Durran,
There are lots of good and legal reasons to use Freenet. Most
people assume that tools like Freenet and Tor are for criminals -
and yes, I have a feeling that there are some criminals who use
anonymizing tools - but one good example might be computer virus
Dear Durran,
There should not be anything which can be clearly traced to your usage,
as long as you use at least "low security" (not None!). Forensic
analysis might still reveal stuff, however, for example from browsers
leaking memory into swap or disobeying caching policies even in
incognito
Spam detection software, running on the system "freenetproject.org",
has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Quoting Troed Sångberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On the other hand, I don't live in the Fascist states of America. (See
link for explanation)
http://troed.se/index.php?subaction=showcommentsid=1091214452
http://troed.se - controversial views or common sense?
You do operate a flog, don't you? Even
On 2004-08-04T19:27:56+0200, Martin Scheffler wrote:
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
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
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
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 the
Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 8:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)
Importance: Low
miguel wrote:
Just wondering... with all this encryption permeating Freenet
there remains a gaping hole through which the nazi's could saunter
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
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 are
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
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 knowledge
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 cases a
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 1:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)
Importance: Low
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
, August 04, 2004 1:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)
Importance: Low
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
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 2:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)
Importance: Low
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
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
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
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 2:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)
Importance: Low
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:35:00 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They do have a choice, nothing
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
[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,
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 2:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)
Importance: Low
IANAL but there HAVE been recent US cases where major P2P systems have been
found not to be in violation of the law
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
: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 3:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [freenet-support] anonymity(NOT)
Importance: Low
[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
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 and
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 intent was.
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
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
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 software archive.
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 much
[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
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
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.
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
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
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
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]
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 safe as
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
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
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 am no fan of the Induce
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
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.
Same is
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
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
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 like
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 use it.
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
55 matches
Mail list logo
