Until the law is actually PROPOSED this is nothing but fear mongering. The
news is notably dense about technology (and everything else really) and while
I'm sure something is about to be purposed; likely it's directed at companies
like research in motion that actually encrypt their users data f
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> Or try to put a few roadblocks in their
> way:>If we had speedier trials, or some
> committee in Congress that had to validate a new law against the constitution
> before it came up for a vote, this >wouldn't be happening as much.Another
idea I've been kicking
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
> fre
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
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 ta
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
<[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
So by your logic if our drug carrier only
transports drugs in a locked box he's untouchable?
And we are assumeing that the police have cracked
freenet, other wise all of this is moot anyway. Since they couldn't charge
you if they didn't know what you did.
If you wiped out your datastore you
to find out anything about me that I didn't want
you to know.
- Original Message -
From: "Ian Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matthew Findley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: [fr
Example
I didn't kill that man, the aliens took control of my body and made me do
it.
How could the government ever prove that false?
- Original Message -
From: "Ian Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matthew Findley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL P
ew, I'm surprised that it even named Riverview it's a tiny
little town outside of Tampa.
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?t=4&s=11&x=936&y=7698&z=17&w=1
You can make out my house under the trees on the west bank :)
- Original Message -
From: "Ian Cl
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 gove
or will it? That is something I'm not sure of.
But if your being arrested for useing freenet we
have to make the assumption that it has been.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Matthew Findley>
writes:>Well the reason that the common argument> is illegal
porn
[freenet-chat] Re: anonymity(NOT)To: Matthew Findley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>In-Reply-To:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>MIME-Version:
1.0Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-asciiReturn-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]X-OriginalArrivalTime:
07 Aug 2004 05:02:10.0366 (UTC) FILETIME=[B1F38DE0:01C47C3B]
And ev
e ... bricks."
Yep just like freenet which is legel.
Until you shoot someone, run someone down, set
something on fire, throw a brick at someone.
You avoided the question, why do you think you
should be able to get away with helping spread illegal matterials?
pineapple <[EMAIL PR
Well the reason that the common argument is illegal
pornography is because it is one of the few peices of infomation that is totaly
illegel. Everything from how to build a nuke to why you'd like to see Bush
dead is legal. But not KP, it has a very unique status. And the
reason people don'
e.org/gmane.network.freenet.general/246
- Original Message -
From: "TLD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Matthew Findley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: Showdown at the Freenode Coral
> Mat
ent is responable to the people, but
the last time I checked people were generaly aginst aiding and abeting child
pornography distribution. I would suspect they would be quite willing to
convict anyone they saw as helping to spread it.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
