[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
ECTED]
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 fre
[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
[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
s 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]
> Subje
ailto:[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
th 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] S
624opn.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: [free
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
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 hor
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 origi
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 re
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
>
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,
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
>
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
day, 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 hav
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.
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
rcise 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 PROT
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 pros
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.
Bu
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
nd 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
Impor
--- 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
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 no
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 o
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
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]>, Ma
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
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 - again
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 l
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
[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 gav
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 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
prise 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
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
o: 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 s
er.
> > 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 P
L 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 recentl
:[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:
> >
CTED]
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 fac
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
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
45 matches
Mail list logo
