Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but typical firing squad procedure involves all the guns except one to have live bullets.Wouldn't want one person's sloppy aim to ruin the whole execution.
OK, well maybe that wasn't the perfect analogy, especially since a firing squad is generally a legal killing. But, in this analogy we only have one bullet, 9 empty guns, and the state has not sponsored the killing. At least in this case, the law is clear. All 10 shooters are guilty of murder.
They have been unwittingly (and randomly because of the way the network works) been made accomplices in the crime.
Anyone who has read the fact knows full well that this is likely to happen. So I wouldn't call it "unwittingly." That's like saying that a firing squad isn't responsible for killing someone because only one of the guns is randomly selected to hold the bullet.
The only thing you will have cached on your computer is encrypted data. You or anyone else will never know what it is unless you know _EXCACTLY_ what's there.
So what's the point of having it there, if no one can access it? Surely someone must have the key?
I don't really have all that much on my home computer that I couldn't afford to lose. I use IMAP for email, so that's stored in two places already. I use CVS for software I right, so that's backed up too. The very few commercial programs I've bought I have CDs for. Same thing with the mp3s I have (plus I do back those up to a separate hard drive every once in a while using handy dandy cp -R). Any passwords or receipts I've saved would be lost, but I could get the passwords back by filling out lost password requests, and hopefully the receipts wouldn't be necessary. I see no reason to back up my entire drive, because 99% of it is already backed up in one way or another.
Not true. For any particular freenet request you cannot be sure if the node contacting you is requesting the file, or is just passing along a request from a previous node.
It doesn't matter. The person passing along a request is still guilty.
The reverse is also true. For any particular file you're requesting, you can't tell if the file you're getting is from the node you're contacting or if it's passing on your request to another node.
Even if it does matter, I'm not very certain that this is implimented correctly. I mean, what if you isolate all nodes except the one you want to search. Then wouldn't you be certain that any file you receive is received from that computer?
It's a double blind. You MAY be getting the files from that node, then again by the very nature of freenet, and the large amount of information in it it is extremely unlikely that the information you recieved was actually on the node you requested it from.
With 100% certainty you ARE getting files from that node. They might be forwarded from another node, but as we saw in the napster case, that doesn't really matter.
Further, if the goverment finds something unsavory, and manages to somehow prove (don't ask me how) it was on your computer the caching nature of Freenet allows you to say "There's a damn good chance that file wasn't on my computer until the government requested it". At that point you have the dual defenses of reasonable doubt and entrapment.
The entrapment defense is a good one. Maybe that one would hold up.
The biggest boon of Freenet, not to mention other efforts an anonymous P2P, is for people in countries with oppressive regimes.
What is the boon? I think the only way you can say that people in countries with oppressive regimes are helped is by saying that all countries have oppressive regimes. Otherwise it's a simple matter of creating an anonymous hosting account in a non-oppressive country.
Files are transmitted node-to-node in reverse of the search path. Everything you get comes from the upstream node you asked for it from, not directly from the hosting system.
I'm talking about the IP address of the upstream node you asked for it from. They are just as guilty of possession and transfer of child pornography as the hosting system.
Seriously, freenet is designed so that you can no more claim that the node that replies is responsible for the data that it replies with than the routers that the IP requests flow through are.
Except that routers are owned and run by rich and powerful corporations, which the government is less likely to sue.
Under English common law (the foundation of the legal system of the UK, the Commonwealth, and the USA), a conviction for almost any crime requires proof of "mens rea", or intent.
Q: I don't want my node to be used to harbor child porn, offensive content or terrorism. What can I do?
A: The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find disgusting. If this is not acceptable to you, you should not run a Freenet node.
Sounds like intent to me.
That's why legal codes follow the formula "a person who knowingly $DOESTHIS commits $CRIME".
Very few crimes have that requirement. All crimes require mens rea, but not all crimes require that they be committed "knowingly" (which is generally interpreted as knowledge that what you're doing is a crime - it's how Elcomsoft got off.
From what I understand about Freenet, the anonymous nature of it makes it incredibly unlikely they could actually track individual files and find out who is hosting what.
They can't find out who initially contributed what, but it's quite easy to find out who is hosting what. Just look at the IP address of whoever is connecting to you.
IANAL, but a good lawyer could probably successfully argue you have no way of knowing what's being stored on your computer as it is part of an anonymous network.
True, but that only works as long as you aren't involved with any other simultaneous coincidences. What if someone happens to use your email address on a child porn site which turns out to be a sting? Now they get a supoena to look into your computer, and find cached copies of child porn. Even if you do eventually win in court (get the wrong jury and maybe you won't), you'll still be arrested and spend at least a few hours in jail.
But I guess you can only afford a good lawyer if you've got lots of money. I'm pretty sure Pete Townsend won't do any jail time for his having viewed and/or possessed child pornography.
Not all of us have as much access to bail money as Pete Townsend, though. Those few hours could turn into a few months.
I don't turn on the blocking capabilities because they interfere with my ability to use webpages which I frequently need to access.
So javascript is of use to you.
NO. JAVASCRIPT IS NOT OF USE TO ME. I AM FORCED TO USE IT IN ORDER TO DO THINGS LIKE CHECK MY SCHOOL E-MAIL.
How many sites are there that you use that automaticly pop-up unrequest windows that are helpful, and that don't have any other way to open them up?
Two. My bank and my school.
Now take into account that you are not the only person on the web, and realisticly, how many other people do you think will have the same problems as you?
I don't care how many other people have the same problems. I wasn't talking about other people, I was talking about me.
Nothing is perfect. You can't have everything you're own way. If javascript was never invented, the what about all the features that would never exist that people find useful today?
Like what? I don't find anything particularly useful, and almost all of it could be solved in a roughly equivalent way without javascript.
It could be said that the internet should never have been invented because of all the security risks that happen when you connect a whole lot of computers together.
Yep, it could. I wouldn't agree with that though.
BTW, There are browsers out there that can selectivly block pop-up from different sites.
Unless it's IE or mozilla, I can't use it anyway.
And if you browser doesn't, or doesn't do it well, them maybe that's a problem with the browser and not javascript, and perhaps you should be complaining to browser makers instead?
If you're going to place blame, it should be on the websites that don't allow you to access their webpages without javascript, and especially those who force you to allow unsolicited popups. But I'm not trying to put blame anywhere. I'm just defending my statement that my life would be better if javascript were never invented.
Anyway. pretty soon, once all major browsers have pop-up blocking capabilities, people will stop using pop-ups.
Now read my response.
Only if those blocking capabilities are turned on by default, which they won't be.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with me. I don't turn on the blocking capabilities because they interfere with my ability to use webpages which I frequently need to access.
Abused more? Thats totaly subjective really, depends on where you go, and what things/features of a particular site you find important.
Yep, and based on where I go, and what things/features of sites I find important, I'd prefer if javascript were never invented.
The only common abuse of Javascript I used to encounter was pop-up windows. Most browsers can block them. So I don't see your point.
Blocking pop-up windows blocks legitimate uses of pop-up windows as well as illigitimate uses. If we didn't have javascript, then legitimate sites would find a javascript-free way to provide the same information. My life would be better. That's my point.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone sends child porn (in a sealed envelope) through the US Mail, is the US Mail guilty of child porn trafficking?
No.
Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but typical firing squad procedure involves all the guns except one to have live bullets.Wouldn't want one person's sloppy aim to ruin the whole execution.
OK, well maybe that wasn't the perfect analogy, especially since a firing squad is generally a legal killing. But, in this analogy we only have one bullet, 9 empty guns, and the state has not sponsored the killing. At least in this case, the law is clear. All 10 shooters are guilty of murder.They have been unwittingly (and randomly because of the way the network works) been made accomplices in the crime.
Anyone who has read the fact knows full well that this is likely to happen. So I wouldn't call it "unwittingly." That's like saying that a firing squad isn't responsible for killing someone because only one of the guns is randomly selected to hold the bullet.
Would an ISP be responsible if one of their customers used their gateway to transfer encrypted data, wich later proved to be child porn?
Maybe.
Well, no; the 1790 Copyright Act is proof of that.
1790 was before the First Amendment was ratified.
It _could_ have, coming later in time, overridden the clause.
OK, granted that could have happened if space and time had existed differently, but you aren't arguing that it did, are you?
The only thing you will have cached on your computer is encrypted data. You or anyone else will never know what it is unless you know _EXCACTLY_ what's there.
So what's the point of having it there, if no one can access it? Surely someone must have the key?
I don't really have all that much on my home computer that I couldn't afford to lose. I use IMAP for email, so that's stored in two places already. I use CVS for software I right, so that's backed up too. The very few commercial programs I've bought I have CDs for. Same thing with the mp3s I have (plus I do back those up to a separate hard drive every once in a while using handy dandy cp -R). Any passwords or receipts I've saved would be lost, but I could get the passwords back by filling out lost password requests, and hopefully the receipts wouldn't be necessary. I see no reason to back up my entire drive, because 99% of it is already backed up in one way or another.
Not true. For any particular freenet request you cannot be sure if the node contacting you is requesting the file, or is just passing along a request from a previous node.
It doesn't matter. The person passing along a request is still guilty.
The reverse is also true. For any particular file you're requesting, you can't tell if the file you're getting is from the node you're contacting or if it's passing on your request to another node.
Even if it does matter, I'm not very certain that this is implimented correctly. I mean, what if you isolate all nodes except the one you want to search. Then wouldn't you be certain that any file you receive is received from that computer?
It's a double blind. You MAY be getting the files from that node, then again by the very nature of freenet, and the large amount of information in it it is extremely unlikely that the information you recieved was actually on the node you requested it from.
With 100% certainty you ARE getting files from that node. They might be forwarded from another node, but as we saw in the napster case, that doesn't really matter.
Further, if the goverment finds something unsavory, and manages to somehow prove (don't ask me how) it was on your computer the caching nature of Freenet allows you to say "There's a damn good chance that file wasn't on my computer until the government requested it". At that point you have the dual defenses of reasonable doubt and entrapment.
The entrapment defense is a good one. Maybe that one would hold up.
Very few crimes have that requirement [i.e. "knowingly" language]
Then what is this in the Indiana Code [in.gov]?
Another example of "knowingly or intentionally" in Indiana law: the law banning Pokemon [in.gov].
Because those are some of the very few crimes which has that requirement.
Rather then argue about what constitutes "very few" I'll change my statement. Not every crime has the "knowingly" language.
Its debateable but sharing music, porn, or warez is a form of speech because you are sharing 1s and 0s.
Clearly copyright law was not meant to be banned by the First Amendment. The Copyright Clause is proof of that.
Freenet gives us true freedom of speech.
And that's why freenet will be deemed illegal.
The biggest boon of Freenet, not to mention other efforts an anonymous P2P, is for people in countries with oppressive regimes.
What is the boon? I think the only way you can say that people in countries with oppressive regimes are helped is by saying that all countries have oppressive regimes. Otherwise it's a simple matter of creating an anonymous hosting account in a non-oppressive country.
Files are transmitted node-to-node in reverse of the search path. Everything you get comes from the upstream node you asked for it from, not directly from the hosting system.
I'm talking about the IP address of the upstream node you asked for it from. They are just as guilty of possession and transfer of child pornography as the hosting system.
Seriously, freenet is designed so that you can no more claim that the node that replies is responsible for the data that it replies with than the routers that the IP requests flow through are.
Except that routers are owned and run by rich and powerful corporations, which the government is less likely to sue.
Under English common law (the foundation of the legal system of the UK, the Commonwealth, and the USA), a conviction for almost any crime requires proof of "mens rea", or intent.
Sounds like intent to me.
That's why legal codes follow the formula "a person who knowingly $DOESTHIS commits $CRIME".
Very few crimes have that requirement. All crimes require mens rea, but not all crimes require that they be committed "knowingly" (which is generally interpreted as knowledge that what you're doing is a crime - it's how Elcomsoft got off.
If nobody knows who hosts what, then how are "they" going to find/prosecute anyone???
It's really simple
From what I understand about Freenet, the anonymous nature of it makes it incredibly unlikely they could actually track individual files and find out who is hosting what.
They can't find out who initially contributed what, but it's quite easy to find out who is hosting what. Just look at the IP address of whoever is connecting to you.
IANAL, but a good lawyer could probably successfully argue you have no way of knowing what's being stored on your computer as it is part of an anonymous network.
True, but that only works as long as you aren't involved with any other simultaneous coincidences. What if someone happens to use your email address on a child porn site which turns out to be a sting? Now they get a supoena to look into your computer, and find cached copies of child porn. Even if you do eventually win in court (get the wrong jury and maybe you won't), you'll still be arrested and spend at least a few hours in jail.
But I guess you can only afford a good lawyer if you've got lots of money. I'm pretty sure Pete Townsend won't do any jail time for his having viewed and/or possessed child pornography.
Not all of us have as much access to bail money as Pete Townsend, though. Those few hours could turn into a few months.
for Ad-free slashdot?
Are there any moral (or even legal!) consequences to running a node that this information is served off of?
There are certainly legal consequences. As for moral consequences, that all depends if you find the spread of information to ever be immoral.
For every nine that I turn in my school gets $2.25
a1@yourdomain.com
a2@yourdomain.com
a3@yourdomain.com
...
Profit!
I don't turn on the blocking capabilities because they interfere with my ability to use webpages which I frequently need to access.
So javascript is of use to you.
NO. JAVASCRIPT IS NOT OF USE TO ME. I AM FORCED TO USE IT IN ORDER TO DO THINGS LIKE CHECK MY SCHOOL E-MAIL.
How many sites are there that you use that automaticly pop-up unrequest windows that are helpful, and that don't have any other way to open them up?
Two. My bank and my school.
Now take into account that you are not the only person on the web, and realisticly, how many other people do you think will have the same problems as you?
I don't care how many other people have the same problems. I wasn't talking about other people, I was talking about me.
Nothing is perfect. You can't have everything you're own way. If javascript was never invented, the what about all the features that would never exist that people find useful today?
Like what? I don't find anything particularly useful, and almost all of it could be solved in a roughly equivalent way without javascript.
It could be said that the internet should never have been invented because of all the security risks that happen when you connect a whole lot of computers together.
Yep, it could. I wouldn't agree with that though.
BTW, There are browsers out there that can selectivly block pop-up from different sites.
Unless it's IE or mozilla, I can't use it anyway.
And if you browser doesn't, or doesn't do it well, them maybe that's a problem with the browser and not javascript, and perhaps you should be complaining to browser makers instead?
If you're going to place blame, it should be on the websites that don't allow you to access their webpages without javascript, and especially those who force you to allow unsolicited popups. But I'm not trying to put blame anywhere. I'm just defending my statement that my life would be better if javascript were never invented.
Your post makes no sense. Read what was said.
Anyway. pretty soon, once all major browsers have pop-up blocking capabilities, people will stop using pop-ups.
Now read my response.
Only if those blocking capabilities are turned on by default, which they won't be.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with me. I don't turn on the blocking capabilities because they interfere with my ability to use webpages which I frequently need to access.
I've never encountered this problem once.
So?
Anyway. pretty soon, once all major browsers have pop-up blocking capabilities, people will stop using pop-ups.
Only if those blocking capabilities are turned on by default, which they won't be.
Abused more? Thats totaly subjective really, depends on where you go, and what things/features of a particular site you find important.
Yep, and based on where I go, and what things/features of sites I find important, I'd prefer if javascript were never invented.
The only common abuse of Javascript I used to encounter was pop-up windows. Most browsers can block them. So I don't see your point.
Blocking pop-up windows blocks legitimate uses of pop-up windows as well as illigitimate uses. If we didn't have javascript, then legitimate sites would find a javascript-free way to provide the same information. My life would be better. That's my point.
There is no such thing as "makes money selling service to spammers" unless you are talking about selling bandwidth.
Duh, that's what I'm talking about.
Also Spam is growing at such a rate that it may require more cost to not fight spam then to fight it.
Makes sense to me.
No, but a tool which is abused more than it is used should never have been invented. Didn't you read what I wrote?