[DavidXanatos]

Link64, on 21 February 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

Since I assume you know german: here is stated just the opposite, "Mitstörerhaftung" not possible due to how the OFFS works, specially interesting part 6 and 7 of the PDF.

Interesting, though It does not seem to me definitive.
Look what they are saying about hyperlinks (legal), linksites (hyperlink and ec2k) have been shut down however since years.

The problem is that judges are not entirely dump and the law is made so that the judge usually have the leverage of interpretation.

Most important is however that it is a civil law suit and there as already said the plaintive does not have to prove anything beyond any doubt, its enough thats his story sounds to the judge more plausible as the defendants.
This is most likely also a violation on human rights but one that is build in very deep in the western legal system in order to make sure that the company with the most expensive lawer usually wins.

David X.

[Link64]

DavidXanatos, on 21 February 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

Look what they are saying about hyperlinks (legal), linksites (hyperlink and ec2k) have been shut down however since years.

They were shut down on the order from the industry, not because they were not legal according to the law. BTW, TPB is still there, so only those that didn't fight were shut down.

DavidXanatos, on 21 February 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

The problem is that judges are not entirely dump and the law is made so that the judge usually have the leverage of interpretation.

Most important is however that it is a civil law suit and there as already said the plaintive does not have to prove anything beyond any doubt, its enough thats his story sounds to the judge more plausible as the defendants.
This is most likely also a violation on human rights but one that is build in very deep in the western legal system in order to make sure that the company with the most expensive lawer usually wins.

Yeah, but shall problems with our corrupt law system stop us from improving the system as far as possible/feasible? Right now we are making it very easy for them, since we show exactly what we have in share, I don't think we shall make it that easy for them. They only send out all these letters to everyone, because it basically costs them nothing, the more complicated system we have, the more time/money it costs before they can actually send the letter out.

This post has been edited by Link64: 21 February 2012 - 05:39 PM

[DavidXanatos]

Link64, on 21 February 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

DavidXanatos, on 21 February 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

Look what they are saying about hyperlinks (legal), linksites (hyperlink and ec2k) have been shut down however since years.

They were shut down on the order from the industry, not because they were not legal according to the law.

emm... the industry had backing from the law system, see the TPB case in the end they ware convicted no mather that it was legal, still they got convicted.
And the average suer is not interested in if what he is doing is legal or not, he is interested in if he is going to be convicted.


David X.

[Link64]

DavidXanatos, on 21 February 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

And the average suer is not interested in if what he is doing is legal or not, he is interested in if he is going to be convicted.

And what is better from this point of view? Sharing clearly identifiable files like we do now or sharing random data blocks?

[DavidXanatos]

Link64, on 21 February 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

DavidXanatos, on 21 February 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

And the average suer is not interested in if what he is doing is legal or not, he is interested in if he is going to be convicted.

And what is better from this point of view? Sharing clearly identifiable files like we do now or sharing random data blocks?

Well, if eiderway oyu have to pay the same amount it does not really mater, right?

If you are implementing some kind of anonymous Fielsharing you must make it in a way that it actually works under the praxis of applied law.

David X.

[Link64]

DavidXanatos, on 21 February 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

Well, if eiderway oyu have to pay the same amount it does not really mater, right?

We don't know that, until now there was not even one court decision about OFFS or similar system, at least I never heard about it. But we know for sure that the current system does not work. Furthermore, since there's no certain proof that you actually shared the file, you might get away with less to pay.

DavidXanatos, on 21 February 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

If you are implementing some kind of anonymous Fielsharing you must make it in a way that it actually works under the praxis of applied law.

According to your previous post it's impossible as long as someone can eventually get the illegal file thru you:

DavidXanatos, on 21 February 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Also in some countries like Germany having the 10 file blocks + 10 randomizer blocks in your share even if you always only downloaded linux isos would be illegal, it is called "Schtörerhaftung" it means that if you allow someone to abuse your Internet connection to commit a crime you are responsible for his actions due to your own grouse negligence.

Yes thats a big problem for freenet nodes and tor exit nodes, etc... and probably a violation on human rights.

The point is in such countries the judge don't asks if you did it on purpose or even knew about it, he asks just is it so, can someone reconstruct a copyrighted file entirely or to a big part from blocks you are caching it is irrelevant why the blocks are in your cache, just that they are there and that they enable someone who knows how to reconstruct the file.

So which approach might work? If not OFFS (and similar systems), not any of the dynamic routing approaches, since you facilitate recieving of illegal files thru your internet connection ("Mitstörerhaftung"), what then?

EDIT: why isn't this post shown as a last post of the thread in the feature request thread list?

This post has been edited by Link64: 21 February 2012 - 09:53 PM

[fox88]

Link64, on 21 February 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

We don't know that, until now there was not even one court decision about OFFS or similar system, at least I never heard about it.

Is it even remotedly close to torrent popularity? Is there any certainty it should be very popular? If not, it means there are more urgent things to care about while the resources for enforcing copyright law are limited.

Link64, on 21 February 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

So which approach might work?

You can safely accept that there is no total anonymity in the net; and that the law could be changed. You can make it harder to get you, but that's all.

[DavidXanatos]

Link64, on 21 February 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

According to your previous post it's impossible as long as someone can eventually get the illegal file thru you:

DavidXanatos, on 21 February 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Also in some countries like Germany having the 10 file blocks + 10 randomizer blocks in your share even if you always only downloaded linux isos would be illegal, it is called "Schtörerhaftung" it means that if you allow someone to abuse your Internet connection to commit a crime you are responsible for his actions due to your own grouse negligence.

So which approach might work?

The approach not to let downloading or uploading users act as block caches for their own content, so that no one who can be found can be linked to any substantial portion of the file.

Thats a quite simple yet effective approach but it has the previously mentioned high additional internal overhead.

David X.

[Stulle]

Without having read all of that "Rechtsgutachten" (tl;dr) just the frank reminder that any kind of expert report does not necessarily correspond to what judges will make of the current situation. Additionally, any kind of expert report or scientific paper that uses "Wikipedia" as a source and uses a vast majority of online sources is probably not up to real scientific standards, anyway. Well, probably the "scientific" standards of the medical profession but then I'd be the laughing stock of my faculty if I tried to sell 50 pages as a dissertation.

[Link64]

fox88, on 22 February 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

Link64, on 21 February 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

We don't know that, until now there was not even one court decision about OFFS or similar system, at least I never heard about it.

Is it even remotedly close to torrent popularity? Is there any certainty it should be very popular? If not, it means there are more urgent things to care about while the resources for enforcing copyright law are limited.

No, it's not, hence the request to add it or similar functionality to eMule and slowly move all files and users to the new network. No other anonnymous P2P network can offer that and as soon as eMule would have it I'm pretty sure that quite a few users from those networks and also some torrent users will switch to eMule. The users will go there, where they feel them most safe, where the probability to get caught is the smallest. It's not completely safe to download from one click hosters as well, still, if someone can get a file over classical P2P or OCH, he'll currently probably go with OCH and that not just because of the speed.

And BTW, IMHO security should be pretty much on top of the todo list.

fox88, on 22 February 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

You can safely accept that there is no total anonymity in the net; and that the law could be changed. You can make it harder to get you, but that's all.

I know there's no total anonymity, but you can get pretty close to that, VPNs prove that. And making it (a lot) harder is good enough to start with, as soon as it costs more for them to find a user than they can get out of him after that, all the lawyers currently doing nothing else than sending out letters to P2P users will have to find a new hobby. And speculations about future changes in law are pretty much pointless, at least as long as we don't get around the current ones.

Stulle, on 22 February 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

Without having read all of that "Rechtsgutachten" (tl;dr) just the frank reminder that any kind of expert report does not necessarily correspond to what judges will make of the current situation.

Sure, but is that a reason not even to try?

This post has been edited by Link64: 22 February 2012 - 12:55 PM

[DavidXanatos]

Link64, on 22 February 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

Sure, but is that a reason not even to try?

No there is not,
we should definitely try, but we should do it the best way we can, meaning that we would do it freenet style.

David X.

[Stulle]

I was only pointing out that the report you, Link, cited has to be read with some skepticism for some reasons. Apart from that I stay with what I said in another thread, if you have nothing to hide there is no reason for you to obfuscate your every step on the internet.

[DavidXanatos]

Stulle, on 22 February 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

Apart from that I stay with what I said in another thread, if you have nothing to hide there is no reason for you to obfuscate your every step on the internet.

If you have nothing to hide, the state does not have any busyness spying behind you and forcing your ISP to logging your IP.

The "I have nothing to hide" statement is the best argument against mas surveillance.

Surveillance is only justified if you have something illegal to hide and this must be proven first.

PS: don't you have legal stuff you want to hide?

David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 22 February 2012 - 01:04 PM

[Stulle]

I am confident that the bit of tracking the government intends to do or is already doing is only a minor nuisance compared to the massive profiling done by other for-profit organizations such as Facebook, Amazon, Apple (actually they for one got nothing from me since I don't use that fruity garbage) and others. I don't mind people seeing me walking into a bank for as long as they don't know what the details of my transaction are. This does still apply in the current legislation in Germany when it comes to my internet usage.

You should probably reconsider your black-and-white-POV altogether because it makes any kind of discussion with you pretty much pointless. And even knowing that I still get into it again... I must be pretty dumb, eh?

[DavidXanatos]

Stulle, on 22 February 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

I am confident that the bit of tracking the government intends to do or is already doing is only a minor nuisance compared to the massive profiling done by other for-profit organizations such as Facebook, Amazon, Apple

The main difference is that you are always at liberty to don't let Facebook, Amazon, Appleget hold of your data, simply don't use the.
You however don't have the liberty in regard to your country its not like you could stop using your country.

Quote

black-and-white-POV

The state does not have the right to profile people that don't have anything illegal to hide, ain't that simple.

David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 22 February 2012 - 01:20 PM

[Stulle]

I told you before, it does not matter who got your data because eventually somebody will. Differentiating their reasoning behind amassing the data is really just splitting hairs. Either I am comfortable with leaving a data trail where ever I go or I am not. If it is the latter my only option is to refrain from using the technology that creates the trail or obfuscate my every step, which I would only need to do if I was uncomfortable with the idea some of my actions might have consequences for me.

Also, I am not entirely free to choose who gets what. Unfortunately, companies like Google or Facebook have integrated themselves into the internet in a way it gets harder not to stumble on any URL linking to their services by the minute the internet works. Which again leaves me with the options to refrain from using the internet or to obfuscate my every step or to simply accept that my data is being accumulated by various parties for sometimes dodgy reasons. The least of my worries is a government agency in this regard because they will not exploit the data to influence me in any way unless I have given them significant cause (i.e. broke the law).

You are making this all about profiling from the state that is all bad and evil but you neglect to acknowledge that there are some very valid reasons why there is a certain need to be able to track what people are doing on the internet. That is making it all black and white. You fail to acknowledge that the methods we are talking about here are already in place in different forms all over the place and you further fail to acknowledge that you cannot always fight crime by persecuting it. Sometimes you have to give people the notion that breaking the law might not be in their best interest because the cops are around. And sometimes the state has to put up a tough front to make the people feel safe, to give them the mindset that if somebody else was to harm them or their dear, there are measures in place that will help the police catch the badies.

To give you a wee example of what I mean in real life, I was at the Frankfurt Book Fair in 2010. They actually had policemen patrolling in full gear on the fair. They had their gun, their telescopic baton, their pepper spray and bullet proof wests. On a book fair. In a place where thousands of people were to read books, do business or generally enjoy themselves. There wasn't even enough space in the halls to shoot anybody without endangering countless others, let alone pepper spray somebody! This was all just a front to make sure people feel protected. It is just the same with railway station police carrying MP5 submachine guns which they could never fire in such crowded places. Put up a front to scare away the badies.

This post has been edited by Stulle: 22 February 2012 - 01:42 PM

[DavidXanatos]

Stulle, on 22 February 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

Also, I am not entirely free to choose who gets what. Unfortunately, companies like Google or Facebook have integrated themselves into the internet in a way it gets harder not to stumble on any URL linking to their services by the minute the internet works. Which again leaves me with the options to refrain from using the internet or to obfuscate my every step or to simply accept that my data is being accumulated by various parties for sometimes dodgy reasons.

Any of this companies can not trace you really that wall, you just ned to change your IP and clear your cookies and you are a new born person on the Internet.

You cant do this that easily with state surveillance that ties any seen on lien identity to your real world one.


The level of surveillance you have in the Internet is much higher than what you find in the real world.
Even raping someone in the real world and leaving your DNA will be safe for yo if your DNA is not already know to the state, and thats really a serious crime.
Howe ever calling some politician an a*** on the Internet will result in your real live identity being revealed, and you prosecuted.
Where is the proportionality in that?


If only we would have the level of anonymity on the Internet we still have in real life that would be so wonderful.


David X.

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 22 February 2012 - 01:59 PM

[Stulle]

Just a friendly reminder, the majority of internet users does not know about clearing their cache and changing their IP and they are what the companies aim for. Also, while there might not be an DNA database where everyone is listed, there is also not a list available to each and any police officer where he can retrieve names to the IPs he found. You are blatantly ignoring the obstacles the legislation puts between logging and using certain data in Europe. Tell you what, it is the exact same obstacle when getting a mass DNA test done or retrieving a name to an IP: convince a judge. If you are dumb enough to use your own IP on the site of your crime it is the exact same thing as leaving your DNA.

So stop this hypocrisy and get back in touch with the real world. Actions have consequences and all you and your fellow internet activists worry about is that the state might enforce that simple law of physics (actio et reactio). And I really should not have to tell you about physics, for crying out loud!

PS: Again you ignore any passage of my post that you seem to feel uncomfortable responding to. Am I breaking through your multiple layers of wrongly applied idealism and you know I got a point or are you simply incapable of finding proper counter arguments to those?

EDIT: Also, calling an politician a strongly worded buttocks is a legal offense which is punishable by the law and anyone has to live with the consequences of doing that. You are, however, free to express your opinion quite freely in a reasonable, non-insulting manner! And don't make it look like rape is not being persecuted with any measure at hand. The internet is a tool and using tools leaves traces in some way or other. It is a disgrace to any kind of reasonable discussion to make it look otherwise and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so.

This post has been edited by Stulle: 22 February 2012 - 02:20 PM

[DavidXanatos]

Stulle, on 22 February 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Tell you what, it is the exact same obstacle when getting a mass DNA test done or retrieving a name to an IP: convince a judge. If you are dumb enough to use your own IP on the site of your crime it is the exact same thing as leaving your DNA.

And you think a mass DNA test should be legal?
Really?

Do you think there is any crime that one could perform over the Internet that would be even remotely as despicable as real rape?

This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 22 February 2012 - 02:23 PM

[Stulle]

Yes, I do. If you don't you are even worse than I thought. Because you did not just make it look like rape is not persecuted to the fullest possible extent but you also expect it to be okay if it is not done. You have basically just applied the same hypocrisy that you pretend oppose.

Edit: The nature of the crime should not have an influence on the persecution, only on the penalty. If it was otherwise we would be living anarchy and not in a state of law. You really need to get your priorities straight for once! And yes, there are even worse crimes. Like calling for genocide, distributing video or photographic material by rapists and encouraging such people are just some.

This post has been edited by Stulle: 22 February 2012 - 02:26 PM