Matthew Findley wrote:
[knowingly facilitating transmission of illegal material]
Maybe you missed the warnings on some of the freenet pages. Or even the warning in the FAQ on the main page. Or the detail explanations of how freenet works. But a prosecutor won't.
Those warnings are not on my node. The material behind them isn't on my node. I haven't visited those pages. When I start up my new node, I am not transmitting anything at all, nor storing anything at all. In the course of time, as my node fills its store and proxies requests of others, **some or other** such material **might** pass my node or even get stored on it. I do not know that for a fact. I do not know it as a specific probability either. I only know it as an abstract possibility. Such mere abstract possibility is not enough to fulfill the legal requirement "knowingly" for an offence on my part.
The press is full of scary stories about all the illegal stuff that flows around the internet too. Any ISP who provides internet access knows that some or other of his users might use his systems to transmit illegal material. That doesn't make him a facilitator in the legal sense.
Now the needle gets stuck on the "you are not an ISP" track; we've been here before. Fine, forget the ISP. A university that provides internet access to students is not an ISP. A company that provides internet access to employees is not an ISP. A friendly guy who shares his broadband connection with his neighbour is not an ISP. The all know that the students/employees/neighbour **could** use that conection for illegal purposes, but not that they actually do so. In none of these cases does anyone else but the end user get prosecuted. Oh shit, we've been here before too. We went through all this already. You weren't able to counter it in a rational and supported manner, yet you insist on your position. We go round and round and round and everyone on the list has already killfiled the both of us long ago, but you still think that repetition makes a lie true. What are you, the department of justice or the department of propaganda?
No.... if you had bothered to look you would know the law does not say intentionally. It says knowingly.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2252.html
Wrong again. That specific law might say "knowingly", but intent is a general pre-requisite in penal law (except where negligence is explicitly written into the law) and applies too, cumulatively. What it all comes down to is that knowledge creates intent quasi- automatically, but only if you have a reasonable possibility to act and fail to do so. For example, if I gain knowledge about something illegal happening with my systems but I can't stop it immediately, I will not be liable for it until such point when I could have actually stopped it. Likewise, if I do what can reasonably be expected of me to stop it but fail, I will not be liable.
These nuances aside, in the context of this discussion "knowingly" and "intentionally" could be used as synonymous because the cases where they wouldn't be synonymous haven't been part of the discussion. And fact remains that "knowingly", as defined in the appeals ruling that you quoted, has to be concrete and not just an abstract "haven't you seen the warnings on some freenet pages?"
[posting from a DoJ addres]
No one has ever said I can't use the computers for personal bussiness. I get many jokes through email from other employes.
I said that I wasn't stating offical DOJ policy. I was only useing my work addy because I didn't want to have to keep opening hotmail windows in internet explorer. Outlook is much easyer.
And seriously... its not really my problem if you jump to conclusions. If I had been emailing the NY times or something I may have a problem. But this... doubtful.
Why live in doubt when you can have certainty? Go ask your boss whether what you did was OK or not, and post his reply here.
[rotten system]
I work for the feds. Those all were state cases.
I see. State prosecutors are crap, federal prosecutors are shining stars. And that's precisely why federal prosecutors have not prosecuted one single cop or state prosecutor among all those who used false evidence and/or hid or destroyed true evidence so they could get innocent people convicted, right? How about you take the list at http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/IllinoisList.htm to one of your star fed colleagues and ask him what the feds are doing about it?
If they ended up on death row a jury must have believed the prosecutor so is terriably unreasonable that the prosecutor believed it too?
When a prosecutor presents a jury with fabricated evidence, you really mean to say that the prosecutor believed it just because the jury did? Something like "the liar believed himself because others believed him"? Really, what is the matter with you?
Yes it is a like a loop. Cause you seem to be unable understand that it doesn't mater that you don't know! Only that you should have known. I have said this over and over again. You just need to read better.
Yes, Mr Findley, your looping repetitions are very convincing. I have read them again and I am convinced, you are absolutely right. Now, will you please tell me why you are a clerk and not a prosecutor? I mean, I have four years of law school behind me and six of practicing law, yet I stand corrected by you. Shouldn't you be promoted? Would you like me to write a letter of recommendation to your boss?
Z
-- Framtiden är som en babianröv, färggrann och full av skit. Arne Anka _______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
