[j800]

On august 2013 I was arrested and put in jail for allegedly baing part of a pedophiles network that, they say, operate over the Emule network. One month later I could partially recover my freedom after my lawyer could get me out of the preventive prison and went back to my house under a home arrest. Better than being in jail.

The reason why I passed through all this was because of massively downloading clips and music, where a certain number of the downloads happened to be illegal content, pederast contents specifically, that I had pulled because of my massive downloads.

I know and understand that this kind of content cannot be eradicated because of the nature of a P2P sharing network. But the number of people facing these problems is relatively high and increasing as the popularity and availability of shared files increases in the emule network.

Currently, a high number of users have been arrested for the same reasons. The polices, highly misinformed, think that by sharing illegal content themselves they can identify pedophiles networks by taking note of the IP addresses that just happen to connect to them.

They then take note of the IP addresses, get an authorization to invade the user's privacy at home, then arrest them in case they find even a single file completely or partially downloaded, sometimes even if they don't find anything (specially in Spain), claiming that only by detecting their IP addresses connecting to them means the user was knowingly sharing illegal content.

Right now the situation seems to be only worsening and there are happening more arrests than ever because of the same reasons. Innocent people passing through prison and some even convicted only by downloading a illegal file with a misleading title or just by pulling the wrong one in a bulk download.

Because of this I want to suggest the emule developers it is time for the team to publish some informative document highlighting myths and facts surrounding the operation of P2P networks and accidental downloads, specifically around emule. All this with the purpose of helping users like me which are about to face criminal charges and being convicted. In my case specifically I risk eight years in jail.

The reasons why I suggest this are:

• Emule is probably the number one P2P network in the world, prosecutors normally refer to emule as sinonymous to P2P.
  
• Judges are mostly ignorant about everything IT related, because of this, prosecutors take the chance to misinform them by employing technical fallacies, only to win the case and get P2P users into jail.
  
• The misinformation regarding the emule network is such that now prosecutors present it as a network used and, they imply, designed for criminal activity.

The existence of such a document would be a really good help for innocent users that are arrested because of these reasons. And as the document would be officialy released by the emule team, they would not be able to deny its facts.

What do you think about this suggestion? I discussed this with my lawyer and he told me that if such document existed, he would most certaily save me from being convicted.

[coluche]

all my amateurish opinion :

j800, on 18 January 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

The existence of such a document would be a really good help for innocent users that are arrested because of these reasons. And as the document would be officialy released by the emule team, they would not be able to deny its facts.

I do not think it would be of any direct value in court.
eMule developers are most likely not registered experts with your court/ jurisdictional "area", and they could easily be dissed as being biased anyways.

IF you fear that any rulings are made because of the judging persons not being informed well enough about technical aspects, you'd need accepted expert witnesses to explain these technicalities.
E.g. if your defense was "it wasn't me, someone must have hacked into my WiFi!", and prosecutors or judges say "that is not technically possible", then you would need some accepted techy experts explaining how "yes this is possible".

Or if you feel a need to be explained that (oversimplifying here) you can not download a file in eMule without also uploading it, resp. having it on offer to upload it, to the effect that to others you may appear as a (partial) source for the file even before you have any possibility to verify the file's content - then, again, you need an accepted expert to explain so in court / to prosecution authorities.

Any paper to be found on this website or so is of no authority to any court or such.

Quote

I discussed this with my lawyer and he told me that if such document existed, he would most certaily save me from being convicted.

Errm.
Either your lawyer has no clue, or they have and only agreed with your mis-assumption there because they got tired of convincing you that "no, that is not how it works".

In the end, you are responsible for what you download and thus also upload. If any of that is illegal, you are guilty.
Intentionally or accidentally is not relevant to the decision guilty or not. To my amateurish knowledge in pretty much all "western" jurisdictions.
It can and should of course be taken into consideration when it comes to decide how strong a "punishement" is going to be, but it does not matter for the question "guilty or not".

This post has been edited by coluche: 21 January 2014 - 09:50 PM

[j800]

coluche, on 21 January 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

all my amateurish opinion :

j800, on 18 January 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

The existence of such a document would be a really good help for innocent users that are arrested because of these reasons. And as the document would be officialy released by the emule team, they would not be able to deny its facts.

I do not think it would be of any direct value in court.

It would have a lot of value. My lawyer knows how it works.

coluche, on 21 January 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

eMule developers are most likely not registered experts with your court/ jurisdictional "area", and they could easily be dissed as being biased anyways.

But they are developers, they developed the software and who better than they to say how it works?

coluche, on 21 January 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

IF you fear that any rulings are made because of the judging persons not being informed well enough about technical aspects, you'd need accepted expert witnesses to explain these technicalities.

There will be one.

coluche, on 21 January 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

E.g. if your defense was "it wasn't me, someone must have hacked into my WiFi!", and prosecutors or judges say "that is not technically possible", then you would need some accepted techy experts explaining how "yes this is possible".

Or if you feel a need to be explained that (oversimplifying here) you can not download a file in eMule without also uploading it, resp. having it on offer to upload it, to the effect that to others you may appear as a (partial) source for the file even before you have any possibility to verify the file's content - then, again, you need an accepted expert to explain so in court / to prosecution authorities.

Any paper to be found on this website or so is of no authority to any court or such.

Quote

I discussed this with my lawyer and he told me that if such document existed, he would most certaily save me from being convicted.

Errm.
Either your lawyer has no clue, or they have and only agreed with your mis-assumption there because they got tired of convincing you that "no, that is not how it works".

My lawyer has been defending cases like mine for about twenty years. He knows how evidence and documents are presented and what kind are taking into consideration.
No offense but you are not a lawyer and you dont know what country I am from.

coluche, on 21 January 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

In the end, you are responsible for what you download and thus also upload. If any of that is illegal, you are guilty.

Speculation, your opinion.

coluche, on 21 January 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

Intentionally or accidentally is not relevant to the decision guilty or not. To my amateurish knowledge in pretty much all "western" jurisdictions.
It can and should of course be taken into consideration when it comes to decide how strong a "punishement" is going to be, but it does not matter for the question "guilty or not".

You say that I will be punished less strong if they think my download was not on purpose? ...in that case I will be considered innocent.

This post has been edited by j800: 21 January 2014 - 11:22 PM

[j800]

Still no answer, that is what you get from the emule staff.
They force you to agree with their opinion, and say that one is guilty because because of having downloaded (supposedly) illegal content.
Zero empathy and understanding, pure arrogance and you end up banned from the IRC channels because you get called a criminal by the staff itself.

Conclusion: got a problem because of using emule? dont bother, the staff does not care at all about you.

Greetings.

[Some Support]

There is no eMule Devs staff in the IRC channels, just IRC staff and volunteers.

However: No it is not our job to argue with law enforcement around the globe. It would be pretty pointless too - there are enough information about how P2P works out there (and not to hard to find, for example wikipedia) and enough experts to hear, if some people choose to ignore it they won't listen to our arguments neither. And we have some years experience in that point.
Just look at other major anti-pedophiles operations in the past were people get jailed without any real evidence (stolen credit cards, TOR end nodes, ip traces), until they prove themself to be not guilty. This isn't eMule specfic and the main problem isn't that there are not enough information out, but that law enforcement doesn't cares.

Would such a paper hurt? No. But it is a lot (tedious) work to create it and needs quite a bit time to do it. We aren't hired workers so we prefer to work on things we enjoy. If anyone volunteers we sure won't mind putting a link up or even proof read it.

But yes, in the end you are using the software on your own risk, just like when using then Internet Explorer and getting accidentaly caught on an illegal website by clicking a misleading link, Microsoft isn't going to help you.

Quote

Intentionally or accidentally is not relevant to the decision guilty or not. To my amateurish knowledge in pretty much all "western" jurisdictions.

Don't think any country punishes anything in this area if you were "tricked" into it, for example by a misleading filename.

[j800]

Quote

Would such a paper hurt? No. But it is a lot (tedious) work to create it and needs quite a bit time to do it. We aren't hired workers so we prefer to work on things we enjoy. If anyone volunteers we sure won't mind putting a link up or even proof read it.

I offered to voluntarily make the first draft and finish it if aproved, they didnt care. Someone named Beef kicked me and said it was "stuff we do not need".

Quote

Quote

Intentionally or accidentally is not relevant to the decision guilty or not. To my amateurish knowledge in pretty much all "western" jurisdictions.

Don't think any country punishes anything in this area if you were "tricked" into it, for example by a misleading filename.

In the IRC channel, someone called Mac said I was guilty just because of the existence of the files, he refused to understand what bulk downloading is.

[Some Support]

j800, on 12 February 2014 - 03:55 AM, said:

Quote

Would such a paper hurt? No. But it is a lot (tedious) work to create it and needs quite a bit time to do it. We aren't hired workers so we prefer to work on things we enjoy. If anyone volunteers we sure won't mind putting a link up or even proof read it.

I offered to voluntarily make the first draft and finish it if aproved, they didnt care. Someone named Beef kicked me and said it was "stuff we do not need".

As I said, the people on the IRC channel are volunteers who help users which have a problems with running eMule (or just want to chat), they do not speak for the Developers on such issues. So if you want to make a draft go ahead and I will check it, point out errors and in the end put it on the website. But you should be knowledgeable enough in the workings of eMule and its protocol to describe it properly.

For example while its perfectly possible that you start downloading a file with the name "AAA" which another one knows as "BBB", in general you will tell other downloading clients which name you have for this file (making it possible for logging software to actually prove which name you saw on your PC).

[fox88]

j800, on 22 January 2014 - 02:22 AM, said:

But they are developers, they developed the software and who better than they to say how it works?

There is huge difference between how it works and how someone uses it.

j800, on 12 February 2014 - 06:55 AM, said:

I offered to voluntarily make the first draft and finish it if aproved, they didnt care. Someone named Beef kicked me and said it was "stuff we do not need".

The channel does only & strictly technical help; that is: ensure correct program settings. Discussing what and why people are downloading is forbidden.

j800, on 22 January 2014 - 02:22 AM, said:

he refused to understand what bulk downloading is.

I'm quite sure he knows.
Hopefully you will understand: only you are responsible for doing indiscriminate bulk downloads.

[j800]

Some Support, on 12 February 2014 - 04:54 AM, said:

As I said, the people on the IRC channel are volunteers who help users which have a problems with running eMule (or just want to chat), they do not speak for the Developers on such issues...

But I was told that most OPs are emule staff members, the ones that make decisions. Aren't they?

fox88, on 12 February 2014 - 05:17 AM, said:

j800, on 22 January 2014 - 02:22 AM, said:

But they are developers, they developed the software and who better than they to say how it works?

There is huge difference between how it works and how someone uses it.

Still, it is imperative for the court to have a clear understanding on how it works.

j800, on 12 February 2014 - 06:55 AM, said:

The channel does only & strictly technical help; that is: ensure correct program settings. Discussing what and why people are downloading is forbidden.

The discussion was in #emule-english-offtopic.

j800, on 22 January 2014 - 02:22 AM, said:

he refused to understand what bulk downloading is.
I'm quite sure he knows.
Hopefully you will understand: only you are responsible for doing indiscriminate bulk downloads.

I did a bulk porn download. Emule didnt say I was going to download any illegal content, I was never warned, I was never suggested I could get anything illegal, I never searched for amything illegal, still Mac said stuff like:

you must realise that you'd get nasty stuff searching for those things, so you're guilty. (why should I realize?)
no one can tell whether you looked at them or not. Downloading them makes you guilty. (so no presumption of innocence for me?)
no one here can defend what you chose to do igae, you probably are guilty of re-sharing child porn, so.. Please, leave this network immediately (condemning me without even knowing me and because of something that is probable?)

And then he banned me...
In the kick messages she called me a "unfortunate fool". Is that how you treat your users?????

Questions:
at In what part of the application does Emule specify there is illegal content everywhere being shared and that it can be downloaded by performing a simple search for whatever?
Why a user must guess that when I dont get any illegal content by searching for anything on Google for example?
How do I know what a file contains until it has transferred quite a bit and without being guilty of a crime because of letting it transfer?

...Questions that Mac ignored and decided to ban me instead of replying.

This post has been edited by j800: 12 February 2014 - 02:11 PM

[Some Support]

Quote

at In what part of the application does Emule specify there is illegal content everywhere being shared and that it can be downloaded by performing a simple search for whatever?
Why a user must guess that when I dont get any illegal content by searching for anything on Google for example?

I'm not quite sure which internet you are using, but in mine I get plenty of results which are illegal in my country for nearly any searchterm on google. And my Internet Explorer doesn't even warns me when I open such a website.
I'm sorry but if that is your argument, it's really not the best one imho. I'm sure you (and all eMule users) know pretty well that eMule is a file sharing software and that not all files which exist are legal (in your country).

In some cases, there might be a problem with the fact that a file in the network is identified by its hash and the name is only metadata which doesn't necessarily properly describes its content and is not unique neither - so it cannot be trusted which can lead to problems if you accidentally download something mislabed. But if you say you downloaded files without looking at their names, then there is no surprise that the law enforcement isn't letting it go.

[j800]

Some Support, on 12 February 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

In some cases, there might be a problem with the fact that a file in the network is identified by its hash and the name is only metadata which doesn't necessarily properly describes its content and is not unique neither - so it cannot be trusted which can lead to problems if you accidentally download something mislabed. But if you say you downloaded files without looking at their names, then there is no surprise that the law enforcement isn't letting it go.

That is exactly the kind of points I ask the emule developers to clarify in a document. The "experts" the prosecutors bring say that the hash describes everything in a file, that we knowingly buy and sell illegal content with others we already know through P2P, and they like mentioning IP addresses many times and different ones to make it look like I am a nonstop cyber criminal. Also, they present IP addresses as a tool to personally identify a person and their intentions, they say that the IP address let them easily identify my criminal intentions. The judges know nothing about computers, they believe them.
If the Emule devels finally understood that cases like mine are far more common than they believe and published a document with facts to counter these myths, they could save the lives of many of Emule users, after all these are the users that have made Emule so wordwidely known, thats minimum. And by saving lifes, I mean not letting get them ruined by an inquisitively technologically ignorant law inforcement.

This post has been edited by j800: 12 February 2014 - 02:28 PM

[fox88]

j800, on 12 February 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:

But I was told that most OPs are emule staff members, the ones that make decisions. Aren't they?

They are #emule-english channel staff.

j800, on 12 February 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:

I did a bulk porn download.

Right. And, most probably you uploaded it too. By uploading you helped to spread it.

j800, on 12 February 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:

you must realise that you'd get nasty stuff searching for those things, so you're guilty. (why should I realize?)

Sorry, but 'not knowing' is no excuse for the law. You should know that if you are not a child already.

j800, on 12 February 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:

Downloading them makes you guilty. (so no presumption of innocence for me?)

Once again: you downloaded and also uploaded.
What innocence?
It's like if you hit someone unintentionally and maybe even unknowingly; but that still would be a hit.
Try to convince it was a terrible mistake and no intention to spread that sort of things.

j800, on 12 February 2014 - 05:26 PM, said:

The "experts" the prosecutors bring say that the hash describes everything in a file

Technically, that one is false statement.
Hash is used as if it is a unique identifier, but it is not.
Much less it could describe the contents. At least, for human eye.
That is: if someone gives a link or a hash, you most probably can get that same file. But if you used search and see only hash and misleading name - you cannot tell what is in the file.

[j800]

fox88, on 13 February 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

j800, on 12 February 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:

But I was told that most OPs are emule staff members, the ones that make decisions. Aren't they?

They are #emule-english channel staff.

j800, on 12 February 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:

I did a bulk porn download.

Right. And, most probably you uploaded it too. By uploading you helped to spread it.

j800, on 12 February 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:

you must realise that you'd get nasty stuff searching for those things, so you're guilty. (why should I realize?)

Sorry, but 'not knowing' is no excuse for the law. You should know that if you are not a child already.

j800, on 12 February 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:

Downloading them makes you guilty. (so no presumption of innocence for me?)

Once again: you downloaded and also uploaded.
What innocence?
It's like if you hit someone unintentionally and maybe even unknowingly; but that still would be a hit.
Try to convince it was a terrible mistake and no intention to spread that sort of things.

j800, on 12 February 2014 - 05:26 PM, said:

The "experts" the prosecutors bring say that the hash describes everything in a file

Technically, that one is false statement.
Hash is used as if it is a unique identifier, but it is not.
Much less it could describe the contents. At least, for human eye.
That is: if someone gives a link or a hash, you most probably can get that same file. But if you used search and see only hash and misleading name - you cannot tell what is in the file.

They are trying to convict me for “knowingly” spreading illegal content. thats the thing.
And everything else you say, are the things that I say the document should contain. For you they are obvious, for the prosecutors, the “experts” and the judges, it is all chinese.

[fox88]

j800, on 15 February 2014 - 12:17 AM, said:

They are trying to convict me for “knowingly” spreading illegal content. thats the thing.

Obviously, a guilty person might say exactly the same words as you are writing now and pretend being clueless.
You do understand that, don't you?

This post has been edited by fox88: 14 February 2014 - 10:06 PM

[j800]

fox88, on 14 February 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

j800, on 15 February 2014 - 12:17 AM, said:

They are trying to convict me for “knowingly” spreading illegal content. thats the thing.

Obviously, a guilty person might say exactly the same words as you are writing now and pretend being clueless.
You do understand that, don't you?

Fallacious logic: “Your words have no value because a guilty person would say the same”

Do you understand that accidents happen all the time and not everyone know it all of how it works?

This post has been edited by j800: 15 February 2014 - 02:51 AM

[fox88]

j800, on 15 February 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

Fallacious logic: “Your words have no value because a guilty person would say the same”

It's your logic at fault.
You must bring up someting more substantial than your words.

[j800]

fox88, on 15 February 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

j800, on 15 February 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

Fallacious logic: “Your words have no value because a guilty person would say the same”

It's your logic at fault.
You must bring up someting more substantial than your words.

I was thinking on something like a document by the developers, but well, nobody wants to help someone else apparently.

[fox88]

j800, on 15 February 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:

I was thinking on something like a document by the developers, but well, nobody wants to help someone else apparently.

I see you still did not get where is your main problem.

Whatever developers might say, it would not prove that you had no intentions to spread bad contents.
At best, it might prove that it was possibly unintentional because of lack of your knowledge.

This post has been edited by fox88: 15 February 2014 - 02:24 PM

[Some Support]

fox88, on 15 February 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

Whatever developers might say, it would not prove that you had no intentions to spread bad contents.
At best, it might prove that it was possibly unintentional because of lack of your knowledge.

Depending on the circumstances (and as described above) that doesn't has to be true (and also not the accused has to prove his innocence before the law but the other way around). But no one here knows what excactly the case is nor does our oppinion on this really matters (as we are no judges).

So let's stay on topic from now on: And regarding the document, you have already been given your answer above.

[fox88]

Some Support, on 15 February 2014 - 07:11 PM, said:

not the accused has to prove his innocence before the law but the other way around

If you understand innocence as 'lack of guile', then yes. But not in the other sense of the word.