RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
I didn't say you were a bad speller. Someone else is a bad speller and you just copied their mistake. That's not your fault. It's not my call about when you crossed the lined and went from being lazy to concealing something, but personaly I'd say knowing that the police are asking about is not enough. I'd say it would only be concealing if they asked you directly and you lied. There needs to be an action that you preformed before it becomes concealment. Inaction won't get you in trouble in this case. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 7:10 PM To: Findley, Matthew Subject: RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wow... you've discovered that someone at the DOJ is > a terrible speller > The word is misprision Yes, guilty of bad spelling me. Even bad grammar sometimes! Is that a crime somewhere? > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/4.html > It would be section 4, not chapter 4. Which is my > fault for not looking to deeply into it because > 'misprison' of a felony wasn't a crime. > Quote - > "Misprision of a felony "require[s] both knowledge > of a crime and some affirmative act of concealment > or participation." Id. at 696 n.36. See, for > example, United States v. Gravitt, 590 F.2d 123, > 125-26 (5th Cir. 1979) (requiring "affirmative > action to conceal the crime" for conviction of > misprision of a felony). Thus, mere failure to > report a known felony would not violate 18 U.S.C. > 4. United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225, 1227 > (5th Cir. 1977)." > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/11th/0113624opn.html > So now we have a law here that supports my drug dealer anecdote. > It's not just enough to fail to report it. You'd > have too conceal it too. Exactly. So now all you have to do is have the police canvas the residents if they witnessed any crimes taking place and then have them deny it. I believe this is standard practice when investigating a crime. Do the police even have to directly question the residents? I mean, if you can show that a resident KNOWS the police are asking about the crimes and yet doesn't tell the police about what they saw, then they would be guilty, right? If someone sees a crime, then they SHOULD know the police would want to know about it, and they SHOULD know the police would ask them about it, and they SHOULD know that they have to tell the police the truth. So just KNOWING you witnessed a crime is enough to make you guilty. And who wouldn't KNOW dealing drugs is a crime? This sound familiar? Maybe you don't agree with this logic? > > > -----Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 6:46 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] > Showdown at the Freenode > Coral > Importance: Low > > > Ok, posting this is a mistake, but I feel compelled > to > defend myself, so I will do only that. Appologies > to > Mr. Findley for the doublpost because I have once > again failed to reply to the list :P > > --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You take me seriously? How am I suppose to take > you > > seriously. > > You are LITERALLY spouting nonsense. > > --"Misprison of a Felony" (18 U.S.C.A 4.). > > Misprison isn't even a word! > >From the DOJ's website, here are some links. The > skeptical reader can do a google search and see for > themselves: > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mn/press/major/boss.htm > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2004/jul/broadus%202d%20Superceding%20Indictmnt.pdf > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressRel03/murphy_kirkham_convict_pr.html > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressRel03/phillips_sen_pr.html > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/lae/hotnews/archive_list.htm > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pr2002/165.html > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressRel02/patel_sen_pr.html > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/tnm/press_release/4_9_04.htm > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/publicaffairs/NJ_Press/files/pdffiles/ashcroftregpay.pdf > > > The is no chapter 4 in title 18. > > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pI.html > I'm not a lawyer, but the DOJ did charge the people > in > the above links with some crime called "Misprison of > a > Felony" so it must be a law somewhere :) > > > > > "Also, you can't be charged for committing the > crime > > and
RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Again, it's not so much that the freenet node is illegal itself. Just that transmitting illegal material is against the law. Yes they still have to prove their case. Which means proving that the transfer took place. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 7:45 PM To: Findley, Matthew Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:58:10PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Must not yell. must not yell. > Running freenet is not illegal. Transmitting illegal materials > is illegal. So running a freenet node is in fact illegal if any illegal material is transmitted through your node, but the prosecution must establish that this took place. Is this your argument? > And isn't this exactly what you wanted? > A system that allows people to engage in prohibited activity with out fear of > getting in trouble? > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 1:50 PM > To: Findley, Matthew > Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the > Freenode Coral > > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:34:09AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I have no real agenda against freenet. I'm simply trying to tell you that your > > reading of the law is wrong. > > I'm not trying to scare people away from freenet. Because it's still perfectly > > safe to use. This situation can only occur if the feds are in a position to > > monitor all your personal incoming and out going traffic, and have the power to > > crack all 200 of your node to node communication encryption keys. Which, assuming > > they are high quality keys, is an imposable task even if you had access to the > > most powerful supercomputers on earth. > > So it's illegal to run freenet but impossible to prove that it's illegal > for an individual node op to run freenet?! > > > > I'm not bored or trolling. I'm just trying to enlightening you to the fact that > > the law maybe blind, but it's not stupid. > > What's so hard to follow about my arguments? > > All I'm saying is that transmitting illegal material is (as crazy as this may > > sound) illegal, and the fact that you may not know with 100% certainty that your > > transmitting something illegal won't protect you. > -- > Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I don't have much to say about common carriers. Because like I've said many > many times. You aren't a common carrier. Running freenet doesn't make you > one. And you aren't entitled to the same protections as they are. Why not? Is it because we aren't rich corporations? Why are corporations allowed to do things that are "illegal" for private citizens to do? -- 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: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:58:10PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Must not yell. must not yell. > Running freenet is not illegal. Transmitting illegal materials > is illegal. So running a freenet node is in fact illegal if any illegal material is transmitted through your node, but the prosecution must establish that this took place. Is this your argument? > And isn't this exactly what you wanted? > A system that allows people to engage in prohibited activity with out fear of > getting in trouble? > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 1:50 PM > To: Findley, Matthew > Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the > Freenode Coral > > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:34:09AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I have no real agenda against freenet. I'm simply trying to tell you that your > > reading of the law is wrong. > > I'm not trying to scare people away from freenet. Because it's still perfectly > > safe to use. This situation can only occur if the feds are in a position to > > monitor all your personal incoming and out going traffic, and have the power to > > crack all 200 of your node to node communication encryption keys. Which, assuming > > they are high quality keys, is an imposable task even if you had access to the > > most powerful supercomputers on earth. > > So it's illegal to run freenet but impossible to prove that it's illegal > for an individual node op to run freenet?! > > > > I'm not bored or trolling. I'm just trying to enlightening you to the fact that > > the law maybe blind, but it's not stupid. > > What's so hard to follow about my arguments? > > All I'm saying is that transmitting illegal material is (as crazy as this may > > sound) illegal, and the fact that you may not know with 100% certainty that your > > transmitting something illegal won't protect you. > -- > Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -- 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
RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
--- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wow... you've discovered that someone at the DOJ is > a terrible speller > The word is misprision Yes, guilty of bad spelling me. Even bad grammar sometimes! Is that a crime somewhere? > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/4.html > It would be section 4, not chapter 4. Which is my > fault for not looking to deeply into it because > 'misprison' of a felony wasn't a crime. > Quote - > "Misprision of a felony "require[s] both knowledge > of a crime and some affirmative act of concealment > or participation." Id. at 696 n.36. See, for > example, United States v. Gravitt, 590 F.2d 123, > 125-26 (5th Cir. 1979) (requiring "affirmative > action to conceal the crime" for conviction of > misprision of a felony). Thus, mere failure to > report a known felony would not violate 18 U.S.C. § > 4. United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225, 1227 > (5th Cir. 1977)." > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/11th/0113624opn.html > So now we have a law here that supports my drug dealer anecdote. > It's not just enough to fail to report it. You'd > have too conceal it too. Exactly. So now all you have to do is have the police canvas the residents if they witnessed any crimes taking place and then have them deny it. I believe this is standard practice when investigating a crime. Do the police even have to directly question the residents? I mean, if you can show that a resident KNOWS the police are asking about the crimes and yet doesn't tell the police about what they saw, then they would be guilty, right? If someone sees a crime, then they SHOULD know the police would want to know about it, and they SHOULD know the police would ask them about it, and they SHOULD know that they have to tell the police the truth. So just KNOWING you witnessed a crime is enough to make you guilty. And who wouldn't KNOW dealing drugs is a crime? This sound familiar? Maybe you don't agree with this logic? > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 6:46 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] > Showdown at the Freenode > Coral > Importance: Low > > > Ok, posting this is a mistake, but I feel compelled > to > defend myself, so I will do only that. Appologies > to > Mr. Findley for the doublpost because I have once > again failed to reply to the list :P > > --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You take me seriously? How am I suppose to take > you > > seriously. > > You are LITERALLY spouting nonsense. > > --"Misprison of a Felony" (18 U.S.C.A 4.). > > Misprison isn't even a word! > >From the DOJ's website, here are some links. The > skeptical reader can do a google search and see for > themselves: > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mn/press/major/boss.htm > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2004/jul/broadus%202d%20Superceding%20Indictmnt.pdf > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressRel03/murphy_kirkham_convict_pr.html > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressRel03/phillips_sen_pr.html > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/lae/hotnews/archive_list.htm > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pr2002/165.html > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressRel02/patel_sen_pr.html > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/tnm/press_release/4_9_04.htm > http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/publicaffairs/NJ_Press/files/pdffiles/ashcroftregpay.pdf > > > The is no chapter 4 in title 18. > > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pI.html > I'm not a lawyer, but the DOJ did charge the people > in > the above links with some crime called "Misprison of > a > Felony" so it must be a law somewhere :) > > > > > "Also, you can't be charged for committing the > crime > > and also NOT STOPPING YOURSELF COMMITTING SAID > > CRIME! That would be double jeopardy, wouldn't > it?" > > God no double jeopardy is being charged with > > the same crime twice. In other words, the > > prosecution doesn't get to appeal if they lose. > > And you can't even be charged with not stopping > > yourself from committing a crime (negligence > crimes > > not withstanding). You'd just be charged with > what > > ever crime you committed. > Like I said, I'm not a lawyer. Whatever this is > called, it's still contrary to the fifth amendment. > If you are trying to discredit my expertise as a > lawyer, then I concede. I'm no lawyer :) >
RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Uggg you people are so dense it's mind bolloging. Freenet isn't illegal! How many times do I have to say this for it to sink in. Just like a pen and paper isn't illegal. But they are if you draw up plans to kill the president. I don't have much to say about common carriers. Because like I've said many many times. You aren't a common carrier. Running freenet doesn't make you one. And you aren't entitled to the same protections as they are. The actions by the RIAA are based in law and they have lost very few cases so far. The few they have lost are ones where they tried to exceed the law, so they lost. The napster case revolved more around the fact that Napster provided material support to copyright infringement by running services on their computers. Also the fact they received money (though indirectly) from the infringement also was an important fact. It won't be as easy to kill kazaa because the creators of the program don't run the network like napster. The network is created by the users automatically. Yes everything is basically legal unless prohibited by law. And transmitting illegal materials is prohibited by law. I would wager that freenet has nothing to worry about from a country prosecutor in Alabama. Freenet is still a very safe system and it would take the resources of an organization like the NSA to gain any useful evidence from it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 2:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral Importance: Low Matthew Findley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > I'm being forced to loop because no one is saying anything new. They're > just presenting arguments that don't have a basis in law. And examples that > don't apply. Maybe if someone could present a new point we could move on. > > I was originally going to major in law, but while in collage the more I > found out about it the more I decided it wasn't for me. That's why I'm not > a prosecutor, nor would I want to be. > Would that be Swedish law or American law? Maybe with your knowledge of the > law you can present a reason why this is not a crime with some real facts to > back it up. > I have followed this arguement more or less torpidly concluding mostly that points you present and type of criminal law you cite is a form of fud. One could just as easily conclude from them that as pen and paper may be used to draw dirty pictures that having them makes one a pornographer which is the kind of ridiculous argument made in the the proposed Incite Act. Selling spray paint incites grafitti. The examples you cite have nothing to do with common carrier, isp's or the internet and cases that have happened or decisions rendered so far. Even the much publicized actions of the MPAA and RIAA are not based on law but their own theory of what they want to achieve and when faught by thier targets have been thrown out. For example demanding log from isp's to harvest address of downloaders. Even in the Napster case the issus revolved around whether it was designed solely to commit criminal acts versus could have other uses and Napster lost because it had no other use. It won't be as easy to kill Kazaa as it has multiple uses. The freenet you have the creation of a public resource, with each users giving over a portion of their disk to this resource into this pool. It may be more analogous to throwing out garbage and then having some piece of your garbage possibly used in a manner you don't condone or control. The questions involved are not essentially legal but political and philosphical, a form of everythings illegal except when specificaly permited versus everything is legal except when specifically prohibited and western law in general favors the later. On the other hand it may be prudent for Freenet to talk to and get opinion and support from relevant organizations such as EFF and lay some ground work so as not to be taken by suprise from some county presecutor in Alabama out to make a name for himself because he's behind in the polls for november. Also fyi, redirection to chat means this has been deemed troll bait and fud. ___ 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: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
I have no real agenda against freenet. I'm simply trying to tell you that your reading of the law is wrong. I'm not trying to scare people away from freenet. Because it's still perfectly safe to use. This situation can only occur if the feds are in a position to monitor all your personal incoming and out going traffic, and have the power to crack all 200 of your node to node communication encryption keys. Which, assuming they are high quality keys, is an imposable task even if you had access to the most powerful supercomputers on earth. I'm not bored or trolling. I'm just trying to enlightening you to the fact that the law maybe blind, but it's not stupid. What's so hard to follow about my arguments? All I'm saying is that transmitting illegal material is (as crazy as this may sound) illegal, and the fact that you may not know with 100% certainty that your transmitting something illegal won't protect you. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 7:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral Importance: Low Matthew Findley: what is your agenda here? Are you trying to scare people into not running Freenet? Are you trying to get the Freenet project disbanded? Are you trying to influence the priorities of the developers? If so, what are you trying to get them to do -- improve the code, or cripple it, or what? Or are you just really, really bored, and trolling us all? I really can't make sense of half your arguments. They don't seem to follow any coherent pattern. -- 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: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Wow... you've discovered that someone at the DOJ is a terrible speller The word is misprision http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/4.html It would be section 4, not chapter 4. Which is my fault for not looking to deeply into it because 'misprison' of a felony wasn't a crime. Quote - "Misprision of a felony "require[s] both knowledge of a crime and some affirmative act of concealment or participation." Id. at 696 n.36. See, for example, United States v. Gravitt, 590 F.2d 123, 125-26 (5th Cir. 1979) (requiring "affirmative action to conceal the crime" for conviction of misprision of a felony). Thus, mere failure to report a known felony would not violate 18 U.S.C. § 4. United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225, 1227 (5th Cir. 1977)." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/11th/0113624opn.html It's not just enough to fail to report it. You'd have too conceal it too. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 6:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral Importance: Low Ok, posting this is a mistake, but I feel compelled to defend myself, so I will do only that. Appologies to Mr. Findley for the doublpost because I have once again failed to reply to the list :P --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You take me seriously? How am I suppose to take you > seriously. > You are LITERALLY spouting nonsense. > --"Misprison of a Felony" (18 U.S.C.A 4.). > Misprison isn't even a word! >From the DOJ's website, here are some links. The skeptical reader can do a google search and see for themselves: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mn/press/major/boss.htm http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2004/jul/broadus%202d%20Superceding%20Indictmnt.pdf http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressRel03/murphy_kirkham_convict_pr.html http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressRel03/phillips_sen_pr.html http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/lae/hotnews/archive_list.htm http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pr2002/165.html http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressRel02/patel_sen_pr.html http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/tnm/press_release/4_9_04.htm http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/publicaffairs/NJ_Press/files/pdffiles/ashcroftregpay.pdf > The is no chapter 4 in title 18. > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pI.html I'm not a lawyer, but the DOJ did charge the people in the above links with some crime called "Misprison of a Felony" so it must be a law somewhere :) > > "Also, you can't be charged for committing the crime > and also NOT STOPPING YOURSELF COMMITTING SAID > CRIME! That would be double jeopardy, wouldn't it?" > God no double jeopardy is being charged with > the same crime twice. In other words, the > prosecution doesn't get to appeal if they lose. > And you can't even be charged with not stopping > yourself from committing a crime (negligence crimes > not withstanding). You'd just be charged with what > ever crime you committed. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer. Whatever this is called, it's still contrary to the fifth amendment. If you are trying to discredit my expertise as a lawyer, then I concede. I'm no lawyer :) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] > Showdown at the > Freenode Coral > Importance: Low > > > Well, I had to respond to this after having it > pointed > out. > --- Matthew Findley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > This is not my position and I have already > answered > > this almost exact > > situation. > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support/5067 > > Try to keep up. > > It's not a crime to know that a crime is happening > > and failing to take > > action. > Wrong. A few minutes on google and I found this > law: > "Misprison of a Felony" (18 U.S.C.A 4.). Of course > there is the little issue of meeting the elements of > the crime, but that doesn't seem to be a big deal > for > you when it comes to Freenet. > > > It's a crime if you know your committing a crime > and > > fail to take action. > LOL! So if you commit a crime, it's OK for others > not > to take action, but if YOU don't take action against > YORSELF then you are breaking the law?! This > statement is totally backwards. Also, you can't be > charged for committing the crime and also NOT > STOPPING >
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
On Wednesday 11 August 2004 17:17, I. K. wrote: > remove me from this list. > thanks. You will never escape! MUAHAHAHAHAAA. Just go to http://freenetproject.org/ to the mailing list control panel and unsubscribe yourself! -- Michael A. Kuijn [EMAIL PROTECTED] () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\- against microsoft attachments ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Zenon Panoussis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >We go round and round and round and everyone on the list has already >killfiled the both of us long ago, I don't know about long ago, but i'm plonking both you windbags untill you get off this. It's old already, the horse is dead and some of us are sick to death of hearing it over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. "plonk!" "plonk!" "Whew! Finally! and end!" ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
[freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Matthew Findley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > I'm being forced to loop because no one is saying anything new. They're > just presenting arguments that don't have a basis in law. And examples that > don't apply. Maybe if someone could present a new point we could move on. > > I was originally going to major in law, but while in collage the more I > found out about it the more I decided it wasn't for me. That's why I'm not > a prosecutor, nor would I want to be. > Would that be Swedish law or American law? Maybe with your knowledge of the > law you can present a reason why this is not a crime with some real facts to > back it up. > I have followed this arguement more or less torpidly concluding mostly that points you present and type of criminal law you cite is a form of fud. One could just as easily conclude from them that as pen and paper may be used to draw dirty pictures that having them makes one a pornographer which is the kind of ridiculous argument made in the the proposed Incite Act. Selling spray paint incites grafitti. The examples you cite have nothing to do with common carrier, isp's or the internet and cases that have happened or decisions rendered so far. Even the much publicized actions of the MPAA and RIAA are not based on law but their own theory of what they want to achieve and when faught by thier targets have been thrown out. For example demanding log from isp's to harvest address of downloaders. Even in the Napster case the issus revolved around whether it was designed solely to commit criminal acts versus could have other uses and Napster lost because it had no other use. It won't be as easy to kill Kazaa as it has multiple uses. The freenet you have the creation of a public resource, with each users giving over a portion of their disk to this resource into this pool. It may be more analogous to throwing out garbage and then having some piece of your garbage possibly used in a manner you don't condone or control. The questions involved are not essentially legal but political and philosphical, a form of everythings illegal except when specificaly permited versus everything is legal except when specifically prohibited and western law in general favors the later. On the other hand it may be prudent for Freenet to talk to and get opinion and support from relevant organizations such as EFF and lay some ground work so as not to be taken by suprise from some county presecutor in Alabama out to make a name for himself because he's behind in the polls for november. Also fyi, redirection to chat means this has been deemed troll bait and fud. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
[freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
pineapple wrote: > To help demonstrate how ludicrous Mr. Findley's > position is, consider this scenario. Imagine there is > a crack house on a street and opposite to the house > are apartment blocks. The drug dealers are committing > their crimes in full view of these apartments because > the residents do not report the illegal activity they > can see from their windows. Failing to report a crime > is a crime. It's practically a certainty that > someone(s) from the apartments witnessed the crimes > taking place outside the crack house. > > According to Mr. Findley's logic EVERYONE who had a > view to those illegal activities is a criminal! This is becoming a common axiom in US law enforcement. The attempt to paint as many people guilty as possible, since any one of them potentially might blow up a school and kill children. Part of our new "Zero Tolerance" on Terrorism, so we can all be.. umm "Free" or something. > While it's obvious > that one or more (or even MOST) of the residents in > those apapartments did witness a crime and didn't > report it and so broke the law, Mr. Findley would have > everyone thrown in jail in order to punish the > perpetrators. Or perhaps Mr. Findley would decree > windows are illegal since they make it possible for > someone to witness a crime and not report it. Even better, because once in prison they're all billed out at the same rate to Nike, GAP, etc. to make clothing and whatever else consumerism demands. -- Jay Oliveri GnuPG ID: 0x5AA5DD54 FCPTools Maintainer www.sf.net/users/joliveri ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
remove me from this list. thanks. --- Greg Wooledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Findley: what is your agenda here? Are you > trying to scare > people into not running Freenet? Are you trying to > get the Freenet > project disbanded? Are you trying to influence the > priorities of the > developers? If so, what are you trying to get them > to do -- improve > the code, or cripple it, or what? > > Or are you just really, really bored, and trolling > us all? > > I really can't make sense of half your arguments. > They don't seem to > follow any coherent pattern. > > -- > Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to > everybody." > [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- The Red Hot > Chili Peppers > http://wooledge.org/~greg/ | > > ATTACHMENT part 1.2 application/pgp-signature name=signature.asc > ___ > 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
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Matthew Findley: what is your agenda here? Are you trying to scare people into not running Freenet? Are you trying to get the Freenet project disbanded? Are you trying to influence the priorities of the developers? If so, what are you trying to get them to do -- improve the code, or cripple it, or what? Or are you just really, really bored, and trolling us all? I really can't make sense of half your arguments. They don't seem to follow any coherent pattern. -- 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
[freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Ok, posting this is a mistake, but I feel compelled to defend myself, so I will do only that. Appologies to Mr. Findley for the doublpost because I have once again failed to reply to the list :P --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You take me seriously? How am I suppose to take you > seriously. > You are LITERALLY spouting nonsense. > --"Misprison of a Felony" (18 U.S.C.A 4.). > Misprison isn't even a word! >From the DOJ's website, here are some links. The skeptical reader can do a google search and see for themselves: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mn/press/major/boss.htm http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2004/jul/broadus%202d%20Superceding%20Indictmnt.pdf http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressRel03/murphy_kirkham_convict_pr.html http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressRel03/phillips_sen_pr.html http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/lae/hotnews/archive_list.htm http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/pr2002/165.html http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressRel02/patel_sen_pr.html http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/tnm/press_release/4_9_04.htm http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/publicaffairs/NJ_Press/files/pdffiles/ashcroftregpay.pdf > The is no chapter 4 in title 18. > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pI.html I'm not a lawyer, but the DOJ did charge the people in the above links with some crime called "Misprison of a Felony" so it must be a law somewhere :) > > "Also, you can't be charged for committing the crime > and also NOT STOPPING YOURSELF COMMITTING SAID > CRIME! That would be double jeopardy, wouldn't it?" > God no double jeopardy is being charged with > the same crime twice. In other words, the > prosecution doesn't get to appeal if they lose. > And you can't even be charged with not stopping > yourself from committing a crime (negligence crimes > not withstanding). You'd just be charged with what > ever crime you committed. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer. Whatever this is called, it's still contrary to the fifth amendment. If you are trying to discredit my expertise as a lawyer, then I concede. I'm no lawyer :) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] > Showdown at the > Freenode Coral > Importance: Low > > > Well, I had to respond to this after having it > pointed > out. > --- Matthew Findley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > This is not my position and I have already > answered > > this almost exact > > situation. > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support/5067 > > Try to keep up. > > It's not a crime to know that a crime is happening > > and failing to take > > action. > Wrong. A few minutes on google and I found this > law: > "Misprison of a Felony" (18 U.S.C.A 4.). Of course > there is the little issue of meeting the elements of > the crime, but that doesn't seem to be a big deal > for > you when it comes to Freenet. > > > It's a crime if you know your committing a crime > and > > fail to take action. > LOL! So if you commit a crime, it's OK for others > not > to take action, but if YOU don't take action against > YORSELF then you are breaking the law?! This > statement is totally backwards. Also, you can't be > charged for committing the crime and also NOT > STOPPING > YOURSELF COMMITTING SAID CRIME! That would be > double > jeopardy, wouldn't it? Do you still insist I take > you > seriouly? Don't answer! In the future I intend to > exercise more restraint and will not reply to any > posts by you no matter how tempted I am. > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 6:47 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] > > Showdown at the Freenode > > Coral > > Importance: Low > > > > > > --- ZeZenonaPanoussisfrfreenetrovocation.net> > wrote: > > > > >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. S
RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Zenon Panoussis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Matthew Findley wrote: > > > This message contains improperly-formatted binary content, or attachment. > > Hotmail sucks. I sends 8-bit content without the right > "Content-transfer-encoding: 8-bit" headers. It's been so for years > and they don't seem to have any plans to fix it. > I have no idea what your talking about. I never wrote that? > > Yes only the end user gets prosecuted. You are the end user with freenet. > > What exactly are you getting at? > > I always try to keep this sort of discussions civilised and avoid > the use of invectives, but I have to admit you make it very hard > for me. > > The issue of the node operator himself downloading or inserting > illegal material has never been part of this discussion; that case > is clear enough to not need any discussion. This discussion is > about the liability of a node operator for transit files. So, if > X uploads kiddie porn to freenet and Y downloads it through my > node, you're saying I'm the end user? WTF is X then? WTF is Y? X is an uploader. If they see X uploading kiddy porn he will get in just as much trouble as anyone else caught uploading. Y is a downloader and he could be charged with possession if he gets caught with more on his computer. > I neither upload it nor download it, and you make me the end-user? You did upload. The content was on your computer and it was sent to another computer. This is the very definition of uploading. > > Matthew Findley, as far as I am concerned, this thread is over. > While you started by posting relatively serious FUD, you have by > now resorted to totally incoherent blathering, not worth wasting > any more time or bandwidth on. If your intention was to spread > FUD, you failed. If your intention was to come across the way > you do, you succeeded. > > [knowledge/intent vs lack of knowledge] > > > So you agree with me? Because you have a chance to stop it right now. Just > > turn the node off. > > No, you [deleted], I do not agree with you. That's plain and > obvious to everyone except you; a fact which, when put together > with your grammar, makes me start wondering whether you really > work for the DoJ. Are you sure it's not your daddy who's called > Matthew and works for the DoJ? Oh so now you want to get belligerent? > > And what exactly do you mean by "you have a chance to stop it > right now"? Because if I don't, then what? Will you come and > arrest me then? You and what army? Better start packing then, > because I have no plans whatsoever to stop running my node. On > the contrary, as soon as I get some time I'll try to put some > real work on my open freenet proxy. Do you honestly not remember what you posted not one message ago? Quote from you "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." So riddle me this smartass. Do you not know how to turn your node off? Cause if you do then you have a reasonable chance to act. And we freaking agree. Because like you said, knowledge creates intent. And intent makes it a punishable crime. Or perhaps you've forgotten that too. Here's a reminder. Quote from you "In my village, intent to commit an illegal act is a prerequisite to the committment of that act constituting a penal offence." So, like it's like I said, we seem to be in agreement. Unless you want to try to claim you don't know how to turn your node off. > > [the system] > > That's another discussion dropped. If you really think that the > system you work for is not rotten, then that says something about > you, not about the system. > > > So your accusing the prosecutor of fabricating evidence > > Do you really think the government is out to get you? > > What does the DOJ have to gain by putting an innocent person behind bars? > > We don't have some sort of quota to make. > > Yes you do. The quota is one conviction per crime committed. That > makes the government look good. "We couldn't prevent the crime, > but we acted swiftly and we did get the perpetrator", that's what > government officials like to say on TV. If the convicted happens > to be innocent, too bad for him; the government couldn't care less. If that were so. Do you really think we would have let a big crime like the anthrax mailings go unpunished for so long? And lets not forget 9/11. Wow that's a pretty big quota to fill. We better get started framing people. > As noted at > http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/Bentley.htm > the government will even coerce the wrongfully convicted out of > his right to compensation. You probably didn't even notice that > when you read the page, Yep I did miss that. Because it doesn't say that!!! It doesn't mention compensation any where on there. All it says was that he was seeking a new trial. Now lets think this through... what do people in ja
RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
You take me seriously? How am I suppose to take you seriously. You are LITERALLY spouting nonsense. --"Misprison of a Felony" (18 U.S.C.A 4.). Misprison isn't even a word! The is no chapter 4 in title 18. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pI.html "Also, you can't be charged for committing the crime and also NOT STOPPING YOURSELF COMMITTING SAID CRIME! That would be double jeopardy, wouldn't it?" God no double jeopardy is being charged with the same crime twice. In other words, the prosecution doesn't get to appeal if they lose. And you can't even be charged with not stopping yourself from committing a crime (negligence crimes not withstanding). You'd just be charged with what ever crime you committed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral Importance: Low Well, I had to respond to this after having it pointed out. --- Matthew Findley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is not my position and I have already answered > this almost exact > situation. > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support/5067 > Try to keep up. > It's not a crime to know that a crime is happening > and failing to take > action. Wrong. A few minutes on google and I found this law: "Misprison of a Felony" (18 U.S.C.A 4.). Of course there is the little issue of meeting the elements of the crime, but that doesn't seem to be a big deal for you when it comes to Freenet. > It's a crime if you know your committing a crime and > fail to take action. LOL! So if you commit a crime, it's OK for others not to take action, but if YOU don't take action against YORSELF then you are breaking the law?! This statement is totally backwards. Also, you can't be charged for committing the crime and also NOT STOPPING YOURSELF COMMITTING SAID CRIME! That would be double jeopardy, wouldn't it? Do you still insist I take you seriouly? Don't answer! In the future I intend to exercise more restraint and will not reply to any posts by you no matter how tempted I am. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 6:47 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] > Showdown at the Freenode > Coral > Importance: Low > > > --- ZeZenonaPanoussisfrfreenetrovocation.net> wrote: > > >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 > To help demonstrate how ludicrous Mr. Findley's > position is, consider this scenario. Imagine there > is > a crack house on a street and opposite to the house > are apartment blocks. The drug dealers are > committing > their crimes in full view of these apartments > because > the residents do not report the illegal activity > they > can see from their windows. Failing to report a > crime > is a crime. It's practically a certainty that > someone(s) from the apartments witnessed the crimes > taking place outside the crack house. According to > Mr. Findley's logic EVERYONE who had a view to those > illegal activities is a criminal! While it's > obvious > that one or more (or even MOST) of the residents in > those apapartments did witness a crime and didn't > report it and so broke the law, Mr. Findley would > have > everyone thrown in jail in order to punish the > perpetrators. Or perhaps Mr. Findley would decree > windows are illegal since they make it possible for > someone to witness a crime and not report it. > > > > > > >-- > >FrFramtidenrrosomn bababianrvffrggranncochull av > >skit. > > Arne AnAnka> > ___ > >chat mailing list > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > hthttp/news.gmgmanerorgmgmaneetwork.frfreeneteneral > > > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > __
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
On Monday 09 August 2004 08:35, Matthew Findley wrote:
> I'm pretty lazy with the spell check. If it says something is wrong I
> normally just hit correct it with out looking at in too much detail. I
> assume you can still understand what I'm trying to say even with the
> occasionally wrong word.
Don't worry. I do.
>
> Michael Kuijn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I hate to pick on people because of their spelling, but Mr. Findley, are
> > you really an american? You make spelling errors I (a sixteen year old
> > Dutch kid) would never make ('smith and weston', 'convection'). So... are
> > you?
--
Michael A. Kuijn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
/\- against microsoft attachments
___
chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
pineapple ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Also, you can't be > charged for committing the crime and also NOT STOPPING > YOURSELF COMMITTING SAID CRIME! That would be double > jeopardy, wouldn't it? Double jeopardy is being tried twice for the same crime. This is covered by the US Constitution, 5th Amendment (Bill of Rights): No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. If you're found not guilty of a crime in a local court, the prosecution is not allowed to appeal the case to a higher court to get a "second opinion". That's double jeopardy. -- 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: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Well, I had to respond to this after having it pointed out. --- Matthew Findley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is not my position and I have already answered > this almost exact > situation. > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support/5067 > Try to keep up. > It's not a crime to know that a crime is happening > and failing to take > action. Wrong. A few minutes on google and I found this law: "Misprison of a Felony" (18 U.S.C.A 4.). Of course there is the little issue of meeting the elements of the crime, but that doesn't seem to be a big deal for you when it comes to Freenet. > It's a crime if you know your committing a crime and > fail to take action. LOL! So if you commit a crime, it's OK for others not to take action, but if YOU don't take action against YORSELF then you are breaking the law?! This statement is totally backwards. Also, you can't be charged for committing the crime and also NOT STOPPING YOURSELF COMMITTING SAID CRIME! That would be double jeopardy, wouldn't it? Do you still insist I take you seriouly? Don't answer! In the future I intend to exercise more restraint and will not reply to any posts by you no matter how tempted I am. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 6:47 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] > Showdown at the Freenode > Coral > Importance: Low > > > --- ZeZenonaPanoussisfrfreenetrovocation.net> wrote: > > >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 > To help demonstrate how ludicrous Mr. Findley's > position is, consider this scenario. Imagine there > is > a crack house on a street and opposite to the house > are apartment blocks. The drug dealers are > committing > their crimes in full view of these apartments > because > the residents do not report the illegal activity > they > can see from their windows. Failing to report a > crime > is a crime. It's practically a certainty that > someone(s) from the apartments witnessed the crimes > taking place outside the crack house. According to > Mr. Findley's logic EVERYONE who had a view to those > illegal activities is a criminal! While it's > obvious > that one or more (or even MOST) of the residents in > those apapartments did witness a crime and didn't > report it and so broke the law, Mr. Findley would > have > everyone thrown in jail in order to punish the > perpetrators. Or perhaps Mr. Findley would decree > windows are illegal since they make it possible for > someone to witness a crime and not report it. > > > > > > >-- > >FrFramtidenrrosomn bababianrvffrggranncochull av > >skit. > > Arne AnAnka> > ___ > >chat mailing list > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > hthttp/news.gmgmanerorgmgmaneetwork.frfreeneteneral > > > > > > __ > 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 > > _ > On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events > for advice on how to > get there! > http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement > > ___ > chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general > __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Matthew Findley wrote: This message contains improperly-formatted binary content, or attachment. Hotmail sucks. I sends 8-bit content without the right "Content-transfer-encoding: 8-bit" headers. It's been so for years and they don't seem to have any plans to fix it. Yes only the end user gets prosecuted. You are the end user with freenet. What exactly are you getting at? I always try to keep this sort of discussions civilised and avoid the use of invectives, but I have to admit you make it very hard for me. The issue of the node operator himself downloading or inserting illegal material has never been part of this discussion; that case is clear enough to not need any discussion. This discussion is about the liability of a node operator for transit files. So, if X uploads kiddie porn to freenet and Y downloads it through my node, you're saying I'm the end user? WTF is X then? WTF is Y? I neither upload it nor download it, and you make me the end-user? Matthew Findley, as far as I am concerned, this thread is over. While you started by posting relatively serious FUD, you have by now resorted to totally incoherent blathering, not worth wasting any more time or bandwidth on. If your intention was to spread FUD, you failed. If your intention was to come across the way you do, you succeeded. [knowledge/intent vs lack of knowledge] So you agree with me? Because you have a chance to stop it right now. Just turn the node off. No, you [deleted], I do not agree with you. That's plain and obvious to everyone except you; a fact which, when put together with your grammar, makes me start wondering whether you really work for the DoJ. Are you sure it's not your daddy who's called Matthew and works for the DoJ? And what exactly do you mean by "you have a chance to stop it right now"? Because if I don't, then what? Will you come and arrest me then? You and what army? Better start packing then, because I have no plans whatsoever to stop running my node. On the contrary, as soon as I get some time I'll try to put some real work on my open freenet proxy. [the system] That's another discussion dropped. If you really think that the system you work for is not rotten, then that says something about you, not about the system. So your accusing the prosecutor of fabricating evidence Do you really think the government is out to get you? What does the DOJ have to gain by putting an innocent person behind bars? We don't have some sort of quota to make. Yes you do. The quota is one conviction per crime committed. That makes the government look good. "We couldn't prevent the crime, but we acted swiftly and we did get the perpetrator", that's what government officials like to say on TV. If the convicted happens to be innocent, too bad for him; the government couldn't care less. As noted at http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/Bentley.htm the government will even coerce the wrongfully convicted out of his right to compensation. You probably didn't even notice that when you read the page, it probably seemed perfectly normal to you. To me it's hair raising. Everything I was ever taught to regard as dishonourable and shameful pales and withers compared to this. And it's your legal system permitting this kind of thing, that same system which you work for and demand respect for. I'm not sorry for you Matthew Findley, but I am sincerely sorry for the American people, or at least for a big part of it. 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
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 08:35, Matthew Findley wrote:
> I'm pretty lazy with the spell check. If it says something is wrong I
> normally just hit correct it with out looking at in too much detail.
> I assume you can still understand what I'm trying to say even with the
> occasionally wrong word.
But you are rude with people that decide to use their time
to read your mail. Just read what you wrote before sending it.
Never heard of the word "netiquette" ?
M.
>
> Michael Kuijn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> > I hate to pick on people because of their spelling, but Mr. Findley,
> are you
> > really an american? You make spelling errors I (a sixteen year old
> Dutch kid)
> > would never make ('smith and weston', 'convection'). So... are you?
> >
--
+ Marco A. Calamari: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:// www.marcoc.it --+
| PGP RSA: ED84 3839 6C4D 3FFE 389F 209E 3128 5698 |
| DSS/DH: 8F3E 5BAE 906F B416 9242 1C10 8661 24A9 BFCE 822B|
| il Progetto Winston Smith: scolleghiamo il Grande Fratello |
+ the Winston Smith Project: unplug the Big Brother -+
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Zenon Panoussis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 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. I didn't see that. That was obvoius. I didn't understand that. I never heard that. Of course you can make up excuses about why you didn't think it was so. But that doesn't make it any less of a crime, it just means that you might get away with it if the jury belives you. 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? Yes only the end user gets prosecuted. You are the end user with freenet. What exactly are you getting at? > 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?" 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. So you agree with me? Because you have a chance to stop it right now. Just turn the node off. [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. Ask him what? If I can use my email for private reasons? I already know the answer to that is yes. [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 am
RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
This is not my position and I have already answered this almost exact situation. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support/5067 Try to keep up. It's not a crime to know that a crime is happening and failing to take action. It's a crime if you know your committing a crime and fail to take action. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 6:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral Importance: Low --- ZeZenonaPanoussisfrfreenetrovocation.net> wrote: 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 To help demonstrate how ludicrous Mr. Findley's position is, consider this scenario. Imagine there is a crack house on a street and opposite to the house are apartment blocks. The drug dealers are committing their crimes in full view of these apartments because the residents do not report the illegal activity they can see from their windows. Failing to report a crime is a crime. It's practically a certainty that someone(s) from the apartments witnessed the crimes taking place outside the crack house. According to Mr. Findley's logic EVERYONE who had a view to those illegal activities is a criminal! While it's obvious that one or more (or even MOST) of the residents in those apapartments did witness a crime and didn't report it and so broke the law, Mr. Findley would have everyone thrown in jail in order to punish the perpetrators. Or perhaps Mr. Findley would decree windows are illegal since they make it possible for someone to witness a crime and not report it. -- FrFramtidenrrosomn bababianrvffrggranncochull av skit. Arne AnAnka> ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]> hthttp/news.gmgmanerorgmgmaneetwork.frfreeneteneral __ 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 _ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
[freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
--- ZeZenonaPanoussisfrfreenetrovocation.net> wrote: > 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 To help demonstrate how ludicrous Mr. Findley's position is, consider this scenario. Imagine there is a crack house on a street and opposite to the house are apartment blocks. The drug dealers are committing their crimes in full view of these apartments because the residents do not report the illegal activity they can see from their windows. Failing to report a crime is a crime. It's practically a certainty that someone(s) from the apartments witnessed the crimes taking place outside the crack house. According to Mr. Findley's logic EVERYONE who had a view to those illegal activities is a criminal! While it's obvious that one or more (or even MOST) of the residents in those apapartments did witness a crime and didn't report it and so broke the law, Mr. Findley would have everyone thrown in jail in order to punish the perpetrators. Or perhaps Mr. Findley would decree windows are illegal since they make it possible for someone to witness a crime and not report it. > > > -- > FrFramtidenrärosomn bababianrövfäfärggranncochull av > skit. > Arne AnAnka> ___ > chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> hthttp/news.gmgmanerorgmgmaneetwork.frfreeneteneral > __ 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
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
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! On
[freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Zenon Panoussis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Matthew Findley wrote:> > > Your correct. If the government kicked down your door right now and saw > > freenet running on your computer nothing would happen. Because they > > could not prove a crime is taking place.> > Well, we disagree on this but I doubt we'll get much further.> You say I'd go free for lack of evidence. I say it's not a> matter of evidence and I'd go free for lack of intent, with> or without the evidence.> > > It's really not up to me to deicded weather or not you had probable > > knowledge that you were commiting a crime. That's what a jury is for. > > It wasn't a jury who stated categorically> > Willful blindness can not protect you if it can be shown that> you had a reasonable suspicion to believe they you are committing> a crime. In fact in some cases a deliberate attempt to not obtain> knowledge is proof of that knowledge.> > a few days ago, was it? Yep. And that's exactly what I ment. Prehaps if I add the word jury you'll see the connection. Willful blindness can not protect you if it can be shown to a jury that you had a reasonable suspicion to believe that you are committing a crime. In fact in some cases a deliberate attempt to not obtain knowledge is proof of that knowledge. Perhaps I wasn't as pointed as I should have been. To me it seem kind of obvious. I mean who else would you need to show it to? > > > I've never ment to imply that you would be found guility just because > > traffic was intrecepted. Only that you could be arrested and charged. > > The facts of the case still need to be proven, one of which is that you > > had a resonable knowdlge of your facilitation of a crime.> > Top-quoting is an abomination for many reasons, one of which is> that it makes you lose track of what you are replying to.> > You are supposed to be replying to this:> > I note that that law you pointed to says "believing it> probable that he is rendering aid to a person who intends> to commit a crime". This still requires the probablity> before the act of facilitation to apply to a concrete person> and a concrete crime. That is: if I know it is probable that> X will commit Y crime using my node and yet provide my node> to Y, I might go down for facilitating his crime. With> freenet though, this is never the case. You don't know for> a probable fact that any concrete person will use your node> to commit any concrete crime.> > I argue that "reasonable knowledge of my facilitation of a crime"> does not match the requisites of the law that you yourself pointed> me to. I say that you need SPECIFIC REASONS which would cause a> reasonable person to believe that IT IS PROBABLE, not only possible,> that he is facilitating A CONCRETE CRIME being committed by A> CONCRETE PERSON. This means that even if I know that kiddie porn> is flowing around freenet, as long as I don't have a specific> reason to believe that an illegal image is being up- or downloaded> through my node, I am not required to act against it. Your reply> is nothing but an over-simplifying repetition of what you already> said before, and it is self-contradictory too. 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. > > > The only thing I have ever said with regard to freenet is it is ilegal > > to transmit KP. > > To which I replied that you are wrong, that transmitting kiddie porn> is not illegal, that only INTENTIONALLY transmitting kiddie porn is> illegal. This lead us to the whole willful blindness discussion,> which resulted in the paragraph above about concrete probability of> a concrete crime, which you not-too-skillfully manoeuvered around> instead of responding to. 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 > > > Which even though I'm not convaying the offical > > position of the DOJ. I think we can all agree this is their position.> > And the government does give us smoke and lunch brakes you know ;)> > Look, one thing I really detest is people taking me to be stupid.> I know damn well the government gives you lunch breaks. Now, answer,> didn't the government tell you that you are not allowed to use its> computers for personal business? Did it or did it not, yes or no?> > And even if it didn't, you should have realised yourself that a> posting *on legal matters* coming from a DoJ address is bound to> be perceived as at least semi-official, no matter what. It is the> combination of DoJ and legal issue that puts you there; it would> have been a wholly different situation if you had been commenting> on technical matters from a DoJ address.> > Now then, don't you know that it is against government rules to>
[freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
I'm pretty lazy with the spell check. If it
says something is wrong I normally just hit correct it with out looking at
in too much detail.
I assume you can still understand what I'm trying
to say even with the occasionally wrong word.
Michael Kuijn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> > I hate to pick on people because of
their spelling, but Mr. Findley, are you > really an american? You make
spelling errors I (a sixteen year old Dutch kid) > would never make
('smith and weston', 'convection'). So... are you?>
___
chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
[freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
They could do that but they would have to have a reason to be searching your computer in person (IE a warrent). If they already have a warrent... you've probably done something else thats caught their eye. Roger Hayter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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> ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Matthew Findley wrote: Your correct. If the government kicked down your door right now and saw freenet running on your computer nothing would happen. Because they could not prove a crime is taking place. Well, we disagree on this but I doubt we'll get much further. You say I'd go free for lack of evidence. I say it's not a matter of evidence and I'd go free for lack of intent, with or without the evidence. It's really not up to me to deicded weather or not you had probable knowledge that you were commiting a crime. That's what a jury is for. It wasn't a jury who stated categorically Willful blindness can not protect you if it can be shown that you had a reasonable suspicion to believe they you are committing a crime. In fact in some cases a deliberate attempt to not obtain knowledge is proof of that knowledge. a few days ago, was it? I've never ment to imply that you would be found guility just because traffic was intrecepted. Only that you could be arrested and charged. The facts of the case still need to be proven, one of which is that you had a resonable knowdlge of your facilitation of a crime. Top-quoting is an abomination for many reasons, one of which is that it makes you lose track of what you are replying to. You are supposed to be replying to this: I note that that law you pointed to says "believing it probable that he is rendering aid to a person who intends to commit a crime". This still requires the probablity before the act of facilitation to apply to a concrete person and a concrete crime. That is: if I know it is probable that X will commit Y crime using my node and yet provide my node to Y, I might go down for facilitating his crime. With freenet though, this is never the case. You don't know for a probable fact that any concrete person will use your node to commit any concrete crime. I argue that "reasonable knowledge of my facilitation of a crime" does not match the requisites of the law that you yourself pointed me to. I say that you need SPECIFIC REASONS which would cause a reasonable person to believe that IT IS PROBABLE, not only possible, that he is facilitating A CONCRETE CRIME being committed by A CONCRETE PERSON. This means that even if I know that kiddie porn is flowing around freenet, as long as I don't have a specific reason to believe that an illegal image is being up- or downloaded through my node, I am not required to act against it. Your reply is nothing but an over-simplifying repetition of what you already said before, and it is self-contradictory too. The only thing I have ever said with regard to freenet is it is ilegal to transmit KP. To which I replied that you are wrong, that transmitting kiddie porn is not illegal, that only INTENTIONALLY transmitting kiddie porn is illegal. This lead us to the whole willful blindness discussion, which resulted in the paragraph above about concrete probability of a concrete crime, which you not-too-skillfully manoeuvered around instead of responding to. Which even though I'm not convaying the offical position of the DOJ. I think we can all agree this is their position. And the government does give us smoke and lunch brakes you know ;) Look, one thing I really detest is people taking me to be stupid. I know damn well the government gives you lunch breaks. Now, answer, didn't the government tell you that you are not allowed to use its computers for personal business? Did it or did it not, yes or no? And even if it didn't, you should have realised yourself that a posting *on legal matters* coming from a DoJ address is bound to be perceived as at least semi-official, no matter what. It is the combination of DoJ and legal issue that puts you there; it would have been a wholly different situation if you had been commenting on technical matters from a DoJ address. Now then, don't you know that it is against government rules to make statements which are bound to be perceived as official unless they actually are official? Of course you know that. Of course you didn't risk your job for something as thoughless and stupid as using your DoJ address for private business that's unrelated to your work. So, where does that leave us? How many rocket scientists do you think it takes to add 1+1? Thus, thank you Mr Findley, your message that the DoJ is watching us has come across loud and clear. Your message "with this posting I am putting you all in bad faith, you can't claim ignorance after I have drawn your attention to [etc]" came across fine too. If reception at your end is as good as here, please inform your boss that hardly anyone gives a damn about his opinions, unless he cares to make them truly official and sign them with his name. Though straying from the real topic. I know of none of the prosecutors in the office where I work who are only out to get convections. You don't read newspapers, do you? Good thing that the net can help you out. Go read http://www.icadp.org/page256.html and then tel
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
I hate to pick on people because of their spelling, but Mr. Findley, are you
really an american? You make spelling errors I (a sixteen year old Dutch kid)
would never make ('smith and weston', 'convection'). So... are you?
--
Michael A. Kuijn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
/\- against microsoft attachments
___
chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
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] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
To be charged you do indeed need a specific crime. We have to assume that if your being arrested that freenet traffic flow has been intrecepted and broken. In which case you would be chaged with a specific incident that was intercepted while monitoring your trafic. Your correct. If the government kicked down your door right now and saw freenet running on your computer nothing would happen. Because they could not prove a crime is taking place. It's really not up to me to deicded weather or not you had probable knowledge that you were commiting a crime. That's what a jury is for. I've never ment to imply that you would be found guility just because traffic was intrecepted. Only that you could be arrested and charged. The facts of the case still need to be proven, one of which is that you had a resonable knowdlge of your facilitation of a crime. The only thing I have ever said with regard to freenet is it is ilegal to transmit KP. Which even though I'm not convaying the offical position of the DOJ. I think we can all agree this is their position. And the government does give us smoke and lunch brakes you know ;) Though straying from the real topic. I know of none of the prosecutors in the office where I work who are only out to get convections. You can rest assured that if they come after you they belive you have commited a crime. Federal prosecutors are not just random lawyers that are picked up off the street. They are some of the best in the country. They are accountable to many levels through out the DOJ and any cases where they are found to abuse their position are delt with swiftly. 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. Zenon Panoussis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The way I read that, you need a probability of a concrete and> defined crime being committed by a concrete and defined person> (the person can very well be "John Doe", but it must still be> identifiable by a specific act or the result of that or something> other specific). With your "packet from Mexico" example you> have a concrete person, the one for who you carry the packet,> and a concrete crime, import of X amount of Y drug into the> country.> > With freenet you lack both person and crime. How can you be> prosecuted for facilititating a crime if no crime can be> identified? Yes, we know that some kiddie porn or some> copyright infringement or some military secrets might pass> through your node, but not that they have passed, let alone> which precise kiddie porn or copyright infringement or> military secrets passed. How would you formulate a charge?> "You are hereby charged for facilitating uhm, something> illegal, by providing the means which uhm, someone or other,> perhaps used to commit erhm, that". I find it very hard to> believe that such a charge would even make it to court.> > This thread, however, started with my sketch of what might> happen if Big Brother manages to break encryption and to> follow traffic. In that case there would be a concrete> crime and a concrete individual committing it, so we should> examine the situation from that perspective.> > I note that that law you pointed to says "believing it> probable that he is rendering aid to a person who intends> to commit a crime". This still requires the probablity> before the act of facilitation to apply to a concrete person> and a concrete crime. That is: if I know it is probable that> X will commit Y crime using my node and yet provide my node> to Y, I might go down for facilitating his crime. With> freenet though, this is never the case. You don't know for> a probable fact that any concrete person will use your node> to commit any concrete crime. To catch a freenode operator,> that NY statute would need to say ""believing it possible> that he is rendering aid to the committment of crime".> > > I also provided an appeals court decision that affirm the > > convection of a women that acted with out full knowledge > > that she was committing a crime.> > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/032780p.pdf> > Its application to freenet suffers from the same flaw as the> statute above: Florez had concrete reasons in her husband's> previous troubles to believe that a concrete individual, her> husband, would (not only could) use her account to commit a> concrete crime, fraud. Read especially the paragraph at the> end of page four and the beginning of page 5, which deals> with the difference between willful blindness on one hand> and negligence or carelessness on the other.> > > I also addressed the issue that I ran a freenet node for > > a brief time> > Looking at the archive, I see two postings from you on> 5 Aug 20.45 and one on 5 Aug 21.51 before your posting> 6 Aug 15.48, which is the one I'm now replying to. I> can't see you addresing
[freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [legal references] Really? I believe I did. Don't get mad at me if you chose to ignore it. Indeed you did, and I didn't choose to ignore it. What I did ignore was Toad's "take it to chat"; I was unaware of this list. In any case I apologise for claiming you hadn't. 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 The way I read that, you need a probability of a concrete and defined crime being committed by a concrete and defined person (the person can very well be "John Doe", but it must still be identifiable by a specific act or the result of that or something other specific). With your "packet from Mexico" example you have a concrete person, the one for who you carry the packet, and a concrete crime, import of X amount of Y drug into the country. With freenet you lack both person and crime. How can you be prosecuted for facilititating a crime if no crime can be identified? Yes, we know that some kiddie porn or some copyright infringement or some military secrets might pass through your node, but not that they have passed, let alone which precise kiddie porn or copyright infringement or military secrets passed. How would you formulate a charge? "You are hereby charged for facilitating uhm, something illegal, by providing the means which uhm, someone or other, perhaps used to commit erhm, that". I find it very hard to believe that such a charge would even make it to court. This thread, however, started with my sketch of what might happen if Big Brother manages to break encryption and to follow traffic. In that case there would be a concrete crime and a concrete individual committing it, so we should examine the situation from that perspective. I note that that law you pointed to says "believing it probable that he is rendering aid to a person who intends to commit a crime". This still requires the probablity before the act of facilitation to apply to a concrete person and a concrete crime. That is: if I know it is probable that X will commit Y crime using my node and yet provide my node to Y, I might go down for facilitating his crime. With freenet though, this is never the case. You don't know for a probable fact that any concrete person will use your node to commit any concrete crime. To catch a freenode operator, that NY statute would need to say ""believing it possible that he is rendering aid to the committment of crime". I also provided an appeals court decision that affirm the convection of a women that acted with out full knowledge that she was committing a crime. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/032780p.pdf Its application to freenet suffers from the same flaw as the statute above: Florez had concrete reasons in her husband's previous troubles to believe that a concrete individual, her husband, would (not only could) use her account to commit a concrete crime, fraud. Read especially the paragraph at the end of page four and the beginning of page 5, which deals with the difference between willful blindness on one hand and negligence or carelessness on the other. I also addressed the issue that I ran a freenet node for a brief time Looking at the archive, I see two postings from you on 5 Aug 20.45 and one on 5 Aug 21.51 before your posting 6 Aug 15.48, which is the one I'm now replying to. I can't see you addresing the issue of yourself running a freenet node in either one of th revious two postings. In any case, although I made an issue of it, it is not the real issue. The real issue is you posting FUD. To be clear on this, I think that you have every right to an opinion and have every right to express that opinion without being accused of spreading FUD. If someone else thinks that you are wrong he will say so, and the discussion that ensues will probably help others to make up their own minds on the subject. So far so well. The problem begins when you post an opinion of "this is illegal" from a usdoj.gov address. Irrespective of your disclaimer (which also came long after your statement on the legality of running freenet nodes), the mere use of that address makes you appear as an authority on the subject matter, which you are not. The use of a usdoj.gov address to post "this is illegal" is *bound to* create the impression that the DoJ is behind your posting, which in turn makes your subsequent disclaimer appear as the DoJ wanting to make a statement without being held accountable for it. *That* is where a mere opnion turns into FUD. And I would add, don't even think of repeating your disclaimer. We all know that the US government forbids its employees to spend their work time on private matters. We all know that the US government forbids its employees to use government resources for private matters. When you make categorical statement
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
On 6 Aug 2004, at 18:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The is a big difference in knowing it can happen, and knowing it is happening. I don't think you can be any more or less certain that it is happening with Freenet than with the USPS. I think it is a virtual certainty that a given postman will deliver something illegal in the course of their career, this may or may not also be true of someone operating a Freenet node. 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). You don't know with any certainty, for any given piece of information, that it is happening, all you know is that *something* illegal may pass through your node in the course of your running it, but the exact same is true of a postman delivering mail. 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. A postman is under no obligation to work for the USPS. It is the USPS job to deliver information without reading it, the exact same is true of Freenet. You still haven't demonstrated that under your interpretation of the law a postman wouldn't be just as culpable as a Freenet node operator. 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. You are dodging the question, in order for you to apply criminal facilitation law to Freenet you must stretch it to apply it to a collection of acts where there is a small likelihood that one of those acts helps someone do something illegal. The law was not intended to be applied in this manner, on the contrary, it is clear that in most sane legal traditions (and even though some on this mailing list might disagree, I am including the US here ;) the provision of a service or product to the public which happens to be used by someone in the course of breaking the law does not make the service or product provider a criminal, even when, as is the case with any large service or product provider, it is virtually certain that the service or product will be used by a criminal at some point. This is what protects Kinkos, Smith & Wesson, Verizon, and many others from criminal liability. Ian. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Matthew Findley wrote: >Possibly so but it has nothing to do with a project being open source, with having to build a test net, or having to support users. >It all has to do with what your doing with your computer. >It's not the law's fault that freenet works the way it does. >Freenet is trying to beat the system so of course the system is going to fight back. Are you honestly that surprised? >The number one purpose of freenet is to fight censorship. >Who is the only organization with the power to censor you? The government. >Who is the only organization with the power to make laws? The government. >You really think they're going to say something is off limits and not try to enforce it? >Ohhh it's illegal to make drugs, but ok to sell or use them. >That doesn't add up. >You may not agree with it but if the government doesn't want you doing something, it should come as no surprise they will pass laws that prevent you from doing >it. What swamp of FUD did you crawl out of? Are you on some kind of DOJ sponsored power trip? Are you wasting my tax dollars talking this shit! Yes, if you have reasonable knowledge that what you are doing is aiding or abetting a crime, then you can be help liable. But the point of freenet is that you DON'T know what is on your node. It's encrypted. As far as I'm concerned I'm providing a service to Chinese and Saudi dissidents who need a safe haven for documents and access to news from other countries. But the point is I just don't know, and I have no way of ever knowing what my node has in it. It's certainly not the law's fault freenet works the way it does, but it is also not freenet's fault, nor freenet node operator's, that some people place items on freenet which may or may not be illeagal in various countries. You, like many in law enforcement, forget that in America, the government is responsible to the people for the laws it makes. Yes, the Congress and Executive branch have authority as a representative proxy. But ultimately citizens determine what should be law by voting, litigating, and most importantly, serving on juries, where they can toss out an obvious witch hunt against something like freenet. Whether or not there is compelling evidence to convict, a jury always has the choice to acquit. I haven't run freenet in a very long time because I no longer believe it is secure, but our U.S. government has several systems very similar to freenet. They are based on onion protocols and multiple linked VPNs. Hmmm, maybe we should go after these? After all someone might have put a picture of a 17 year old girl or boy up there somewhere. Jeff Furgal___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Possibly so but it has nothing to do with a project being open source, with having to build a test net, or having to support users. It all has to do with what your doing with your computer. It's not the law's fault that freenet works the way it does. Freenet is trying to beat the system so of course the system is going to fight back. Are you honestly that surprised? The number one purpose of freenet is to fight censorship. Who is the only organization with the power to censor you? The government. Who is the only organization with the power to make laws? The government. You really think they're going to say something is off limits and not try to enforce it? Ohhh it's illegal to make drugs, but ok to sell or use them. That doesn't add up. You may not agree with it but if the government doesn't want you doing something, it should come as no surprise they will pass laws that prevent you from doing it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:27 PM To: Findley, Matthew; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral Importance: Low If you are correct (which I doubt), then virtually any open source effort will be illegal, because it is extremely unlikely that they will have the resources to debug the network on a totally separate network with entirely controlled traffic and no real users. We cannot just go build a 10,000 node test network distributed across 3 continents. Perhaps some of the commercial startups can, but we can't. Not supporting our users is also a great way not to have any users. On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 03:04:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Does any network besides freenet do that? > And the caching isn't done by the people who created the networks its done by the > people who run the program. > The reason the law suits against the companies are failing is because they don't > have an active role in the network they created. There has been only one company > (that I can think of anyway) that actively took part in their network, Napster. And > we all know what happened to them. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:52 PM > To: Findley, Matthew; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the > Freenode Coral > Importance: Low > > > None of the networks that have been sued do unsupervised caching? > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 02:42:36PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > While not totally sure what your referring to I'll assume you mean the creators of > > the program or the company that owns them. > > In which cases its because they're not doing anything illegal. You can make > > something that can be used in an illegal way as long as you don't use it that way. > > (Guns, knives, cars, video cameras, computers... ect) > > Until (god forbid) the INDUCE act passes your free to make what ever you want. > > But that doesn't mean you can use it however you want. > > Show me a case where the person uploading music has won. > > > > -----Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:20 PM > > To: Findley, Matthew; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the > > Freenode Coral > > > > > > What about the cases where P2P suppliers have _WON_ their court battles? > > There were at least 2 recently IIRC. > > > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:51:40PM -0400, [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). > > > 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. > > > > > > 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
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
If you are correct (which I doubt), then virtually any open source effort will be illegal, because it is extremely unlikely that they will have the resources to debug the network on a totally separate network with entirely controlled traffic and no real users. We cannot just go build a 10,000 node test network distributed across 3 continents. Perhaps some of the commercial startups can, but we can't. Not supporting our users is also a great way not to have any users. On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 03:04:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Does any network besides freenet do that? > And the caching isn't done by the people who created the networks its done by the > people who run the program. > The reason the law suits against the companies are failing is because they don't > have an active role in the network they created. There has been only one company > (that I can think of anyway) that actively took part in their network, Napster. And > we all know what happened to them. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:52 PM > To: Findley, Matthew; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the > Freenode Coral > Importance: Low > > > None of the networks that have been sued do unsupervised caching? > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 02:42:36PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > While not totally sure what your referring to I'll assume you mean the creators of > > the program or the company that owns them. > > In which cases its because they're not doing anything illegal. You can make > > something that can be used in an illegal way as long as you don't use it that way. > > (Guns, knives, cars, video cameras, computers... ect) > > Until (god forbid) the INDUCE act passes your free to make what ever you want. > > But that doesn't mean you can use it however you want. > > Show me a case where the person uploading music has won. > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:20 PM > > To: Findley, Matthew; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the > > Freenode Coral > > > > > > What about the cases where P2P suppliers have _WON_ their court battles? > > There were at least 2 recently IIRC. > > > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:51:40PM -0400, [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). > > > 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. > > > > > > 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] > &g
RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Does any network besides freenet do that? And the caching isn't done by the people who created the networks its done by the people who run the program. The reason the law suits against the companies are failing is because they don't have an active role in the network they created. There has been only one company (that I can think of anyway) that actively took part in their network, Napster. And we all know what happened to them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:52 PM To: Findley, Matthew; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral Importance: Low None of the networks that have been sued do unsupervised caching? On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 02:42:36PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > While not totally sure what your referring to I'll assume you mean the creators of > the program or the company that owns them. > In which cases its because they're not doing anything illegal. You can make > something that can be used in an illegal way as long as you don't use it that way. > (Guns, knives, cars, video cameras, computers... ect) > Until (god forbid) the INDUCE act passes your free to make what ever you want. But > that doesn't mean you can use it however you want. > Show me a case where the person uploading music has won. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:20 PM > To: Findley, Matthew; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the > Freenode Coral > > > What about the cases where P2P suppliers have _WON_ their court battles? > There were at least 2 recently IIRC. > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:51:40PM -0400, [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). > > 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. > > > > 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
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
None of the networks that have been sued do unsupervised caching? On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 02:42:36PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > While not totally sure what your referring to I'll assume you mean the creators of > the program or the company that owns them. > In which cases its because they're not doing anything illegal. You can make > something that can be used in an illegal way as long as you don't use it that way. > (Guns, knives, cars, video cameras, computers... ect) > Until (god forbid) the INDUCE act passes your free to make what ever you want. But > that doesn't mean you can use it however you want. > Show me a case where the person uploading music has won. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:20 PM > To: Findley, Matthew; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the > Freenode Coral > > > What about the cases where P2P suppliers have _WON_ their court battles? > There were at least 2 recently IIRC. > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:51:40PM -0400, [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). > > 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. > > > > 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 specif
RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
While not totally sure what your referring to I'll assume you mean the creators of the program or the company that owns them. In which cases its because they're not doing anything illegal. You can make something that can be used in an illegal way as long as you don't use it that way. (Guns, knives, cars, video cameras, computers... ect) Until (god forbid) the INDUCE act passes your free to make what ever you want. But that doesn't mean you can use it however you want. Show me a case where the person uploading music has won. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:20 PM To: Findley, Matthew; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral What about the cases where P2P suppliers have _WON_ their court battles? There were at least 2 recently IIRC. On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:51:40PM -0400, [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). > 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. > > 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 c
Re: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
What about the cases where P2P suppliers have _WON_ their court battles? There were at least 2 recently IIRC. On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 01:51:40PM -0400, [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). > 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. > > 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 -- 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
RE: [freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
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). 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. 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
[freenet-chat] Re: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
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
[freenet-chat] RE: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral
Really? I believe I did. Don't get mad at me if you chose to ignore it. 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 I also provided an appeals court decision that affirm the convection of a women that acted with out full knowledge that she was committing a crime. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/032780p.pdf I also addressed the issue that I ran a freenet node for a brief time and stated that if for what ever reason it came up I would simply plead out and do some community service. Though that would be almost imposable because there is no hard evidence I ever ran a node, and NO evidence that it ever transmitted anything illegal. You can fill all the complaints you want; the FBI has more important things to do. Failure to prosecute does not set a precedent in any way. Similarly I would never go to trial on this; I would simply plead the case out which also does not set a precedent. Quote - "The lack of honesty and integrity on the part of both yourself and your employer is no hindrance to this." ? The operation of a node in and of itself is not illegal. Only when it starts transmitting illegal information can a potential problem arise. PS: We should really continue this in chat like toad requested. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 10:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [freenet-support] Showdown at the Freenode Coral Importance: Low Mr Matthew Findley You made certain claims on this list regarding the possible penal consequences of running a freenet node. I challenged you to provide law and/or precedent references to support your claims. You failed to do so. In fact, you silently ignored this challenge. I also challenged you to explain the fact that you yourself run a freenet node, in view of the facts that you (a) consider it illegal to do so and (b) post from a US department of justice address. You chose to silently ignore this challenge too. Based on your own claims regarding the legality of operating a freenet node and your disclaimer regarding the relation of the contents of your postings on this list to your employment, you are, according to yourself, either a liar or a criminal. Your period of grace with me is coming to an end. Unless you provide this list with an adequate - at my discretion - explanation of these discrepancies in your arguments, I will cause a formal complaint against you to be filed with the US department of justice for running a freenet node and thereby knowingly distributing illegal material. What all this boils down to is that, following a formal complaint, the US department of justice will only have two options: to prosecute you or to not prosecute you. If it fails to prosecute you, it will be setting a precedent very useful to freenet. If it does prosecute you, all freenet operators will be able to benefit from your defence in the case, no matter whether you finally get convicted or acquitted. The way I see it, both alternatives are good for freenet. You and your employer are just about to become tools for the promotion of freenet's goals. The lack of honesty and integrity on the part of both yourself and your employer is no hindrance to this. Taking all this into account, I would suggest that you talk with your boss and decide on a strategy. You can create some rather impressive FUD by going to prison, or you can drop the FUD and acknowledge that the operation of freenet nodes is not illegal. It's your call. I will wait 18 hours from the time stamp of this mail and then act. Sincerely, ZP ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
