|
"You know that your node is
transmitting bad stuff ..."
No, you don't. That's just the point, and that's why I
find your whole argumentation rather doubtful. Well, that and
others:
1)You have not given a legal decision or precedent ,
whereby an ISP as a corporation gets protection as a common carrier status when
illegal content is moved through it, but not when an ISP is a private
individual. It would seem to me (and is, in this country), that courts would not
make a distinction between corporations and individuals only based on the fact
that they are corporations and individuals, regardles of the activity. On
themselves, a corporation has no more protection then an indivual, if all other
things are equal.
2)It remains to be seen whether 'knowing' in the sense
that you see it, is followed by the courts as being enough to constitute intent.
It seems rather doubtful they will. You do not 'know' that your node is being
used in an illegal manner, you only know that the possibility is there that it
can be used in that way. But then again, so does the company in your example.
After all, they can assume that their computers can be used in an illegal way
too. Yet, there you claim they can't be held responsible.
You seem to be of the impression people use freenet to
transfer childporn, and all the rest is just a side-effect, while it's just the
opposite. Some time ago, there was a research done about the content of Freenet,
and childporn was considered to make up 4% of the total content..far from being
a 'major' use, now, is it? I wouldn't be surprised if the regular internet had a
higher percentage.
So, you do not 'know' that (or if) your node is
transferring illegal stuff, nor is it reasonable to assume you have the intent
of transferring childporn when you are running a node. You only know their is a
possibility it can be used in that way.
So your whole argumentation becomes a bit
absurd.
Even the supreme court in the USA has made it clear that
you can not forbid something - because it can be used in an illegal manner, if
it has legal uses too. You keep saying that is only true for those that produce
the item, but nowhere is it inferred that the same thing does not count for
people that offer a service.
To be completely sure, one would need a precedent, true,
but it is reasonable to assume that the courts will deem it being the case,
whether it's producing it, or offering a service, providing that you can not
control it (etc.)
3)The way Freenet works, it's quite possible that any
offending material wasn't on your node BEFORE they asked it. This could be a
case of entrapment, and in some countries this is not allowed, and if you
can shed a reasonable doubt that it is entrapment, the case is thrown on its
face.
It would be strange indeed, if somebody got sued for
having illegal material on his HD that they themselves put there. And if you
claim that knowing about the possibility is enough to constitute intent, as you
have done, then they 'knew' that this could happen, and thus, willfully and
intentionally put illegal content on your HD. If this was true, then YOU could
sue THEM.
While I agree we might be over-optimistic in some legal
viewpoints, it seems that you are rather biased to an interpretation of the law
that is rather pessimistic and unrealistic. I doubt many courts will agree with
your definition of 'knowing' and what constitutes intent; I doubt your claim
that the courts would make a distinctive difference between an ISP as a
corporation, or one as an individual, etc.
We will have to wait on the real first precedent...but I
think the legal status of freenet and it's users is rather good. Technical
imperfections, like the lack of an extra layer of encryption on the storage
seems rather a greater problem, IMHO.
|
_______________________________________________ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
