RE: [freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT)
The prosecution must only prove that you committed a crime. Like I told Ian. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general/257 Alleging the government made you do it is an affirmative defense. A defense in which you admit to the crime, but state you had a reason for doing so. When claiming an affirmative defense the bruden falls to you to prove that it's true. I'm not sure what level your required to prove it to beyond a reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence. But it's still up to you to prove it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 7:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT) Importance: Low Matthew Findley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > If you honestly belive that you could convince a jury that the government put > KP on freenet just to entrap you thats pretty sad. > See in the courts you need a little thing called evidence. Good luck finding > some that shows the government is out to discredit freenet. This is somewhat inaccurate, at least for the US. In a criminal proceeding, the prosecution must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you have committed a crime. Otherwise, you are assumed to be innocent. All you have to do is establish a "reasonable doubt" that you did not know the KP was there. In a civil case, the standard is "preponderance of the evidence". If the prosecution can produce more evidence indicating that you knew the KP was there, than you can produce evidence that you did *not* know it was there, then the prosecution will probably win. In the particular matter of KP, it's quite likely you would face a federal criminal charge of some sort (though IANAL and I'm not clear exactly what, if any, laws might apply). Or perhaps you'd face a state law, and the FBI would merely be "assisting" the state police. In either case, you'd fall under the "resonable doubt" doctrine. In matters of copyright infringement, it's not so clear. There have been recent laws which make certain types of copyright infringements actual *crimes*, instead of simple civil matters, so I don't know whether you'd be more likely to face a civil lawsuit or a criminal trial. -- Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody." [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- The Red Hot Chili Peppers http://wooledge.org/~greg/ | ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT)
Matthew Findley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > If you honestly belive that you could convince a jury that the government put > KP on freenet just to entrap you thats pretty sad. > See in the courts you need a little thing called evidence. Good luck finding > some that shows the government is out to discredit freenet. This is somewhat inaccurate, at least for the US. In a criminal proceeding, the prosecution must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you have committed a crime. Otherwise, you are assumed to be innocent. All you have to do is establish a "reasonable doubt" that you did not know the KP was there. In a civil case, the standard is "preponderance of the evidence". If the prosecution can produce more evidence indicating that you knew the KP was there, than you can produce evidence that you did *not* know it was there, then the prosecution will probably win. In the particular matter of KP, it's quite likely you would face a federal criminal charge of some sort (though IANAL and I'm not clear exactly what, if any, laws might apply). Or perhaps you'd face a state law, and the FBI would merely be "assisting" the state police. In either case, you'd fall under the "resonable doubt" doctrine. In matters of copyright infringement, it's not so clear. There have been recent laws which make certain types of copyright infringements actual *crimes*, instead of simple civil matters, so I don't know whether you'd be more likely to face a civil lawsuit or a criminal trial. -- Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody." [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- The Red Hot Chili Peppers http://wooledge.org/~greg/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT)
Least I admited I was wrong http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general/253 Ahem? But I never said I was anonymous. I was only mistaken in the fact that your IP would only be reiveled if you ran your own mail server. As it turns out it is also reveled if I forward mail to a server. I could still use their web interface to be anonymous or could use a public computer. And so what if you found out my ip address, I can changed it with the click of a button. And so what if you know I live in riverview... that narrows it down to about 1 in 12,000 people. You would still not be able to find out anything about me that I didn't want you to know. - Original Message - From: "Ian Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Matthew Findley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 7:46 AM Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT) > On 8 Aug 2004, at 01:49, Matthew Findley wrote: > > Ok, I'll admit I was partly wrong. > > "Partly"! That's quite an admission for someone who claimed they would > be anonymous yet who I was able to tell them the tiny little town they > lived in with about 20 seconds of research based on the information > contained in one email :-) > > The web is *not* anonymous for any useful definition of the word, and > it is pretty clear that you lack the technical expertise to say any > different. Please have the maturity to admit you were wrong, not > "partly" wrong, completely 100% wrong. > > Ian. > > ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT)
On 8 Aug 2004, at 01:49, Matthew Findley wrote: Ok, I'll admit I was partly wrong. "Partly"! That's quite an admission for someone who claimed they would be anonymous yet who I was able to tell them the tiny little town they lived in with about 20 seconds of research based on the information contained in one email :-) The web is *not* anonymous for any useful definition of the word, and it is pretty clear that you lack the technical expertise to say any different. Please have the maturity to admit you were wrong, not "partly" wrong, completely 100% wrong. Ian. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT)
Ok, I'll admit I was partly wrong. I didn't know that hotmail would stamp my IP address to my emails if I forwarded to their email server. (Time to make sure the old firewall is setup right hehe) But I still bet if I used their web mail interface it will fully hide my email address. And if it doesn't don't use hotmail, use yahoo. The only people who can asoscate your IP address to any personal infomation is your ISP. Unless of course you've given it out to anyone from that IP before. but that wouldn't be very anonymous would it? And yep Riverview, I'm surprised that it even named Riverview it's a tiny little town outside of Tampa. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?t=4&s=11&x=936&y=7698&z=17&w=1 You can make out my house under the trees on the west bank :) - Original Message - From: "Ian Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Matthew Findley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT) Really? Then I guess your ISP must be based in or close to Riverview, Florida, which is where your email headers indicate that your email originated (and that is using the first IP address locator Google gave me, I am sure others are much more accurate). For your information, most ISPs include the originating IP address in the email headers, this, to people with the appropriate resources (which is more people than you probably think), is as good as giving your name, date of birth, address, and social security number. Ian. On 8 Aug 2004, at 00:54, Matthew Findley wrote: > Email headers will only help you track someone down if they're running > their own mail server. > Unless our friend Mr. Pineapple is the yahoo system admin. > > X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jH3SWZY2IvBsc4poGI7TzuB > Received: from web41307.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.56]) by > mc8-f10.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); > Fri, 6 Aug 2004 22:02:10 -0700 > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Received: from [24.72.74.85] by web41307.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, > 06 Aug 2004 22:02:10 PDT > Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 22:02:10 -0700 (PDT) > From: pineapple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT) > To: Matthew Findley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2004 05:02:10.0366 (UTC) > FILETIME=[B1F38DE0:01C47C3B] > > And even if you were able to get my ip address (which you can just as > easly get from freenet) you would only be able to narrow it down. > Only your ISP would know who your actualy are. > More importantly this still asumess I'm useing my home computer. If > one was really worried about being anonymous there are any number of > free to use computers with internet connections at librarys and > collages across the country. > You could also use a wireless laptop and just go to various open > hotspots. > > > Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > On 6 Aug 2004, at 19:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > The WWW is very anonymous. If I hadn't used my real name in my > email > > > address there is no way you could tell who I am. > > > > Thw WWW is anonymous if you are worried about being tracked down by a > > computer illiterate 10 year old. If you are worried about someone > more > > sophisticated than that then the WWW is most certainly not > anonymous by > > almost any definition of the word. > > > > By looking at the headers of your email I could find the IP address > of > > your computer, as could the operator of any website you visit. Given > > that IP address, it is relatively trivial to find your location (do a > > Google search for "IP address location"). If I had the resources of > a > > moderately sized corporation, I could also correlate your IP > addresses > > with one of the many many websites that you have given your name to > and > > find out all sorts of other things about you. > > > > 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
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT)
Really? Then I guess your ISP must be based in or close to Riverview, Florida, which is where your email headers indicate that your email originated (and that is using the first IP address locator Google gave me, I am sure others are much more accurate). For your information, most ISPs include the originating IP address in the email headers, this, to people with the appropriate resources (which is more people than you probably think), is as good as giving your name, date of birth, address, and social security number. Ian. On 8 Aug 2004, at 00:54, Matthew Findley wrote: Email headers will only help you track someone down if they're running their own mail server. Unless our friend Mr. Pineapple is the yahoo system admin. X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jH3SWZY2IvBsc4poGI7TzuB Received: from web41307.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.56]) by mc8-f10.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Fri, 6 Aug 2004 22:02:10 -0700 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from [24.72.74.85] by web41307.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 06 Aug 2004 22:02:10 PDT Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 22:02:10 -0700 (PDT) From: pineapple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT) To: Matthew Findley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2004 05:02:10.0366 (UTC) FILETIME=[B1F38DE0:01C47C3B] And even if you were able to get my ip address (which you can just as easly get from freenet) you would only be able to narrow it down. Only your ISP would know who your actualy are. More importantly this still asumess I'm useing my home computer. If one was really worried about being anonymous there are any number of free to use computers with internet connections at librarys and collages across the country. You could also use a wireless laptop and just go to various open hotspots. Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On 6 Aug 2004, at 19:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The WWW is very anonymous. If I hadn't used my real name in my email > > address there is no way you could tell who I am. > > Thw WWW is anonymous if you are worried about being tracked down by a > computer illiterate 10 year old. If you are worried about someone more > sophisticated than that then the WWW is most certainly not anonymous by > almost any definition of the word. > > By looking at the headers of your email I could find the IP address of > your computer, as could the operator of any website you visit. Given > that IP address, it is relatively trivial to find your location (do a > Google search for "IP address location"). If I had the resources of a > moderately sized corporation, I could also correlate your IP addresses > with one of the many many websites that you have given your name to and > find out all sorts of other things about you. > > 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
[freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT)
Email headers will only help you track someone down if they're running their own mail server. Unless our friend Mr. Pineapple is the yahoo system admin. X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jH3SWZY2IvBsc4poGI7TzuBReceived: from web41307.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.56]) by mc8-f10.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Fri, 6 Aug 2004 22:02:10 -0700Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Received: from [24.72.74.85] by web41307.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 06 Aug 2004 22:02:10 PDTDate: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 22:02:10 -0700 (PDT)From: pineapple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT)To: Matthew Findley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>MIME-Version: 1.0Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-asciiReturn-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Aug 2004 05:02:10.0366 (UTC) FILETIME=[B1F38DE0:01C47C3B] And even if you were able to get my ip address (which you can just as easly get from freenet) you would only be able to narrow it down. Only your ISP would know who your actualy are. More importantly this still asumess I'm useing my home computer. If one was really worried about being anonymous there are any number of free to use computers with internet connections at librarys and collages across the country. You could also use a wireless laptop and just go to various open hotspots. Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On 6 Aug 2004, at 19:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > The WWW is very anonymous. If I hadn't used my real name in my email > > address there is no way you could tell who I am.> > Thw WWW is anonymous if you are worried about being tracked down by a > computer illiterate 10 year old. If you are worried about someone more > sophisticated than that then the WWW is most certainly not anonymous by > almost any definition of the word.> > By looking at the headers of your email I could find the IP address of > your computer, as could the operator of any website you visit. Given > that IP address, it is relatively trivial to find your location (do a > Google search for "IP address location"). If I had the resources of a > moderately sized corporation, I could also correlate your IP addresses > with one of the many many websites that you have given your name to and > find out all sorts of other things about you.> > Ian.> ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] RE: anonymity(NOT)
On 6 Aug 2004, at 19:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The WWW is very anonymous. If I hadn't used my real name in my email address there is no way you could tell who I am. Thw WWW is anonymous if you are worried about being tracked down by a computer illiterate 10 year old. If you are worried about someone more sophisticated than that then the WWW is most certainly not anonymous by almost any definition of the word. By looking at the headers of your email I could find the IP address of your computer, as could the operator of any website you visit. Given that IP address, it is relatively trivial to find your location (do a Google search for "IP address location"). If I had the resources of a moderately sized corporation, I could also correlate your IP addresses with one of the many many websites that you have given your name to and find out all sorts of other things about you. Ian. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
[freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT)
Arrrgh, I did it again, sorry. I'll figure out this mail thingy eventually. --- Matthew Findley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you honestly belive that you could convince a > jury that the government put > KP on freenet just to entrap you thats pretty > sad. > See in the courts you need a little thing called > evidence. Good luck finding > some that shows the government is out to discredit > freenet. I believe a good lawyer could convince a jury that this is the case. Whether it's sad or not is a personal opinion, but it is definitely a comment on society. You should see, that in the courts there is a little thing called reasonable doubt, and it's the prosecutor who needs the evidence. If you don't understand that the burden of proof is on the prosecution then I would say you don't need to go back to law school, you need to go back to grade school. > > And how would you purpose I track someone down on > the web that doesn't want to > be found? What extra anonymity does freenet give > you that the web can't also > offer? Coercion. And it can be as simple as a $20 bill handed to an underpaid sysadmin. Not to mention that the US government has formidable internet surveillance techniques, and to legally use them all they need is a warrant. Hell, they could even get a secret warrant to conduct their secret surveillance. > > pineapple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Oops, silly me, I didn't reply to the list :) > > > > --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Whether or not you truly believe there is no > illegal > > > material on freenet is a question for the jury. > > > Given the fact that there are numerous warnings > > > about it, a huge number of frost boards are > dedicate > > > to KP, and all the main search pages have many > > > listings for warz and KP; a jury probably would > find > > > it laughable. > > Are UFOs laughable? Angels? Men in Black? > Ghosts? > > Government conspiracies? Need I go on? My belief > in > > this matter is not only not laughable, it very > likely > > true. I doubt people would have trouble believing > > that various governments around the world would > break > > the law to discredit Freenet. After all the have > the > > means, motive and opportunity not to mention > plausible > > deniablility :) > > > > > People do have the right to communicate with out > > > government oversight everywhere, including the > > > internet. > > > If all you do is communicate legal information > > > anonymously then there is an alternative, its > called > > > the world wide web. > > THE WEB IS NOT ANONYMOUS. Seriously. If you > don't > > undertand that then you are either ignorant or a > > troll. I'm beginning to think it's the latter. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 7:37 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: [freenet-chat] RE: anonymity(NOT) > > > Importance: Low > > > > > > > > > I have doubts that illegal material is posted on > > > Freenet. After all, I haven't seen any illegal > > > material, I've only heard rumors about it. > However, > > > if there is illegal material on Freenet it's my > > > belief > > > that this material is posted by > > > governments/organizations hostile to the goals > of > > > Freenet and not retrieved by the legitimate > users in > > > the Freenet community. Even if the material is > > > retrieved by someone I am sure it is by these > same > > > hostile governments/organizations in order to > spread > > > FUD about Freenet. Are my beliefs unreasonable? > I > > > don't know, a lot of people believe in UFOs, > crop > > > circles, invisible beings dressed in white with > > > wings > > > that help people, mysterious men in black, > secret > > > government conspiracies, etc. In this context > my > > > beliefs seem to reasonable to me. To suppose > that > > > an > > > accused's state of mind isn't a defense is > > > laughable. > > > It's also ridiculous to argue that people have > the > > > right to communicate without government > oversight, > > > except on the internet
[freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT)
If you honestly belive that you could convince a jury that the government put KP on freenet just to entrap you thats pretty sad.See in the courts you need a little thing called evidence. Good luck finding some that shows the government is out to discredit freenet. And how would you purpose I track someone down on the web that doesn't want to be found? What extra anonymity does freenet give you that the web can't also offer? pineapple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Oops, silly me, I didn't reply to the list :)> > --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > Whether or not you truly believe there is no illegal> > material on freenet is a question for the jury.> > Given the fact that there are numerous warnings> > about it, a huge number of frost boards are dedicate> > to KP, and all the main search pages have many> > listings for warz and KP; a jury probably would find> > it laughable.> Are UFOs laughable? Angels? Men in Black? Ghosts? > Government conspiracies? Need I go on? My belief in> this matter is not only not laughable, it very likely> true. I doubt people would have trouble believing> that various governments around the world would break> the law to discredit Freenet. After all the have the> means, motive and opportunity not to mention plausible> deniablility :)> > > People do have the right to communicate with out> > government oversight everywhere, including the> > internet.> > If all you do is communicate legal information> > anonymously then there is an alternative, its called> > the world wide web.> THE WEB IS NOT ANONYMOUS. Seriously. If you don't> undertand that then you are either ignorant or a> troll. I'm beginning to think it's the latter.> > > > > -Original Message-> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 7:37 PM> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [freenet-chat] RE: anonymity(NOT)> > Importance: Low> > > > > > I have doubts that illegal material is posted on> > Freenet. After all, I haven't seen any illegal> > material, I've only heard rumors about it. However,> > if there is illegal material on Freenet it's my> > belief> > that this material is posted by> > governments/organizations hostile to the goals of> > Freenet and not retrieved by the legitimate users in> > the Freenet community. Even if the material is> > retrieved by someone I am sure it is by these same> > hostile governments/organizations in order to spread> > FUD about Freenet. Are my beliefs unreasonable? I> > don't know, a lot of people believe in UFOs, crop> > circles, invisible beings dressed in white with> > wings> > that help people, mysterious men in black, secret> > government conspiracies, etc. In this context my> > beliefs seem to reasonable to me. To suppose that> > an> > accused's state of mind isn't a defense is> > laughable. > > It's also ridiculous to argue that people have the> > right to communicate without government oversight,> > except on the internet. Let me say that I only use> > Freenet to communicate, anonymously, legal> > information> > and because there are no better alternatives. > > Unless> > your position is the government has the right to> > monitor ALL communication. I don't find that> > position> > funny at all but downright scary instead.> > > > > > > > __> > Do you Yahoo!?> > Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail> > ___> > chat mailing list> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general> > > > > __> Do you Yahoo!?> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail> ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
[freenet-chat] RE: anonymity(NOT)
Oops, silly me, I didn't reply to the list :) --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Whether or not you truly believe there is no illegal > material on freenet is a question for the jury. > Given the fact that there are numerous warnings > about it, a huge number of frost boards are dedicate > to KP, and all the main search pages have many > listings for warz and KP; a jury probably would find > it laughable. Are UFOs laughable? Angels? Men in Black? Ghosts? Government conspiracies? Need I go on? My belief in this matter is not only not laughable, it very likely true. I doubt people would have trouble believing that various governments around the world would break the law to discredit Freenet. After all the have the means, motive and opportunity not to mention plausible deniablility :) > People do have the right to communicate with out > government oversight everywhere, including the > internet. > If all you do is communicate legal information > anonymously then there is an alternative, its called > the world wide web. THE WEB IS NOT ANONYMOUS. Seriously. If you don't undertand that then you are either ignorant or a troll. I'm beginning to think it's the latter. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 7:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [freenet-chat] RE: anonymity(NOT) > Importance: Low > > > I have doubts that illegal material is posted on > Freenet. After all, I haven't seen any illegal > material, I've only heard rumors about it. However, > if there is illegal material on Freenet it's my > belief > that this material is posted by > governments/organizations hostile to the goals of > Freenet and not retrieved by the legitimate users in > the Freenet community. Even if the material is > retrieved by someone I am sure it is by these same > hostile governments/organizations in order to spread > FUD about Freenet. Are my beliefs unreasonable? I > don't know, a lot of people believe in UFOs, crop > circles, invisible beings dressed in white with > wings > that help people, mysterious men in black, secret > government conspiracies, etc. In this context my > beliefs seem to reasonable to me. To suppose that > an > accused's state of mind isn't a defense is > laughable. > It's also ridiculous to argue that people have the > right to communicate without government oversight, > except on the internet. Let me say that I only use > Freenet to communicate, anonymously, legal > information > and because there are no better alternatives. > Unless > your position is the government has the right to > monitor ALL communication. I don't find that > position > funny at all but downright scary instead. > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > ___ > chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
RE: [freenet-chat] RE: anonymity(NOT)
Actually I do trust the government to leave my messages alone... I'm not doing anything terribly interesting. And even if they are conducting massive surveillance, there's not much they can do about when they catch something juicy because of the 4th amendment to the constitution protects your privacy. The WWW is very anonymous. If I hadn't used my real name in my email address there is no way you could tell who I am. On the conventional web the only people who can tell who you are and what your doing is your ISP. Even on freenet your ISP still knows who you are, just not what your doing (though they could find out with some workhmmm question does freenet encrypt node to node communication?). If your really worried about your ISP knowing what your doing in something like email just use some sort of encryption program. Or for the truly paranoid, just go to your local library for 100% anonymity. And the government decides what is legal; they are the only ones that can. Congress makes the laws. The courts enforces them. Simple as that. -Original Message- From: Martin Scheffler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: RE: anonymity(NOT) Newsgroups: gmane.network.freenet.general Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 17:52:59 +0200 Am Freitag, 6. August 2004 16:36 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Whether or not you truly believe there is no illegal material on > freenet is a question for the jury. Given the fact that there are > numerous warnings about it, a huge number of frost boards are dedicate > to KP, and all the main search pages have many listings for warz and > KP; a jury probably would find it laughable. People do have the right > to communicate with out government oversight everywhere, including the > internet. And freenet is (so far) one of the few proven solutions to communicate anonymously. Or do you trust your government (or any) to leave your messages alone? The point is, if surveillance is possible, it will be done! > If all you do is communicate legal information anonymously > then there is an alternative, its called the world wide web. You are WRONG! Where is anonymity with WWW? And who decides what is "legal", the president, secret service, religous groups? good byte ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] RE: anonymity(NOT)
Am Freitag, 6. August 2004 16:36 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Whether or not you truly believe there is no illegal material on > freenet is a question for the jury. Given the fact that there are > numerous warnings about it, a huge number of frost boards are dedicate > to KP, and all the main search pages have many listings for warz and > KP; a jury probably would find it laughable. People do have the right > to communicate with out government oversight everywhere, including the > internet. And freenet is (so far) one of the few proven solutions to communicate anonymously. Or do you trust your government (or any) to leave your messages alone? The point is, if surveillance is possible, it will be done! > If all you do is communicate legal information anonymously > then there is an alternative, its called the world wide web. You are WRONG! Where is anonymity with WWW? And who decides what is "legal", the president, secret service, religous groups? good byte ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
RE: [freenet-chat] RE: anonymity(NOT)
Whether or not you truly believe there is no illegal material on freenet is a question for the jury. Given the fact that there are numerous warnings about it, a huge number of frost boards are dedicate to KP, and all the main search pages have many listings for warz and KP; a jury probably would find it laughable. People do have the right to communicate with out government oversight everywhere, including the internet. If all you do is communicate legal information anonymously then there is an alternative, its called the world wide web. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 7:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [freenet-chat] RE: anonymity(NOT) Importance: Low I have doubts that illegal material is posted on Freenet. After all, I haven't seen any illegal material, I've only heard rumors about it. However, if there is illegal material on Freenet it's my belief that this material is posted by governments/organizations hostile to the goals of Freenet and not retrieved by the legitimate users in the Freenet community. Even if the material is retrieved by someone I am sure it is by these same hostile governments/organizations in order to spread FUD about Freenet. Are my beliefs unreasonable? I don't know, a lot of people believe in UFOs, crop circles, invisible beings dressed in white with wings that help people, mysterious men in black, secret government conspiracies, etc. In this context my beliefs seem to reasonable to me. To suppose that an accused's state of mind isn't a defense is laughable. It's also ridiculous to argue that people have the right to communicate without government oversight, except on the internet. Let me say that I only use Freenet to communicate, anonymously, legal information and because there are no better alternatives. Unless your position is the government has the right to monitor ALL communication. I don't find that position funny at all but downright scary instead. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ 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
Re: [freenet-chat] RE: anonymity(NOT)
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 04:37:12PM -0700, pineapple wrote: > Let me say that I only use > Freenet to communicate, anonymously, legal information > and because there are no better alternatives. Unless > your position is the government has the right to > monitor ALL communication. I don't find that position > funny at all but downright scary instead. Well, the intent of much recent law in the US and the UK is exactly that. :( -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
[freenet-chat] RE: anonymity(NOT)
I have doubts that illegal material is posted on Freenet. After all, I haven't seen any illegal material, I've only heard rumors about it. However, if there is illegal material on Freenet it's my belief that this material is posted by governments/organizations hostile to the goals of Freenet and not retrieved by the legitimate users in the Freenet community. Even if the material is retrieved by someone I am sure it is by these same hostile governments/organizations in order to spread FUD about Freenet. Are my beliefs unreasonable? I don't know, a lot of people believe in UFOs, crop circles, invisible beings dressed in white with wings that help people, mysterious men in black, secret government conspiracies, etc. In this context my beliefs seem to reasonable to me. To suppose that an accused's state of mind isn't a defense is laughable. It's also ridiculous to argue that people have the right to communicate without government oversight, except on the internet. Let me say that I only use Freenet to communicate, anonymously, legal information and because there are no better alternatives. Unless your position is the government has the right to monitor ALL communication. I don't find that position funny at all but downright scary instead. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
