Thank you for your long answer! We'll use darknet, and we'll see... Courage for developers, keep up the good work!
On 1/20/09, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > On Tuesday 20 January 2009 11:27, 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i wrote: >> > They are just disconnect >> > you before bring to court. >> >> Blocking of Internet connection is in addition to prosecution, but >> legal proceedings is not systematic. The purpose of Hadopi is to >> alleviate the courts. Before, there were very few prosecutions for >> downloading copyrighted files, because the courts were overburdened. >> Hadopi was created at the request of the majors. >> The European Parliament is against this law because it does not allow >> people to defend themselves (or with their lawyer), and because the >> sanctions must be imposed by the courts. (This is not the case for >> Hadopi: sanctions will be imposed by the government and majors.) > > Yeah, the European Parliament would prefer to give prison sentences to peer > to > peer developers and a small representative number of major filesharers... > (they passed IPRED2 on first reading, see my last mail). >> >> On 1/20/09, Daniel Cheng <j16sdiz+freenet at gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Ancoron Luciferis >> > <ancoron at chaoslayer.de> wrote: >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >> >> Hi there, >> >> >> >> I knew that the french law goes further than any other country in >> >> europe >> >> nowadays regarding anti-piracy and stuff like that but I didn't knew >> >> that you can be held guilty for something you didn't do (neighbor >> >> hacked >> >> in WLAN). That's like being held guilty for the damage someone makes >> >> that stole your car. I can't really believe that, because that would >> >> negate the base assumption: everyone is innocent as long as his/her >> >> guilt has not been proven. >> > >> > This is not "held guilty" in the legal sense. They are just disconnect >> > you before bring to court. This is a proactive measurement to prevent >> > further "harm" -- just like what have been doing for, for example, >> > child abuse and violent to spouse. >> > >> > Yes, piracy issue is as serious as (if not more important then) trying >> > to kill your wife or child. >> > >> >> Well, it doesn't matter much how strict the law is. As long as the use >> >> of freenet is not explicitly prohibited in France you are free to use >> >> it. If you are concerned about your privacy using the darknet is your >> >> best bet nowadays. If your internet connection is being blocked for >> >> nothing then I would sue the authority. And as a last option you are >> >> still free to leave your country. >> >> >> >> At the 25C3 in berlin, germany, there was some proposal that first >> >> sounds funny but after thinking about it it just makes sense: all new >> >> laws should be tested at the government itself before establishment. >> >> >> >> It's not the people that need to be controlled, it is the government! >> >> It >> >> is those people that happen to decide based on money instead of >> >> knowledge that makes our world go mad. There is no terrorism as long as >> >> you don't blame someone for it. >> >> >> >> Just in case you want to know what all those new laws are meant for you >> >> should consider watching this movie: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ >> >> >> >> It explains why the world is as it is and why it is that mad nowadays. >> >> >> >> >> >> To summarize this it is not a freenet issue (although I enjoy such >> >> political discussions). If internet connections can be blocked >> >> arbitrary >> >> it is even not safe to have one. All the french people with an internet >> >> access should make as much noise as they can to prove that law ad >> >> absurdum. >> > >> > This is a freenet issue. >> > Read http://freenetproject.org/philosophy.html item 5: >> > : The only way to ensure that a democracy will remain effective is to >> > : ensure that the government cannot control its population's ability to >> > : share information, to communicate. So long as everything we see >> > : and hear is filtered, we are not truly free. Freenet's aim is to allow >> > : two or more people who wish to share information, to do so. >> > >> > Note the second line. I would read it as: >> > "...ensure that the government cannot (do what it want to do)..." >> > >> >> Thanks for reading, >> >> >> >> AncoL >> >> >> >> 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i wrote: >> >>> The blocking is arbitrary, upon request of the majors. Majors give IP >> >>> addresses to a high authority, and high authority blocks the Internet >> >>> connection, without legal proceedings. People can not defend >> >>> themselves. It is even impossible to denounce a neighbor who uses our >> >>> wireless connection: the French state provides software to protect >> >>> connections, and it consider that the owner of the connection is >> >>> protected and responsibly. The European Parliament is against French >> >>> law, but no European law has been passed yet. The French minister of >> >>> culture want several hundred million of sanctions per year without >> >>> legal proceedings. >> >>> >> >>> On 1/19/09, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: >> >>>> On Monday 19 January 2009 22:15, 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i wrote: >> >>>>> I understand your logical position. But using Freenet, we can be >> >>>>> accused of participating in a network facilitating piracy, even if >> >>>>> we >> >>>>> do not download copyrighted files ourselves. In this case, our >> >>>>> Internet connection would be blocked wrongly. And it is possible >> >>>>> that >> >>>>> the French state to use this law as a pretext to censor its citizens >> >>>>> annoying. So we are worried. >> >>>> Does the law allow for people to be blocked arbitrarily? Who decides? >> >>>>> On 1/19/09, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: >> >>>>>> On Monday 19 January 2009 18:11, 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i wrote: >> >>>>>>> Yes and I use Freenet for legal use only. Like a lot of users! But >> >>>>>>> > we >> >>>>>>> can not know what is in the datastores and in the freenet traffic. >> >>>>>>> So, >> >>>>>>> you think the French state does not attack Freenet or its users? I >> >>>>>>> hope. We'll see... >> >>>>>> I didn't say that. All I said was if you are worried about having > your >> >>>>>> internet connection blocked it is presumably because you are >> >>>>>> downloading >> >>>>>> illegal copyrighted files, and therefore that we don't want to have >> >>>> anything >> >>>>>> to do with you. >> >>>>>>> On 1/19/09, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> On Monday 19 January 2009 15:28, 3BUIb3S50i 3BUIb3S50i wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> There is a break in the sanctions of french law Hadopi. Hadopi >> >>>>>>>>> allow >> >>>>>>>>> censured users to use television, telephone and maybe anothers >> >>>>>>>>> payables services. So, victims will have a lot of censured >> >>>>>>>>> ports, >> >>>>>>>>> but >> >>>>>>>>> not all. Some ports will continue to run. Can we found a method >> >>>>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>>> override this censorship (with freenet)? e.g. encapsulate >> >>>>>>>>> traffic >> >>>>>>>>> into >> >>>>>>>>> VoIP. This is very difficult: ISP can limit traffic only from/to >> >>>>>>>>> its >> >>>>>>>>> servers. What do you think? It's very important for french >> >>>>>>>>> users. >> >>>>>>>>> French users risk to left freenet soon... like Batosai. For >> >>>>>>>>> example, >> >>>>>>>>> I >> >>>>>>>>> do not want to risk losing my Internet connection. The french >> >>>>>>>>> community is afraid by this law. Some users have requested TCP >> >>>>>>>>> support >> >>>>>>>>> for hide freenet traffic in https, http etc. ISP will spy their >> >>>>>>>>> users, >> >>>>>>>>> so Darknet will not be sufficient. >> >>>>>>>> I assume this is some sort of law whereby those who download >> >>>> copyrighted >> >>>>>>>> files >> >>>>>>>> get their internet access cut? Please do not use Freenet to >> >>>>>>>> illegally >> >>>>>>>> copy >> >>>>>>>> copyrighted files. The Freenet Project cannot have anything to do >> >>>>>>>> with >> >>>>>>>> piracy, as per Grokster vs MGM. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>>> Tech mailing list >> >>>>>>> Tech at freenetproject.org >> >>>>>>> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>> Tech mailing list >> >>>>> Tech at freenetproject.org >> >>>>> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Tech mailing list >> >>> Tech at freenetproject.org >> >>> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech >> >>> >> >>> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >> >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >> >> >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkl1iGcACgkQHwxOsqv2bG2QDwCeOnSTLJqj6oGLNvCmDkoENcJI >> >> XlcAoIGjgVFv9/Z6KFIfh7GAZ2afZ6Dh >> >> =JLhh >> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Tech mailing list >> >> Tech at freenetproject.org >> >> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Tech mailing list >> > Tech at freenetproject.org >> > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech >> > >> >> >> -- >> 3buib3s50i at gmail.com | dimonqmfcb at gmx.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Tech mailing list >> Tech at freenetproject.org >> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech >> >> > -- 3buib3s50i at gmail.com | dimonqmfcb at gmx.com
