[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]

Reply via email to