stick you IP
address on messages sent.
- Original Message -
From: "Aaron Guy Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 07:20
Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: Node operators responsibility
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, David McN
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:24:11 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian
Clarke) writes:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 03:20:02PM -0400, Aaron Guy Davies wrote:
> > This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask someone:
> would a
> > standard webmail site, ie Hotmail, Yahoo, etc., if accessed
> *entirely
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 03:20:02PM -0400, Aaron Guy Davies wrote:
> This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask someone: would a
> standard webmail site, ie Hotmail, Yahoo, etc., if accessed *entirely*
> thru anonymizing proxies, from account setup on, be considered securely
> anonymous
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, David McNab wrote:
> Make sure to use an offshore anonymous mailing facility, like hushmail
> or better.
This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask someone: would a
standard webmail site, ie Hotmail, Yahoo, etc., if accessed *entirely*
thru anonymizing proxies, f
: "Volker Stolz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 08:49
Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: Node operators responsibility
> In local.freenet, you wrote:
> >IANAL either, but IMHO proxy caches fall under the provisions of article
1,
> &g
In local.freenet, you wrote:
>Volker Stolz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Any thoughts on this issue? Currently, I really can't recommend running
>> a Freenet node in Germany. Last time I checked up on current events involving
>> such things, it seemed that an ISP's operator can be arrested for s
In local.freenet, you wrote:
>IANAL either, but IMHO proxy caches fall under the provisions of article 1,
>paragraph 5, section 3 of the Information and Communication Services Act,
>available online at http://www.iid.de/rahmen/iukdgebt.html:
>
>(3) Providers shall not be responsible for any third-
IANAL, but looks good to me.
Seth Johnson
Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> Seth Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Does it define "providers?"
>
> Article 1, paragraph 3: Definitions
>
> For the purposes of this Act
> 1. the term "providers" means natural or legal persons or associations of
>
Seth Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does it define "providers?"
Article 1, paragraph 3: Definitions
For the purposes of this Act
1. the term "providers" means natural or legal persons or associations of
persons who make available either their own or third-party teleservices
or who p
Does it define "providers?"
Seth Johnson
Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> IANAL either, but IMHO proxy caches fall under the provisions of article 1,
> paragraph 5, section 3 of the Information and Communication Services Act,
> available online at http://www.iid.de/rahmen/iukdgebt.html:
>
> (3) Provid
Volker Stolz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any thoughts on this issue? Currently, I really can't recommend running
> a Freenet node in Germany. Last time I checked up on current events involving
> such things, it seemed that an ISP's operator can be arrested for storing
> illegal material on his p
11 matches
Mail list logo
