|
This doesn't have anything to do with act being
more probable then the other.
You aren't responsable for the entire network; only
what your node is doing.
Just because you can't see what your node is doing
doesn't excues anything.
Running freenet is not a civial
libertiy.
Laws are not made to outlaw specific ways of
commint a crime so there will never be a law that says useing freenet is
illegal. Laws are only written to outlaw certin acts, like transmitting
KP.
"Saying someone is guilty of something by helping
someone is meaningless and no judge would let you get your foot in the
courtroom with this steaming pile of accusations."
.... so wrong.
Helping someone commit a crime is very illegal, it
always has been and always will be.
Let me pose something to you.
Right now I'm telling you that there is
overwhelimingly strong likelyhood that running a freenet node will help someone
spread illegel material.
Are you still going to run your node?
If you are then you are knowingly commiting a
crime. Why do you think you should be able to get away with
it?
pineapple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>
> DOH! I did it twice :P > > --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You did... ;) > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support/5068 > > > > The is a big difference in knowing it can happen, > > and knowing it is happening. > > The USPS knows it can happen, but doesn't know it > > is. > > In freenet you know not only that it can happen, but > > you know it is happening (maybe not with 100% > > certainty, but enough to convince a jury I would > > suspect). > This argument is so bogus it's not even funny. First, > how can you argue that the probability that the USPS > is being used for illegal activity is LOWER than the > probability Freenet is being used for illegal > activity? Has anthrax or bombs ever been sent over > Freenet? Second, how can an individual be > responsible for the ENTIRE FREENET NETWORK but the > USPS is not responsible for its distribution system? > At least the USPS has thousands of workers and > millions of dollars and tons of equipment to check > those packages! Is the individual somehow responsible > for monitoring the whole Freenet network? I can't > even check my own store because the design of Freenet > prevents it. A design necessitated by the goals of > Freenet to provide anonymity. > > > The reason you are held more accountable for your > > actions is because you are an individual where as > > the USPS is a huge organization. It's the USPS job > > to deliver packages, where you are under no > > obligation to run freenet. > I see, somehow the USPS has more civil rights than an > individual. OF course. Maybe it's time for the USA > to change its name to the UCA (United Corporations of > America). I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So > basically you are arguing that using Freenet is a > crime. Unless there is a specific law against > Freenet, then this theoretical hand waving is > meaningless. Crimes are specific acts which have to > be substantiated with specific evidence in a court of > law. Saying someone is guilty of something by helping > someone is meaningless and no judge would let you get > your foot in the courtroom with this steaming pile of > accusations. > > > > > quote - "You are trying to turn a collection of > > acts, a small number of which may assist someone to > > do something illegal, into a single act of criminal > > facilitation. This is clearly not the intent of the > > law and I would be amazed if you can provide any > > case law to the contrary." > > Actually you combined the acts. The design of > > freenet is so successful that it makes it imposable > > to tell the bad from the good. The intent of the > > law is to stop someone from helping another person > > commit a crime by simply not taking part in the > > crime themselves. But in fact in freenet its > > actually much worse because you are actively taking > > part in it. > > Its like this, a hard drive by itself is perfectly > > legal. But the moment a KP picture is put on that > > hard drive the whole thing is contraband since you > > have combined the two in such a way as to make them > > one. No matter what else is on the hard drive, even > > if its the cure for cancer. > > You can't hide behind the fact that most of your > > deeds are good deeds, if you can't stop the bad > > deeds you can't do any of it. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 10:35 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] > > Showdown at the Freenode > > Coral > > Importance: Low > > > > > > On 6 Aug 2004, at 14:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > I gave you a link to the New York state penal code > > definition of > > > criminal facilitation. Which spells out very > > clearly that one only > > > needs a probable knowledge that his or her actions > > are allowing for a > > > crime to occur. > > > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c82/a25.html > > > > Perhaps I have overlooked one of your emails, but I > > don't think you > > responded to my point that if the law was > > interpreted in the manner you > > are suggesting, then postal workers (who must know > > that there is a > > possibility that the mail they carry contains > > illegal material) would > > be liable. > > > > Clearly this would be ridiculous, and so I suspect > > your interpretation > > must be incorrect. > > > > Looking more closely at the case law you cite it > > isn't hard to see > > fundamental differences which would mean it doesn't > > apply here (which > > is good news for postal workers and Freenet node > > operators alike): > > > > Florez knew the person that she was helping, and had > > specific reason to > > believe that he would use the account illegally, but > > she did it anyway. > > In contrast, neither a Freenet node operator nor a > > postman will > > typically have specific knowledge of the person to > > whom they are > > delivering a piece of information, and it is > > reasonable to assume that > > is most cases that person is doing nothing illegal. > > > > In other words, for any given piece of mail or data, > > the Freenet node > > operator most certainly does not have probable > > knowledge that they are > > taking part in an illegal activity. You are trying > > to turn a > > collection of acts, a small number of which may > > assist someone to do > > something illegal, into a single act of criminal > > facilitation. This is > > clearly not the intent of the law and I would be > > amazed if you can > > provide any case law to the contrary. > > > > Ian. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > chat mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > > _______________________________________________ > > chat mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > |
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
