Re: [freenet-chat] Arguments against the Darknet
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 05:50:34PM +0100, Roger Hayter wrote: FWIW, I agree with all your points. And I would add that no-one is more than 2 steps away from a police spy - I find random connection *adds* plausible deniability: although not (and this is a valid point that has been made by the developers) if running Freenet is itself a crime. But if every friend has at least one friend who is a police spy, they are going to know you are running Freenet anyway. The only defence is to have so many people running Freenet that they don't bother to prosecute unless they already suspect you of something, in which case they will always find something to prosecute you for if they want to anyway. Having a network of informers is several orders of magnitude more expensive than harvesting, or than compromizing the network with cancer nodes, which would pretend to be thousands of nodes, and get connected to everyone without having to lay out for a network of informants. This is how security works: you make it expensive, not impossible, to get in. The more expensive it is the less likely it is that they will try or succeed. I suppose that I am assuming that anyone who *needs* to use Freenet is subject to investigation for more important (to the authorities) reasons than their use of Freenet. I am assuming the spying is for other purposes and Freenet just incidental. Having read your other comments, it is clearly important that people join Freenet for a range of different reasons, so sharing a connection with someone does not automatically label you as a co-conspirator: so we need to sell the darknet idea very strongly for this to come about. This in itself, as you say, is a reason not to let people use an opennet, which is so much easier to join. You have convinced me (FWIW!). -- Roger Hayter ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: Licensing problem in winstaller
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 05:12:47PM +0100, Theodore Hong wrote: Matthew Toseland wrote: Under UK law almost any time you copy a file is a copyright infringement unless you have explicit permission or are covered by one of the incredibly narrow exceptions. There is no real fair use, in the american sense. I might argue that in the UK it is necessary to accept the GPL in order to use GPL'd software. If so, that's interesting. The GPL still seems insufficient, though, since nothing in it actually gives you the right to use anything. I don't see why you can't use it. The GPL lets you copy it all you like - including copying it into RAM and onto the hard disk. What is the difference in the user's rights between software that comes with no usage license at all and software that comes with an EULA? Does it make a difference if you somehow run EULA'd software in such a way that you never see the EULA? (Ignore for the moment all the reverse-engineering and by-opening-this-box stuff, suppose the program came in a form where running the installer showed you the license but you could run the program directly without using the installer at all.) Such as if you were running it under WineX/Cedega before they implemented the HTML control. :) I don't know really. theo There's no law that says only a licence or information included with the software gives you any rights. The fact that this mailing list, the web site and many other sources contain statements from the developers that Freenet is intended for public use would seem quite enough for any court to go on! I doubt if you could successfully sue me for copyright infringement just for using the software even without any included licence. -- Roger Hayter ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-dev] Important news for users of stable dual-network nodes -- Please read!
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Conrad J. Sabatier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:31:21 +, Roger Hayter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Todd Walton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:30:33 -0600, Conrad J. Sabatier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please excuse the crossposting, but I felt this was important enough to make sure it was seen by those who may not be subscribed to this or that list. Right. But the No-No about crossposting is that there are likely to be others who would not agree that it's important enough to cross-post. Then it's hard to be off-topic in chat, isn't it? For instance, I might remark that probably not many stable nodes will be upgraded unless some one builds a snapshot and increments the build number. Well, the dual-network capability is not enabled by default in the source code, and has never been enabled in precompiled packages, so anyone wanting to use it would still have to get the sources, uncomment the two relevant lines in Version.java, and build a new freenet.jar for themselves. In other words, it's still pretty much of an elite feature, and will most likely remain so. Maybe I misunderstood you: I thought you were hoping for many stable nodes (rather than dual-network nodes themselves) to be updated. All I was saying was that not many are likely to be updated unless you have a new build number and new snapshots available for said stable nodes. -- Roger Hayter ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew Findley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes snip Your right we would have to show when your node transmitted ilegal matterials. But assumeing freenet has been cracked and your traffic is being monitered. This would be quite easy. As far as I can see, it is a lot easier than that. All the LEA has to do is to look for lots of illegal material on Freenet: note the hashes (or whatever the Freenet labels are called) of all the parts of the relevant files, and search your data store for these hashes. They can then, if they are lucky, find at least some of the illegal files on your computer. It will probably aid the process if they spend the preceding week requesting said files from your computer. They will certainly aid the process if they inject the illegal material themselves. But neither of the latter steps are essential. Please someone tell me if I am wrong, I certainly don't feel guilty about random unidentifiable (to me) parts of things I have never seen or downloaded temporarily residing in my data store! Snip -- Roger Hayter ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
[freenet-chat] Message boards
In message <20020508.221202.-44578779.0.krepta at juno.com>, krepta at juno.com writes > >On Wed, 8 May 2002 13:20:41 +0200 (CEST) neocrom at uni.de writes: >> Ok i hope that you understand me because my english is not very well >> but i have an idea for the communication with freenet users. Why we >> dont use iip for an encryptet irc chat, with help for freenet nebies >> like me? > >I'm ODD, I guess, because I want to make resources, like Freenet and >discussions about Freenet, available to as many people as possible. So, >therefore, I am not an advocate of Web based or IRC discussion solutions. > I want people who do not have enough money to afford a GOOD connection >to the internet, like me, to be able to participate in Freenet >discussions. This means that users who have NO ISP cannot use things >like IRC, let alone encrypted IRC. It's a nice idea, but, it's an >expensive way to go for a lot of people out there still simply because of >the cost of Internet Access. And that cost seems to be going up lately, >not down. :( > >Again, I would like to express to you my VERY high opinion of BBSes, >actual machines to which you can dial into with your super slow modem and >get a relatively good speed on TEXT based transfers only, or very small >binaries. I'm a huge fan of ZMODEM transfer protocols, of which there >are a few. :) > >If anyone can possibly revive BBSes, I'll definitely be trying to use >them. :) > This, unfortunately, is a very ethnocentric position. Through most of the world, other than USA, people pay a lot for local telephone calls. Certainly in the UK, Internet access for more than about an hour a day is cheaper than dialling a BBS. Also, Internet cafes are an option for those with no telephone line. -- Roger Hayter ___ Chat mailing list Chat at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
[freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-devl] Important! Aaron IS A TERRORIST!!!
In message , mikeeusa at caethaver2.ath.cx writes >AARON (probally a misspelling for "ayarian") IS A TERRORIST!!! Snip stuff of dubious value I've really tried, but I can't work out what ayarian is a misspelling of. Is it something to do with birds? -- Roger Hayter ___ Chat mailing list Chat at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Free Dmitry Sklyarov!
It may not be popular to say so, but I am sure that America's oppression, torture and murder of anyone who opposes its political, military and economic hegemony is unlikely to be stopped except by the united military force of the peoples of the world. This may take some time to arrange. In the meantime, bail seems fair. In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mr. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes No, don't free him. Fight the legal battle instead, although letting him out on bail for the dubious crime of breaking some pretty basic encryption might be in order. Frankly I think this case is just crying out for some EFF legal battle. --- Mr.Bad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dmitry Sklyarov is a Russian programmer arrested by the FBI at Def Con on July 16th after giving a talk on security holes in Adobe System's eBook software. He's also the author of a piece of software that allows legitimate purchasers of eBooks to exercise fair use rights, like making backups of a file or reading it on an unsupported platform (like Linux). Dmitry was arrested under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act -- a US law that does not apply in his native Russia -- for creating a circumvention device. He's been held without bail and apparently is out of contact of his family and friends in Russia. The EFF is organizing protests against Sklyarov's arrest on Monday, July 23, 2001 at US Federal buildings, embassies, and Adobe Systems offices world-wide. If you're interested in participating, please check this URL: http://www.eff.org/alerts/20010719_eff_sklyarov_alert.html I think Freenet people know that liberty has technological solutions. But we should also remember that there's offline actions that need to be done, too. So please take a minute and do what you can to help get Dmitry out of jail and back to his wife and family. ~Mr. Bad P.S. Yes, I'm still working on 0.3-0.4 merge. B-) -- ~ Mr. Bad [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/ ~ Besides a mathematical inclination, an exceptionally good mastery of one's native tongue is the most vital asset of a competent programmer. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra ~ ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat -- Roger Hayter ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
