for a conviction, in which
case a warrant and a search are superfluous.

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]
___
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] 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 your 
 knowledge.  The fact is that everyone knows there lots of 
 illegal stuff floating around freenet, and one can simply 
 not avoid responsibility for a crime by deliberately ignoring 
 what is obvious.

 So even though you didn't want to transmit kiddy porn you 
 made the choice to run a freenet node fully aware that it 
 could and would result in KP being distributed.  That right 
 there is enough to establish intent.

Ok, suppose most users of freenet decide to unite against
kiddie porn by using TFE, YOYO, etc., to learn as many KP keys as
possible, and delete these keys from their datastores and patch freenet
so it won't carry them.Now even so, some KP will be distributed, but
only so long as the keys are unknown to the general population of
freenet users.  Now what do you say about intent?





signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
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] 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.  So what 
  your intent was has to be inferred from your actions and your 
  knowledge.  The fact is that everyone knows there lots of 
  illegal stuff floating around freenet, and one can simply 
  not avoid responsibility for a crime by deliberately ignoring 
  what is obvious.
 
  So even though you didn't want to transmit kiddy porn you 
  made the choice to run a freenet node fully aware that it 
  could and would result in KP being distributed.  That right 
  there is enough to establish intent.
 
 Ok, suppose most users of freenet decide to unite against
 kiddie porn by using TFE, YOYO, etc., to learn as many KP keys as
 possible, and delete these keys from their datastores and patch freenet
 so it won't carry them.Now even so, some KP will be distributed, but
 only so long as the keys are unknown to the general population of
 freenet users.  Now what do you say about intent?

What happens when users start deleting less obviously problematic files
such as warez and mp3z? What happens if they disagree over what should
be deleted? And as far as child porn goes, don't you think a lot of it
will be underground i.e. not readily available from TFE? There was an
IIP board dedicated to such things... Anyway, if we start self
censoring, we have two problems:
1. Everyone will have a different idea of what should be censored.
2. Anyone who censors child porn but not warez, or warez but not decss,
or decss but not $cientology copyrighted papers, can be compelled to
censor the rest, since it is also technically illegal. If we are to
cooperate in the sense you suggest, we cannot simply block child porn.
We would have to block *anything that is illegal in the node op's
jurisdiction* !
-- 
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] 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 system that allows for thorough monitoring
and control over end-user activities, or build one that makes such
monitoring and control impossible

The law of contributory infringement therefore presents a developer with
a binary choice: you can either include mechanisms that enable
monitoring and control of user activities (and use them to stop
allegedly infringing activity when you receive complaints), or choose a
truly decentralized architecture that will convince a judge that such
monitoring and control is impossible without extensive redesign.
(Copyright owners have begun arguing that you must at redesign future
versions of your software to prevent infringement. This remarkable
argument has not yet been accepted by any court.)

Granted this doesn't apply strictly to your suggestion, but it is pretty
close.

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.  So what 
  your intent was has to be inferred from your actions and your 
  knowledge.  The fact is that everyone knows there lots of 
  illegal stuff floating around freenet, and one can simply 
  not avoid responsibility for a crime by deliberately ignoring 
  what is obvious.
 
  So even though you didn't want to transmit kiddy porn you 
  made the choice to run a freenet node fully aware that it 
  could and would result in KP being distributed.  That right 
  there is enough to establish intent.
 
 Ok, suppose most users of freenet decide to unite against
 kiddie porn by using TFE, YOYO, etc., to learn as many KP keys as
 possible, and delete these keys from their datastores and patch freenet
 so it won't carry them.Now even so, some KP will be distributed, but
 only so long as the keys are unknown to the general population of
 freenet users.  Now what do you say about intent?
 
 
 



 ___
 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]

-- 
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] 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 of Big
Broher-owned spyware called freenet.

Well, most PCs run insecure software, infrequently updated. Even of
those that are relatively secure their operators don't have the
understanding or the time to make them secure. And even if they do there
are always more vulnerabilities, as programmers are human beings. They
can probably compromize the vast majority of PCs pretty easily.
If my machine is insecure and gets compromised, my ass might be
on fire. If your ftp server gets compromised, the ass of every
single freenet user in the world could be on fire.
And the idea that this could happen is not far-fetched. Remember
the linux kernel root hack a few months ago on kernel.org? The
Debian server? You can publish all the md5 checksums you want,
but whoever can manipulate the files themselves, can manipulate
the published checksums too. Among the eager competitors to hack
your server are about 120 governments, a multitude of political
organisations, several mafias of different flavours and, of course,
every Joe Hacker and Skrip T Kiddie who would consider it a
special honour to have hacked a whole network instead of only
a server.
You have taken extraordinary measures to protect against this
happening, haven't you?
Z
--
Framtiden r som en babianrv, frggrann 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]


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. If the latter ever gets
 compromised, we might all end up running a piece of Big
 Broher-owned spyware called freenet.
 
 Well, most PCs run insecure software, infrequently updated. Even of
 those that are relatively secure their operators don't have the
 understanding or the time to make them secure. And even if they do there
 are always more vulnerabilities, as programmers are human beings. They
 can probably compromize the vast majority of PCs pretty easily.
 
 If my machine is insecure and gets compromised, my ass might be
 on fire. If your ftp server gets compromised, the ass of every
 single freenet user in the world could be on fire.

I was pointing out that if 99% of Freenet nodes run on Windows 98, then
your anonymity isn't necessarily what it appears.
 
 And the idea that this could happen is not far-fetched. Remember
 the linux kernel root hack a few months ago on kernel.org? The
 Debian server? You can publish all the md5 checksums you want,
 but whoever can manipulate the files themselves, can manipulate
 the published checksums too. Among the eager competitors to hack
 your server are about 120 governments, a multitude of political
 organisations, several mafias of different flavours and, of course,
 every Joe Hacker and Skrip T Kiddie who would consider it a
 special honour to have hacked a whole network instead of only
 a server.
 
 You have taken extraordinary measures to protect against this
 happening, haven't you?

Umm, measures such as..? I don't see how you can defend against the
above, really.

There is one thing though... I think the CVS announcement mails are
generated on the client side. They should be generated on the server
side. Anyone know how to do this?
-- 
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] 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 
   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 lots of 
   illegal stuff floating around freenet, and one can simply 
   not avoid responsibility for a crime by deliberately ignoring 
   what is obvious.
  
   So even though you didn't want to transmit kiddy porn you 
   made the choice to run a freenet node fully aware that it 
   could and would result in KP being distributed.  That right 
   there is enough to establish intent.
  
  Ok, suppose most users of freenet decide to unite against
  kiddie porn by using TFE, YOYO, etc., to learn as many KP keys as
  possible, and delete these keys from their datastores and patch freenet
  so it won't carry them.Now even so, some KP will be distributed, but
  only so long as the keys are unknown to the general population of
  freenet users.  Now what do you say about intent?
 
 What happens when users start deleting less obviously problematic files
 such as warez and mp3z? What happens if they disagree over what should
 be deleted? And as far as child porn goes, don't you think a lot of it
 will be underground i.e. not readily available from TFE? There was an
 IIP board dedicated to such things... Anyway, if we start self
 censoring, we have two problems:
 1. Everyone will have a different idea of what should be censored.

In that case, freenet will route around the most restrictive nodes.
Censorship will only be effective if a clear majority of nodes elect to
censor the content.

 2. Anyone who censors child porn but not warez, or warez but not decss,
 or decss but not $cientology copyrighted papers, can be compelled to
 censor the rest, since it is also technically illegal. 

That is not a problem with my suggestion.  It is a problem with the
fundamental design of freenet.  A system which avoids this problem would
have to make it impossible to tell at all (not just impossible to be
100% certain) who is requesting content and who is supplying content. 
It would have to be impossible to tell what content is passing through
each node.  (Impossible means without compromising a substantial
fraction of all nodes).  

Freenet does not achieve this, except when the crypto key (the part
after the comma) is not published.  Once the crypto key is published, it
is no longer impossible to tell what is passing through the node.

 If we are to cooperate in the sense you suggest, we cannot simply 
 block child porn.  We would have to block *anything that is illegal
 in the node op's jurisdiction* !

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.

This decision _is_ forced upon the node operator by the design of
freenet.  A different design might avoid the problem by making it
actually impossible to do selective censorship.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
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] 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 
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 lots of 
illegal stuff floating around freenet, and one can simply 
not avoid responsibility for a crime by deliberately ignoring 
what is obvious.
   
So even though you didn't want to transmit kiddy porn you 
made the choice to run a freenet node fully aware that it 
could and would result in KP being distributed.  That right 
there is enough to establish intent.
   
   Ok, suppose most users of freenet decide to unite against
   kiddie porn by using TFE, YOYO, etc., to learn as many KP keys as
   possible, and delete these keys from their datastores and patch freenet
   so it won't carry them.Now even so, some KP will be distributed, but
   only so long as the keys are unknown to the general population of
   freenet users.  Now what do you say about intent?
  
  What happens when users start deleting less obviously problematic files
  such as warez and mp3z? What happens if they disagree over what should
  be deleted? And as far as child porn goes, don't you think a lot of it
  will be underground i.e. not readily available from TFE? There was an
  IIP board dedicated to such things... Anyway, if we start self
  censoring, we have two problems:
  1. Everyone will have a different idea of what should be censored.
 
 In that case, freenet will route around the most restrictive nodes.
 Censorship will only be effective if a clear majority of nodes elect to
 censor the content.

Perhaps. If Freenet is that smart. There are two possible technical ways
to do this:
1. If nodes censor a LOT of content, their estimators will fall, so we
will route around them.
2. Per-node failure tables.
 
  2. Anyone who censors child porn but not warez, or warez but not decss,
  or decss but not $cientology copyrighted papers, can be compelled to
  censor the rest, since it is also technically illegal. 
 
 That is not a problem with my suggestion.  It is a problem with the
 fundamental design of freenet.  A system which avoids this problem would
 have to make it impossible to tell at all (not just impossible to be
 100% certain) who is requesting content and who is supplying content. 
 It would have to be impossible to tell what content is passing through
 each node.  (Impossible means without compromising a substantial
 fraction of all nodes).  

That would make Freenet's other goals unattainable.
 
 Freenet does not achieve this, except when the crypto key (the part
 after the comma) is not published.  Once the crypto key is published, it
 is no longer impossible to tell what is passing through the node.
 
  If we are to cooperate in the sense you suggest, we cannot simply 
  block child porn.  We would have to block *anything that is illegal
  in the node op's jurisdiction* !
 
 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.
 
 This decision _is_ forced upon the node operator by the design of
 freenet.  A different design might avoid the problem by making it
 actually impossible to do selective censorship.

No, it is only forced on the node operator if:
a) We implement such a system voluntarily, or
b) We are compelled to implement such a system in court.

Please read my other mail on this topic.
-- 
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] 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 laws? As in acts and articles?
AFAIK, most ISPs have chosen to *not* assume the common carrier
status in order to avoid common carrier obligations and to not
subject their ToSs and AUPs to common carrier demands. The DMCA
offers the possibility to any ISP to assume a common-carrier-like
position, at his option and after he has received a complaint,
but the DMCA only addresses copyright infringements and not any
other illegal content.
Besides, if we disregard ISPs for a moment, I don't know of any
private company in a non-carrier business that has ever been
prosecuted for what its employees do over its networks. That
is: I work at company X. I spend most of my time in the office
downloading kiddie porn and uploading copyright infringements,
trade mark violations, libel and military secrets. When I'm
caught, I'll go to jail for a very long time.
Now, do you seriously think that my boss will go to jail too
because he could have known that this could happen and he
didn't take protective measures and he should have controlled
the contents of all incoming and outgoing communications over
the company network and he didn't have to provide internet
access to his employees in the first place? Do you seriously
think so? And, if you do, does that reflect your opinion as
Matthew.Findley@ or as @usdoj.gov ?
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: 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 ftp server compromised because
of a flaw in mailman, or even sendmail, so put that stuff elsewhere.
Heavy firewalling. IDS. No compiler installed; most hacks begin
with a compilation. No unnecessary script interpreters; an ftp
server can live very well (and much longer) without PHP, python,
perl, java, whathaveyou. A super-lean kernel. A permanently up
to date system.
Then the more tedious stuff. Remote syslog. Remote md5sums of every
file on the machine, regularly checked. A draconic password policy.
Why not a read-only server running from a CD-ROM?
And then comes the really difficult part, physical security. A
gang of angry and hungry dobbermans in the outer perimeter, cobras
in the server room, tarantulas inside the server itself.
As a side-dish, network security. If your DNS can be compromised,
nobody needs to touch your ftp server before they can serve their
own files from your machine. Arp. There is really no way to
ensure that a visitor to your ftp server won't end up elsewhere,
but an unpredictable control mechanism can let you know if that
happens and mitigate the damage.
There is one thing though... I think the CVS announcement mails are
generated on the client side. They should be generated on the server
side. Anyone know how to do this?
What you mean by CVS announcements?
Z
--
Framtiden r som en babianrv, frggrann 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] 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.
Associating freenet to civil disobedience (in the node op's
jurisdiction) is a sure way of bringing it down; it then
becomes illegal by self-imposed definition. Censorship is
jurisdiction-bound and so is the system's reaction to civil
disobedience. When you, as a US-based op, agree to censor
kiddie porn and can get away for mp3s go through, you can
trust that your Chinese peer will rot in jail if he lets
reports from Tienanmen go through. The Chinese equivalent
to your kiddie porn censorship is censoring Tienanmen and
letting the mp3s through. Well, pretty worthless I'd say.
Don't touch content. Don't make it possible to touch any
content. When you do, you burn all content as well as
yourself.
Z
--
Framtiden r som en babianrv, frggrann 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] 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 be accused of willful 
ignorance because they chose to work for a service that does look 
inside all of the mail it transports.

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.

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 so and customs finds it full of drugs.  It 
doesn't matter that you didn't see what was in there or even if it was 
locked and you couldn't see what was in there.  All that matters is 
that a reasonable person would know what's in there.
Really?  I suspect there are at least thousands of postal workers who 
deliver packages from Mexico to the US without opening them every day, 
are you suggesting that they could all be arrested?

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] 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 infringe
copyright law (this is merely a side-effect of Freenet's actual goal).
Umm, and clasical P2P systems don't have noninfringing uses?
No, but may of them have features which their creators have (foolishly) 
admitted are directly intended to thwart the efforts of copyright 
holders to enforce copyright law.

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] 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 
it is unlikely that they could successfully be accused of willful 
ignorance because they chose to work for a service that does look 
inside all of the
s/does/does not
___
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] 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]
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] 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 none of
 its features are expressly intended to allow people to infringe
 copyright law (this is merely a side-effect of Freenet's actual goal).
 
 Umm, and clasical P2P systems don't have noninfringing uses?
 
 No, but may of them have features which their creators have (foolishly) 
 admitted are directly intended to thwart the efforts of copyright 
 holders to enforce copyright law.

LOL. Whereas we don't? ;)
 
 Ian.
-- 
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] 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 unknowingly transported drugs it 
 is unlikely that they could successfully be accused of willful 
 ignorance because they chose to work for a service that does look 
 inside all of the mail it transports.
 
 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 goal in itself on Freenet.
It's part of its very basic design features.
 
 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 so and customs finds it full of drugs.  It 
 doesn't matter that you didn't see what was in there or even if it was 
 locked and you couldn't see what was in there.  All that matters is 
 that a reasonable person would know what's in there.
 
 Really?  I suspect there are at least thousands of postal workers who 
 deliver packages from Mexico to the US without opening them every day, 
 are you suggesting that they could all be arrested?
 
 Ian.
-- 
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] 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 would *probably* be safe as none 
of
its features are expressly intended to allow people to infringe
copyright law (this is merely a side-effect of Freenet's actual 
goal).
Umm, and clasical P2P systems don't have noninfringing uses?
No, but may of them have features which their creators have 
(foolishly)
admitted are directly intended to thwart the efforts of copyright
holders to enforce copyright law.
LOL. Whereas we don't? ;)
Which feature of Freenet is *intended* to toward the efforts of 
copyright holders to enforce copyright law?

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] 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 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 merely a side-effect of Freenet's actual 
 goal).
 
 Umm, and clasical P2P systems don't have noninfringing uses?
 
 No, but may of them have features which their creators have 
 (foolishly)
 admitted are directly intended to thwart the efforts of copyright
 holders to enforce copyright law.
 
 LOL. Whereas we don't? ;)
 
 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.
 
 Ian.
-- 
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] 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.
___
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] 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 goal in itself on Freenet.
It's part of its very basic design features.
Keep track of the subject. The fact that ignorance is a goal
of the developers doesn't mean - nor prove - that it's a goal
of the prosecuted user.
Z
--
Framtiden r som en babianrv, frggrann 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] 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 
 everything is written on postcards).

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 argued.

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 Freenet. However IANAL, and my opinions are
based on third party analysis of INDUCE by somebody who is probably
merely a law student or interested bystander.
 
 Ian.
-- 
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] 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 true of the postal system (otherwise they would mandate that 
 everything is written on postcards).
 
 Ian.
-- 
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] 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 the same thing.  Freenet thwarts copyright law because Freenet 
ensures freedom of communication, and ultimately copyright law is 
incompatible with that.

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] 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 would mandate that
everything is written on postcards).
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.
The postal system is specifically designed to prevent itself from 
reading what is being posted, this, for example, is why it is illegal 
to read someone else's mail in many countries.

 In fact, right now,
Freenet is so slow that only perverts and geeks use it. Or so it would
be argued.
Being a geek is illegal now?
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 Freenet. However IANAL, and my opinions are
based on third party analysis of INDUCE by somebody who is probably
merely a law student or interested bystander.
I have seen enough lawyers being completely wrong enough times to trust 
my own judgment on the law before I blindly trust that of a lawyer.  At 
the end of the day, law is just a very long and rather inconsistent 
instruction manual, it isn't beyond the comprehensive abilities of we 
mere mortals, must as many lawyers would like us to think that it is.

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] 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 Freenet. However IANAL, and my opinions are
 based on third party analysis of INDUCE by somebody who is probably
 merely a law student or interested bystander.
 
 I have seen enough lawyers being completely wrong enough times to trust 
 my own judgment on the law before I blindly trust that of a lawyer.  At 
 the end of the day, law is just a very long and rather inconsistent 
 instruction manual, it isn't beyond the comprehensive abilities of we 
 mere mortals, must as many lawyers would like us to think that it is.

Perhaps so. However personally I think you have such an insane level of
optimism as to qualify as a disability. :) I'm sure you think the
reverse of me.
 
 Ian.
-- 
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: 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 be protecting those users who are really careful and compile from
source and don't really need protection. Protecting the binaries is much
more crucial.
Of course I don't mean that protecting the source is unimportant. I have
the impression - from nowhere - that freenet is developed by a small and
rather tight team. If that is so, then commits can be based on personal
trust. If, on the contrary, source can be committed by not fully trusted
people, then there is no end to the auditing requirements before you can
call the resulting binaries safe.
They're
not easy to deal with. Specifically, no matter how deeply you secure the
server, you can't certify every single build as free from unexpected
code. 
It is human to err and, as builds 5085-5087 prove, errors will happen.
However, as long as the developers are well-willing but imperfect friends,
we can trust that there will be no spycode sending extensive reports to
nsa.gov. There is a fundamental difference between bugs and malicious code.
I am willing to take the risk of accidentally introduced security flaws,
but not the guaranteed-to-work intentional security breach that an outsider
would put in freenet if he could.
Hence the need to ensure that for example mails get sent out EVERY
time a CVS commit occurs, and if they bounce it will keep trying to send
them forever. How can we achieve this?
As far as I know how mail servers work, you can't. Then again, why would
you need to? Really, how many people have commit permissions? As long as
they are fewer than three dozen or so, you can have a cryptographically
secured system of notification acknowledgements which leads to phone calls
for missing acknowledgments after a certain threshold. The problem is
not some notifications not reaching their destination, but rather commits
happening without anyone at all being notified.
I think that what you are really saying is that you ned to ensure that
nothing can be committed without at least some notifications going out.
If the cvs server gets hacked, you can't. One way around this is what
I wrote about remotely stored md5sums of all files. The way cvs works
sabotages this though (existing file unchanged, newer file present but
not md5summed to begin with).
Z
--
Framtiden r som en babianrv, frggrann 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] 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 argued.

This is why the government, and for that matter Hollywood, doesn't give a rat's 
patotsie right now.  Until we get it to work reasonably well, it is little threat in 
the overall scheme of things.

They'll only start to worry when millions of people are actively using it.  By then it 
will be too late...they could shut down SourceForge and exile Ian to Tierra del  Fuego 
and it wouldn't make any difference, because of the robust and decentralized design of 
the network.

In the meantime, even the perverts are getting a little tired of typing in parameters, 
downloading new versions, and rebooting their Unix machines

___
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] 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. Or so it would
 be argued.

 This is why the government, and for that matter Hollywood, doesn't give a
 rat's patotsie right now.  Until we get it to work reasonably well, it is
 little threat in the overall scheme of things.

 They'll only start to worry when millions of people are actively using it.
  By then it will be too late...they could shut down SourceForge and exile
 Ian to Tierra del  Fuego and it wouldn't make any difference, because of
 the robust and decentralized design of the network.

Yep. Good isn't it? And even if the main developers are ousted, the
project is open source (I have the tree ;) so someone could fork it and
distribute via freenet. Though establishing trust would be a little
harder...

 In the meantime, even the perverts are getting a little tired of typing in
 parameters, downloading new versions, and rebooting their Unix
 machines

I just ./update.sh, no need for anything else. I am getting tired of the
RAM usage, but until it compiles with cgj then I'm stuck with it. I've got
bandwidth to burn at the moment (100GB/month, outbound.) I'm aiming for
1GB/day of outbound at the moment. Haven't worked out the rate for that
yet, but I will.

I support freedom of speach. And while there's precious little speach on
Freenet as compared to movies and pictures, I think it'll grow. Some time
soon I'll get a freesite up.

-- 
Phillip Hutchings
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.sitharus.com/

___
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: 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
~Paul

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 00:23:51 +0200, Zenon Panoussis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 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 ftp server compromised because
 of a flaw in mailman, or even sendmail, so put that stuff elsewhere.
 Heavy firewalling. IDS. No compiler installed; most hacks begin
 with a compilation. No unnecessary script interpreters; an ftp
 server can live very well (and much longer) without PHP, python,
 perl, java, whathaveyou. A super-lean kernel. A permanently up
 to date system.
 
 Then the more tedious stuff. Remote syslog. Remote md5sums of every
 file on the machine, regularly checked. A draconic password policy.
 Why not a read-only server running from a CD-ROM?
 
 And then comes the really difficult part, physical security. A
 gang of angry and hungry dobbermans in the outer perimeter, cobras
 in the server room, tarantulas inside the server itself.
 
 As a side-dish, network security. If your DNS can be compromised,
 nobody needs to touch your ftp server before they can serve their
 own files from your machine. Arp. There is really no way to
 ensure that a visitor to your ftp server won't end up elsewhere,
 but an unpredictable control mechanism can let you know if that
 happens and mitigate the damage.
 
  There is one thing though... I think the CVS announcement mails are
  generated on the client side. They should be generated on the server
  side. Anyone know how to do this?
 
 What you mean by CVS announcements?
 
 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]

___
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]