Yes, I lost my temper, and I do apologize.
When I see a post from a DOJ address giddily claiming that one of the only
forums for international dissemination of political information, is abetting
lawbreaking because someone, somewhere, might have posted a nasty picture,
I do tend to blow a fuse. I
On 6 Aug 2004, at 19:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The WWW is very anonymous. If I hadn't used my real name in my email
address there is no way you could tell who I am.
Thw WWW is anonymous if you are worried about being tracked down by a
computer illiterate 10 year old. If you are worried about
Arrrgh, I did it again, sorry. I'll figure out this
mail thingy eventually.
--- Matthew Findley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> If you honestly belive that you could convince a
> jury that the government put
> KP on freenet just to entrap you thats pretty
> sad.
> See in the courts you need a
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 de
--- Matthew Findley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> This doesn't have anything to do with act being more
> probable then the other.
It has everything to do with how likely this supposed
activity is, that was the whole point of your
argument. Freenet is likely to be used to break the
law, therefore r
Not knowing what is on your node is not a
defense. It doesn't matter that you don't know for sure or that you
can't know. Only that you should know. And since you chose to run
freenet why is so outrages to expect that you should know what it's
doing?
Yes the government is responable to
This doesn't have anything to do with act being
more probable then the other.
You aren't responsable for the entire network; only
what your node is doing.
Just because you can't see what your node is doing
doesn't excues anything.
Running freenet is not a civial
libertiy.
Laws are not made
If you honestly belive that you could convince a
jury that the government put KP on freenet just to entrap you
thats pretty sad.See in the courts you need a little thing called
evidence. Good luck finding some that shows the government is out to
discredit freenet.
And how would you
DOH! I did it twice :P
--- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[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.
Oops, silly me, I didn't reply to the list :)
--- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whether or not you truly believe there is no illegal
> material on freenet is a question for the jury.
> Given the fact that there are numerous warnings
> about it, a huge number of frost boards are
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 tryi
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
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
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
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'
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,
kni
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
Actually I do trust the government to leave my messages alone... I'm not doing
anything terribly interesting.
And even if they are conducting massive surveillance, there's not much they can do
about when they catch something juicy because of the 4th amendment to the constitution
protects your pr
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 w
Am Freitag, 6. August 2004 16:36 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Whether or not you truly believe there is no illegal material on
> freenet is a question for the jury. Given the fact that there are
> numerous warnings about it, a huge number of frost boards are dedicate
> to KP, and all the main searc
Whether or not you truly believe there is no illegal material on freenet is a question
for the jury.
Given the fact that there are numerous warnings about it, a huge number of frost
boards are dedicate to KP, and all the main search pages have many listings for warz
and KP; a jury probably would
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.c
You should. It's quiet, and spam-free, and has been for the last year or
so.
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 08:19:32AM +0200, Troed S?ngberg wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 15:51:52 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >What you don't seem to understand, is no one cares that yo
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 15:51:52 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What you don't seem to understand, is no one cares that you don't care.
... oh I think most people outside the US have the same view on this as I
do :) We don't live in fascist states with unlimited power to
The sixth amendment is the right to a public and speedy trial, the right to call
witnesses, and the right to counsel.
The fourth amendment is the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
And I've never suggested we ditch or add anything. Laws preventing you from
transmitting illeg
You know for someone who claims not to care about the US; you certainly spend a lot of
time ranting about us, our internal politics, and our policies on your website.
So your saying I could shoot you and get away with it?
Wow maybe I am living in the wrong country. Who knew in Sweden that you ca
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.
htt
27 matches
Mail list logo
