Mailed this from the wrong address - it got caught for moderator
approval. Please don't approve that posting.
Toad wrote:
Anyone who wants in on the new stable network before it is officially
rolled out, please contact me, and get the new seednodes and jar file
from:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/
Hi,
i changed the storesize in freenet.ini while running Freenet. When Freenet
checked the file at the next time, it generated the following error message:
04.08.2004 13:36:02 (freenet.node.NodeConfigUpdater, YThread-59, ERROR):
Option storeSize changed to 1024M but no handler was available.
java
Just wondering... with all this encryption permeating Freenet
there remains a gaping hole through which the nazi's could saunter through
with their spy tools and legal bypasses to incriminate any and all Freenetters
they choose to incriminate... the ip address/port# of all. Even using a third pa
miguel writes:
Just wondering... with all this encryption permeating Freenet
there remains a gaping hole through which the nazi's could saunter through
with their spy tools and legal bypasses to incriminate any and all Freenetters
they choose to incriminate... the ip address/port# of all. Even u
miguel wrote:
Just wondering... with all this encryption permeating Freenet
there remains a gaping hole through which the nazi's could saunter through
with their spy tools and legal bypasses to incriminate any and all Freenetters
they choose to incriminate... the ip address/port# of all. Even us
On 2004-08-04T14:50:52+0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
> Traffic
> analysis might help me figure who made a request and who served
> it, but I still have to break encryption before I can figure
> which file that request concerned.
That is not entirely true. The files are encrypted with keys
based on
As for the uploader
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.
As for the downloader
While true, the mere
Am Mittwoch, 4. August 2004 13:45 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Hi,
> i changed the storesize in freenet.ini while running Freenet. When
> Freenet checked the file at the next time, it generated the following
> error message:
>
>
> 04.08.2004 13:36:02 (freenet.node.NodeConfigUpdater, YThread-59,
> E
On 4 Aug 2004, at 15:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
As for the uploader
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 knowl
"Yes, but that is not fatal to the running node. It just means you have to
stop and restart your node make this change."
So what's the place to report non-fatal bugs and observations?
--
NEU: WLAN-Router für 0,- EUR* - auch für DSL-Wechsler!
GMX DSL = supergünstig & kabellos http://www.gmx.net/d
Kendy Kutzner wrote:
> On 2004-08-04T14:50:52+0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
> > Traffic
> > analysis might help me figure who made a request and who served
> > it, but I still have to break encryption before I can figure
> > which file that request concerned.
>
> That is not entirely true. The files
Am Mittwoch, 4. August 2004 19:13 schrieb Manfred Huber:
> "Yes, but that is not fatal to the running node. It just means you have
> to stop and restart your node make this change."
>
> So what's the place to report non-fatal bugs and observations?
This is not really a bug, it's just not implement
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:14:33PM -0700, Scott Call wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 03:01:02 +0200, Martin Scheffler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 4. August 2004 02:01 schrieb Scott Call:
> > > I get the following when I run start-freenet under mandrake 10 (log
> > > level debug):
> > >
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 05:21:17AM -0700, miguel wrote:
> Just wondering... with all this encryption permeating Freenet
> there remains a gaping hole through which the nazi's could saunter through
> with their spy tools and legal bypasses to incriminate any and all Freenetters
> they choose to inc
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 03:38:35PM +0300, Mika Hirvonen wrote:
> miguel writes:
>
> >Just wondering... with all this encryption permeating Freenet
> >there remains a gaping hole through which the nazi's could saunter through
> >with their spy tools and legal bypasses to incriminate any and all
>
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:50:52PM +0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
> Or something like that. The real and ever-present danger
> against freenet is not in your IP being shown to your peers.
> It is in (a) the integrity of its developers and (b) in the
> security of the software archive. If the latter
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 10:22:41AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As for the uploader
> 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 knowled
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 06:09:52PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On 4 Aug 2004, at 15:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
> >As for the uploader
> >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
They do have a choice, nothing is forcing them to run freenet.
It doesn't matter that they can't see exactly what their node is doing, but only the
fact that they know what their node is probably doing.
If someone gives you a package in Mexico and ask you to carry it across the boarder.
You do s
IANAL but there HAVE been recent US cases where major P2P systems have been
found not to be in violation of the law. Otherwise INDUCE would be
unnecessary.
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:35:00PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> They do have a choice, nothing is forcing them to run freenet.
> It doesn
I wasn't aware of any cases where they hadn't had victory
As for the INDUCE act (from what I've read) it applies to the creation of products
used for illegal activities. It would make it against the law to create a product
that's primary use is also against the law. In other words, it would
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:35:00 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They do have a choice, nothing is forcing them to run freenet.
It doesn't matter that they can't see exactly what their node is doing,
but only the fact that they know what their node is probably doing.
If s
On 4 Aug 2004, at 19:11, Toad wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 10:22:41AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As for the uploader
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
That's because ISPs/Mail are protected by common carrier laws, you are not. They pass
laws that specifically say that if a company is incorporated as a common carrier, then
the items (or data) they transport aren't their responsibility.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 08:01:22PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> While I am no fan of the Induce Act, I should point out that from my
> reading of the Induce Act, Freenet would *probably* be safe as none of
> its features are expressly intended to allow people to infringe
> copyright law (this is m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for the uploader
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.
In my village, int
That's the systems themselves. Freenet itself is perfectly legal, so are guns. But
that doesn't give you the freedom to do what ever you want with them. You can't
upload/download kiddy porn just like you can't go around shooting people.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mail
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 15:02:52 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's because ISPs/Mail are protected by common carrier laws, you are
not. They pass laws that specifically say that if a company is
incorporated as a common carrier, then the items (or data) they
tran
On 4 Aug 2004 at 15:38, Mika Hirvonen wrote:
> Yes, it's trivial for Them to know whether someone runs a Freenet node or
> not, but knowing what the user was doing with that node is an another
> matter (assuming that the node is physically secure, has encrypted drives
> and the user is invulner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> On 4 Aug 2004 at 15:38, Mika Hirvonen wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, it's trivial for Them to know whether someone runs a Freenet node or
>>not, but knowing what the user was doing with that node is an another
>>matter (assuming that the no
Paul Derbyshire writes:
On 4 Aug 2004 at 15:38, Mika Hirvonen wrote:
Yes, it's trivial for Them to know whether someone runs a Freenet node or
not, but knowing what the user was doing with that node is an another
matter (assuming that the node is physically secure, has encrypted drives
and the u
I'm not sure where your 'village' is but here it works much the same way actually.
But the problem is that there is no machine that can just tell us what your intent
was. So what your intent was has to be inferred from your actions and your knowledge.
The fact is that everyone knows there lot
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 16:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not sure where your 'village' is but here it works much
> the same way actually. But the problem is that there is no
> machine that can just tell us what your intent was. So what
> your intent was has to be inferred from your actions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They do have a choice, nothing is forcing them to run freenet.
It doesn't matter that they can't see exactly what their node
is doing, but only the fact that they know what their node is
probably doing. If someone gives you a package in Mexico and
ask you to carry it acr
> It's supposed to infinite loop. Hence "waiting". It's waiting for I/O or
> something. What do you see on normal? On minor?
> >
D'oh sorry, that's my misunderstanding then.
With "minor" I get:
Aug 4, 2004 1:31:49 PM (freenet.node.Main, main, MINOR): Granularity
is between 2ms and 2ms, average is
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 04:31:11PM -0400, Edward J. Huff wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 16:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I'm not sure where your 'village' is but here it works much
> > the same way actually. But the problem is that there is no
> > machine that can just tell us what your inten
Here's an answer from a real lawyer:
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/p2p_copyright_wp.php
"2. Your two options: total control or total anarchy.
In the wake of recent decisions on indirect copyright liability, it
appears that copyright law has foisted a binary choice on P2P
developers: either build a sy
Stable build 5089 is now available. Please upgrade. You will probably
need to reseed. The current seednodes.ref at
http://freenetproject.org/snapshots/ will be sufficient.
To upgrade:
On Windows, use the update option on the start menu, if it is there.
On linux, stop the node, run update.sh, and s
Toad wrote:
Or something like that. The real and ever-present danger
against freenet is not in your IP being shown to your peers.
It is in (a) the integrity of its developers and (b) in the
security of the software archive. If the latter ever gets
compromised, we might all end up running a piece of
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 11:08:19PM +0200, Zenon Panoussis wrote:
>
> Toad wrote:
>
> >>Or something like that. The real and ever-present danger
> >>against freenet is not in your IP being shown to your peers.
> >>It is in (a) the integrity of its developers and (b) in the
> >>security of the soft
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 01:34:53PM -0700, Scott Call wrote:
> > It's supposed to infinite loop. Hence "waiting". It's waiting for I/O or
> > something. What do you see on normal? On minor?
> > >
>
> D'oh sorry, that's my misunderstanding then.
>
> With "minor" I get:
> Aug 4, 2004 1:31:49 PM (fre
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 16:35, Toad wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 04:31:11PM -0400, Edward J. Huff wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 16:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I'm not sure where your 'village' is but here it works much
> > > the same way actually. But the problem is that there is no
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 05:17:45PM -0400, Edward J. Huff wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 16:35, Toad wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 04:31:11PM -0400, Edward J. Huff wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 16:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure where your 'village' is but here it works m
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 05:17:45PM -0400, Edward J. Huff wrote:
> > If we are to "cooperate" in the sense you suggest, we cannot simply
> > block child porn. We would have to block *anything that is illegal
> > in the node op's jurisdiction* !
>
> That is up to each node operator. Failure to bl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's because ISPs/Mail are protected by common carrier laws,
you are not. They pass laws that specifically say that if a
company is incorporated as a common carrier, then the items (or
data) they transport aren't their responsibility.
Do you have a pointer to those la
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure where your 'village' is but here it works much the
same way actually. But the problem is that there is no machine
that can just tell us what your intent was. So what your intent
was has to be inferred from your actions and your knowledge.
"Inferred"? You
Edward J. Huff wrote:
Ok, suppose most users of freenet decide to unite against
kiddie porn by using TFE, YOYO, etc., to learn as many KP keys as
possible, and delete these keys from their datastores and patch freenet
so it won't carry them.Now even so, some KP will be distributed, but
only so
Toad wrote:
You have taken extraordinary measures to protect against [the
ftp server being hacked], haven't you?
Umm, measures such as..? I don't see how you can defend against the
above, really.
Well, first of all the elementary stuff. No other services on the
same machine. You don't want your f
Edward J. Huff wrote:
That is up to each node operator. Failure to block some content -- like
mp3's -- is a lot less serious than failure to block other content --
like kp. The node operator might decide to take the risk in the name of
civil disobedience for some content but not other.
Associatin
On 4 Aug 2004, at 19:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They do have a choice, nothing is forcing them to run freenet.
Shaky logic. Nothing is forcing postmen to work for the USPS, yet if
it were to be found that a postman had unknowingly transported drugs it
is unlikely that they could successfully b
On 4 Aug 2004, at 20:03, Toad wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 08:01:22PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
While I am no fan of the Induce Act, I should point out that from my
reading of the Induce Act, Freenet would *probably* be safe as none of
its features are expressly intended to allow people to infring
On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:00, Ian Clarke wrote:
On 4 Aug 2004, at 19:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They do have a choice, nothing is forcing them to run freenet.
Shaky logic. Nothing is forcing postmen to work for the USPS, yet if
it were to be found that a postman had unknowingly transported drugs
it
Ian Clarke wrote:
s/does/does not
$ Error: open second argument to s
Z
--
Framtiden är som en babianröv, färggrann och full av skit.
Arne Anka
___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.netw
The fundamental issues revolve around changes to source code. They're
not easy to deal with. Specifically, no matter how deeply you secure the
server, you can't certify every single build as free from unexpected
code. Hence the need to ensure that for example mails get sent out EVERY
time a CVS com
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:02:33AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> On 4 Aug 2004, at 20:03, Toad wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 08:01:22PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >>While I am no fan of the Induce Act, I should point out that from my
> >>reading of the Induce Act, Freenet would *probably* be
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:00:22AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On 4 Aug 2004, at 19:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >They do have a choice, nothing is forcing them to run freenet.
>
> Shaky logic. Nothing is forcing postmen to work for the USPS, yet if
> it were to be found that a postman had unkn
On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:38, Toad wrote:
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:02:33AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
On 4 Aug 2004, at 20:03, Toad wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 08:01:22PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
While I am no fan of the Induce Act, I should point out that from my
reading of the Induce Act, Freenet w
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:42:49AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:38, Toad wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:02:33AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >>On 4 Aug 2004, at 20:03, Toad wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 08:01:22PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> While I a
On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:39, Toad wrote:
The problem is that ignorance is indeed a goal in itself on Freenet.
It's part of its very basic design features.
Same is true of the postal system (otherwise they would mandate that
everything is written on postcards).
Ian.
___
Toad wrote:
IANAL (BIKAF), but I would expect that for ignorance to be willful it
can't be a side-effect of a goal, it must be a goal in itself. There
are plenty of reasons why someone might want to use Freenet other than
obtaining illegal content.
The problem is that ignorance is indeed a goa
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:44:37AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:39, Toad wrote:
> >The problem is that ignorance is indeed a goal in itself on Freenet.
> >It's part of its very basic design features.
>
> Same is true of the postal system (otherwise they would mandate that
>
This thread is on the wrong list. At least this part of this thread.
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:44:37AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:39, Toad wrote:
> >The problem is that ignorance is indeed a goal in itself on Freenet.
> >It's part of its very basic design features.
>
> Sa
On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:43, Toad wrote:
Which feature of Freenet is *intended* to toward the efforts of
copyright holders to enforce copyright law?
All of Freenet is intended to thwart those who want to eliminate
content
on Freenet, and eliminate the contributors and requestors of that
content.
Not t
On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:48, Toad wrote:
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 01:44:37AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
On 5 Aug 2004, at 01:39, Toad wrote:
The problem is that ignorance is indeed a goal in itself on Freenet.
It's part of its very basic design features.
Same is true of the postal system (otherwise they w
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 02:02:18AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >In any case, I don't see any reason to think that Freenet is illegal
> >under current US or UK law. Whereas I see every reason to expect it to
> >be criminalized under INDUCE - which is designed to make it easy to
> >criminalize things
Toad wrote:
The fundamental issues revolve around changes to source code.
Only in theory. In practice, the source code only affects your reputation.
The binary code affects the users. If you only protect the source code
(which is also what might get reviewed at some point or other), you will
only
Toad remarked:
"Freenet is DESIGNED to actively thwart attempts to find the authors.
This is a fundamental design goal. It is a motive. Whereas the postal
system simply doesn't care one way or the other. In fact, right now,
Freenet is so slow that only perverts and geeks use it. Or so it would
be
vinyl1 said:
> Toad remarked:
>
> "Freenet is DESIGNED to actively thwart attempts to find the authors.
> This is a fundamental design goal. It is a motive. Whereas the postal
> system simply doesn't care one way or the other. In fact, right now,
> Freenet is so slow that only perverts and geeks u
Let me see if I can get caught up on whats gone on
since I left work.First I should probably clear this up. I am not a
lawyer. I work at the U.S. Attoreny's Office yes; but, only as a
clerk.So nothing I say is legal advice, the postion of the DOJ, to be
considered an offical interpretation
What country does respect freedoms? The US is getting to the point
where emgrating becomes a serious consideration for me. I'm still
young, I don't have a stable job or faimly. I'd rather live somewhere
that I can be sure my future kids and myself will be free than live a
richer live in the US. Is
Well, a very striped down version of OpenBSD running off a cd and
freenet's cache being on an encripted disk with a one-time key (ie a
new key is randomly generated at boot) would make setting up a freenet
machine simple, safe, and dificult to update. :-p , 9 years with
one remote hole
~Pau
71 matches
Mail list logo
