Author of Japanese P2P software Winny arrested

[Zarxrax]

Links are in japanese, the first one can be translated pretty decently on babelfish.

http://www.itmedia.co.jp/news/articles/0405/10/news008.html
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20040510-00000002-kyt-l26

The yahoo article makes an analogy along the lines of:
"A kitchen knife cuts vegetables, but can also kill, so you only get arrested if you kill with a kitchen knife. But a handgun is designed only to kill, so you get arrested for even having it"
So in other words it was saying the only purpose of P2P software is to pirate software and commit illegal activities.

The author removed the winny website and stopped writing the software a few months ago, when there was some similar trouble. This time, he has really been arrested though. Apparently for simply writing the software.

Winny allows users complete annonymity as they share files.

If anyone can get any additional info from this links, please post it.

[Neo Neko]

It may have been anonymous. At least in every area but possibly the most important one at this time. He should have saved some anonymity for himself. Governments across the globe are reaching new all time lows showing just how willing they are to pander to big business. Often at the expense of the people which they are supposed to serve. What is really sad is that all wide spread indication said that Japan was at least not leaning one way more than the other. Even recently rading the offices of Microsoft and Intel. As always the Japanese are often hard to read. :p But it is still often a fun read. ;)

[Herske]

"A kitchen knife cuts vegetables, but can also kill, so you only get arrested if you kill with a kitchen knife. But a handgun is designed only to kill, so you get arrested for even having it"


This kind of malignant journalism makes me sick; they manipulate the reader into believing that Winny author is guilty (of something, doesn't matter what).

[Mug Funky]

coders like this guy need some form of protection by law i think. i have no idea what though.

it's like this - if he simply published his source in a paperback book and sold it through penguin, they could not have arrested him. he ceased distribution of the program and took down the site, so he was not actually contributing to piracy anymore (if he ever was, which is debatable - he was contributing to file sharing, but he himself had no say at all over what was shared).

people do not get arrested for writing books, no matter how awful they are. it should be the same for code! how are people expected to develop new methods and technologies if they can be arrested after the fact? it's ludicrous.

adding to that the amount of time Jon Johansen spent in court for simply writing some code and distributing it under GPL.

it's definitely time for some legislation to protect programmers as authors rather than filthy pirates. of course, that said i definitely don't support software patents :)

[Zarxrax]

Looks like the story has hit slashdot. Here's an english news item I found in one of the posts there: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1105174.htm

What's interesting is it says he was arrested for "suspected conspiracy to commit copyright violation" :mad:

[vorbis]

hmm not sure about this one. I'm certainly not a fan of that DRM crap. However, the vast majority of traffic on a p2p network would imo be illegal. Writing a program that is in effect only used for illegal purposes is a crime imo. What did he expect people were going to do with it?

[mf]

Bittorrent is a kitchen knife. Winny is a dagger. Both are file sharing apps, but with BT the original distributor is known, with Winny he/she is anonymous. Why would honest people need to be anonymous? For once a media analogy is correct. No need to be hypocritic about it, just the whole idea of arresting people that write P2P apps is wrong.

[SoonUDie]

@mug funky
I definitely agree with you there - freedom of information is crucial.

Of course, there are obviously circumstances where circulating code freely is not a wise idea. For instance, should we protect virus writers? If they intend to use their virus writing for good (i.e. exposing vulnerabilities), they should send their code to antivirus companies like Norton and to the companies whose software is exploited by the virus. Releasing the code openly while there is still a large chance that it will be used for evil is irresponsible - if they want to release it for "educational use", they should be required by law to wait until the programs are patched and the antivirus updated.

p2p is not a virus and does no appreciable damage to an individual. However, it apparently does financial damage to some corporations... and hence is an Evil Thing™. Then again, there is also the issue of law enforcement: by creating an entirely anonymous network, police have no way to check for criminal activities… it’s a virtual safe-haven for any kind of electronic transfer, legitimate or not, and I'm sure that pisses off some of the higher-ups. It also worries me that the same programs I use to get something like fansubbed animes could be used for something like terrorist activities… but then again, people can always use encrypted mail if they want.

What are we supposed to do?

@mf
You make an excellent point about anonymity - those within the law have nothing to fear, so why desire it? The only reason I can think of is if someone doesn't want their family members or employer to discover what they're downloading (which would be easy enough to do if there were no anonymity), because it could lead to embarrassing situations ;)

Which reminds me: the best kind of DRM, IMO, is the kind that allows free usage everywhere but imbeds some kind of personal information into the file (which discourages sharing… you wouldn’t want to share your social security or credit card number online with just anyone). If something like this existed in filesharing (i.e. an irremovable subpoena-friendly “original sharer” tag), then we might see less illegal sharing, and by extension less litigation against the program writers and more against the actual users breaking the law.

[stephanV]

Originally posted by SoonUDie


@mf
You make an excellent point about anonymity - those within the law have nothing to fear, so why desire it? The only reason I can think of is if someone doesn't want their family members or employer to discover what they're downloading (which would be easy enough to do if there were no anonymity), because it could lead to embarrassing situations ;)


Thats kinda scary what you are suggesting. Those within the law have nothing to fear? How about all sorts of companies that are abusing this personal information if it is open on the web?


Which reminds me: the best kind of DRM, IMO, is the kind that allows free usage everywhere but imbeds some kind of personal information into the file (which discourages sharing… you wouldn’t want to share your social security or credit card number online with just anyone). If something like this existed in filesharing (i.e. an irremovable subpoena-friendly “original sharer” tag), then we might see less illegal sharing, and by extension less litigation against the program writers and more against the actual users breaking the law.

I dont know a lot about computer-programming and I'm not quite sure if this is a good idea, but what I do know is this: there will be no security that is completely water-proof. Sooner or later there is someone who will crack this.

[MfA]

Does Winny do automatic replication of information without users specifically downloading anything? That is the only real way to provide a modicum of anonymity on the net (apart from spoofing, but that isn't realistic for a P2P system). It's only anonymous in the sense that after the information has been spread the source can leave and not be detected afterwards (unless his traffic has been logged).

Or does it just use multihop routing on an overlay network? (With ISP cooperation you would have to create a lot of fake traffic not to make this trackable, even with encryption.)

[Zarxrax]

This is becoming a good discussion. You guys make some good points. I believe anonymity is important though. For one, I don't think its right to have our actions snooped on by other people, be it your next door neighbor, the government, or the movie industry. I don't download hardly any music that the RIAA owns, yet they scare the shit out of me. I would certainly want my actions to be anonomous with people like them around, even if I'm doing nothing wrong, simply because the fact that they are known to even accuse people that could not have possibly been trading files.
But is it wrong to have anonymity? Sites that allow you to surf the web anonymously, should they be shut down? I'm paranoid I guess, but I just fear the day when we will all be walking around, our every movement and action being watched and monitored. If we aren't doing anything illegal, we have nothing to hide, right?

[Mug Funky]

@ Zarxrax:

What's interesting is it says he was arrested for "suspected conspiracy to commit copyright violation"

if you'll see the source of this report, it's the Australian Federal Police (AFP). so they're not going to be putting a spin on the article one way or another. i'm surprised they submit stories to the ABC actually. kinda impressed.

well, at any rate, the AFP would most probably have got a memo straight from Japan (from whichever equivalent law enforcement agency liaises with the AFP).

[edit]
that also explains the sudden talk about sensitive government documents... i know that's what i spend most of my time downloading :scared:

hehe. last time sensitive government docs were leaked here, it was because some doofus left them on a sodding coffee table (this is true - an embarassing international faux-pas where an australian diplomat wrote insulting things about the leaders of our pacific neighbors. this was years ago though)

[dragongodz]

But a handgun is designed only to kill, so you get arrested for even having it
huh ? where exactly ? ok in most countries you have to get a permit etc but thats not what that says. such a stupid analogy shows how wrong headed that article is.

Why would honest people need to be anonymous?
You make an excellent point about anonymity - those within the law have nothing to fear, so why desire it?
huh ? so in otherwords if a person does not want any information about themselves or their isp or whatever spread about they are guilty by default ? man thats just plain wrong headed. what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty ? you guys are agreeing with gestapo type actions such as the RIAA and MPAA wanting user information from ISP's without getting a court order.

last time sensitive government docs were leaked here
Mug Fuky - you know fully well documents are constantly being leaked from the Aus government and politicians but ye that was the last big international one that i can think of. :)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by mf
Why would honest people need to be anonymous? For once a media analogy is correct.

No. Such features have been made important due to the acts of the media mafia. Don Valente etc. If it were not for them anonymity would not be a big issue. As it is now if you use P2P you are guilty untill proven innocent. Even if you are the pope. And as we are told every day no one is innocent. P2P is not illegal or wrong. Strictly speaking the lions share of what gets shared there should not be so illegal to share there in the first place. Short sighted pigopolists just can't see the possibilities.

[Nic]

(Just to add to what Neo Neko said)
"Why would honest people need to be anonymous? For once a media analogy is correct."

Being anonymous shouldn't be percieved as someone trying to hide something, it's a matter of privacy. I wouldn't start writing letters to my bank manager on postcards for all to read even though I have nothing to hide...

-Nic

[mf]

Not being anonymous doesn't need to mean people know everything about you. Just like on IRC, your nick (handle), and an IP address. Of course an IP address points to an ISP, which can be contacted for additional information. And THAT is where things go wrong. A person's identity should be confidential, even to supposedly-law enforcers (RIAA, etc). From what I've heard my ISP is pretty confidential in such matters, but I'm sure with enough FUD and/or inside contacts they can get my personal info. What I meant to say though, is that wherever I go I am "mf", and not some 32-char anonymous MD5 sum. That is how winny works, and that is definitely worth comparing to a dagger. After all, you can still cut cabbage with one.

[SoonUDie]

While I do object to Gestapo-like activities, I think that in our own politically-correct support of privacy, we seem to forget that bad people use the internet, too. It's tough to decide where government protection ends and abuse begins, but I feel it's better to be on the safe side than to err when lives could be at stake.

On the other hand, there's probably something like a 0.1% chance that anything that serious will happen through p2p software... so once again it comes down to capitalist politics and anti-piracy interests.

In my opinion the ideal case would be an encrypted tracking system where only law enforcement personnel could have access to the information (file creator, file sharer, etc.), and only then after some kind of warrant is issued... no different from any other possible crime. But this level of moderation is not something that I expect will be possible as long as people like President Bush are in the White House. Draconian measures such as the Patriot Act are exactly what we should avoid.

[Mug Funky]

It's tough to decide where government protection ends and abuse begins, but I feel it's better to be on the safe side than to err when lives could be at stake.

how exactly could p2p be used for terrorism? (or an equivalent activity going under a different name? :rolleyes:)

i'm sure the world of espionage has it's own methods of data transfer. shoe phones and microfilms for instance :D

right now, the greatest online threat to our security (apart from the usual viruses, etc) comes from such organizations as the RIAA.

privacy isn't just an exercise in political correctness - it's a human right, and as such must be defended in principle. the RIAA (or in my case the ARIA) must not get to our information without some form of due process. it's that simple.

i don't care who's doing what on the internet, as soon as an organization flounts due process it becomes just as bad as the pirates in my opinion.

we must all operate under laws (at least where reasonable - conscience must of course override laws in circumstances that require it), and breaking the law cannot be justified after the fact. would you torture a confession out of someone you knew was a killer, but couldn't prove?

[Doom9]

While I do object to Gestapo-like activities, I think that in our own politically-correct support of privacy, we seem to forget that bad people use the internet, too. It's tough to decide where government protection ends and abuse begins, but I feel it's better to be on the safe side than to err when lives could be at stake.With that attitude, 20 years from now you wake up and find yourself living in a world first described by George Orwell in 1984. The right for privacy is a basic human right and nothing and nobody has the right to take it away. Today we have the ridiculous situation where as a company admin you can get fired when tapping into private emails (provided the users have not been shoved a "we watch everything" clause down their throat with the employment contract), whereas if governments do it (Echolon), it's perfectly okay. Where will this end?

If you want to remove the mere possibility of abuse, let's just lock ourselves into our houses and never go out again, shall we? You can abuse almost everything human beings have devised. We should all remember what Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of a nation that has long since thrown good measure overboard and is heading into a very dangrous direction (the patriot act is just the first step): Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.No matter how hard you try, you can never rule out the possibility of abuse, but in the process of trying to do so, you end up hurting the wrong people. Bin Laden and his goons will always be able to communicate, no matter how many communication means we tap into, and even if we outlaw any form of encryption.. so in the end we've given up our rights to privacy but we didn't gain anything from it.. in fact, we just made Bin Laden's day, cos in our fear, we've given him a much greater victory than he could ever achieve himself: we've given up some of our most basic rights and live in constant fear.

Not that it's only about terrorism, but this example should illustrate how much giving up freedom can backfire.

Oh, and I'm pretty certain that in the big brother state a forum like this would not be possible, and I'd disappear forever in a brainwash camp for what I've just posted. Merely visiting my website would be construed as an act of piracy and you'd be put away for years. Think about that.

[unmei]

hmm anyone know how "freenet" is doing at these times?
When i read about it a few years ago, it sounded like it was (or was to become) a completely anomymous share network with the idea of making books and papers available in countries where they are forbidden or where the author could be arrested for the text. It sounded like an idea by "good people" to protect freedom of speech. But at the same time, it that would have made it the ultimate terrorist network tool.

AFAIK freenet wasn't successful or it still exists but is only used by a small circle, but if winny is something to arrest the author for, then what the heck is freenet ..people don't even know what they offer from their harddrive! (you assign some had space to the program and the network itself manages what data to store on who's harddrive, iirc it was just one 'dump' file, maybe even encrypted, so you could not look up what you share)

[Mug Funky]

doom9: you're scaring me! eek!

that was a damn good quote from Jefferson's starship though :)

hmmm. where did it all go wrong for his country? (don't answer that - it's outside the scope of this forum i think.)

certainly i've seen some disturbing arrests in my country - bearded people being taken in with scanty (perhaps non-existent) evidence against them.

should i start buying large amounts of fertilizer simply because it is my right to buy it? or will i be charged for wasting police time following up a false "lead"?

my friends and i have a kind of contest going - see who is the first one with an ASIO file (ASIO is Oz's answer to the FBI).

as for echelon, don't get me started. there's a place over here called "pine gap". basically it was set up so the Americans could listen to the Russians. now echelon uses it. it's all very secretive - we don't know what they do there or why they do it (hmm... it's on land that never even belonged to my government in the first place, but that's another story).

[SoonUDie]

@doom9
While I share your concerns about “Big Brother”, the nightmare world described by George Orwell is a bit different than what I’m trying to describe. In 1984, the government used false wars, “Big Brother”, brainwashing and other methods to control the populace both physically and mentally in order to keep themselves in power.

What I propose is simply what Mug Funky said: due process. While we do have a certain right to privacy and to freedom of action, that right extends only far enough that we don’t step on others’ rights. Terrorist activity through bittorrent may be highly unlikely, but another type of crime happens constantly: piracy. We can’t simply ignore piracy because it’s only a crime involving loss of money – it still hurts people and violates their rights.

The question is, how do you combat p2p piracy without infringing on the rights of legitimate p2p users? I doubt anyone will agree on one answer. At the moment, we’re seeing one “solution” in action: prosecuting people who write programs that have a high chance of being used for illegal activities. I do not agree with this course of action, and I have a feeling most people who visit this board feel the same way.

As I stated above, I believe that the best way to combat file-sharing is to make users identifiable to law enforcement agencies under the restrictions of due process. The RIAA is already trying something like this, but they’re obviously being nastier about it. Prosecuting a file sharer should follow exactly the same procedure as any other criminal case, and remain in the jurisdiction of the court system. Of course, this is all my opinion, and you’re welcome to disagree.

[Mug Funky]

In 1984, the government used false wars, “Big Brother”, brainwashing and other methods to control the populace both physically and mentally in order to keep themselves in power.

hmm... same could be said for 2004... but now i'm being paranoid.

[Doom9]

While I share your concerns about “Big Brother”, the nightmare world described by George Orwell is a bit different than what I’m trying to describe. In 1984, the government used false wars, “Big Brother”, brainwashing and other methods to control the populace both physically and mentally in order to keep themselves in power.
Well.. we have reasons for wars being rewritten, and virtual WMDs ;) But, 1984 will happen with a few commercial mega conglomerates, rather than governments (the conglomerates will put up a puppet regime as their public face). For me it makes no difference.

As I stated above, I believe that the best way to combat file-sharing is to make users identifiable to law enforcement agencies under the restrictions of due process. And how do you ensure that this info isn't being abused? Companies violate data protection laws on a daily basis and without fear of any reprecussions. At the same time, data protection laws are being weakened all the time. Big business is very afraid of the Internet as it got them much more than they wanted.. they wanted control, and what we got was more freedom. Now they're frantically trying to turn back the time, with laws (both big brother and "you ain't got no rights" kind of laws) and bully tactics. They're scared shitless of technology that would give people freedom without giving big biz a way to keep track of what we do.. that is just about the worst nightmare they face, because then they'd have to rely on traditional means to enfore their copyright (and they'd loose their tightly knit encryption/DRM net.. ).

I also have some very personal concerns.. recently I wrote a simple voice streamer, but imagine what it could be used for.. it could be to rally terrorist groups across the globe, so I'm suddenly part of a terrorist network and on my way to Guantanamo bay. And while big biz is quick to decry the abuse potential of any technology they haven't devised themselves, they're also decrying any attempt to limit freedom when it concerns their wallet (the gun lobby being a prime example.. we know most guns end up hurting the wrong people and very few actually managed to use a gun to protect themselves, yet the right to bear arms is of course much more import than I don't know how many thousands of innocents being killed.. where's the NRA that fights just as violently for fair use rights and to keep P2P networks legal?). It's just incredibly wrong that we can have governments support diametrally different viewpoints (guns vs. P2P), depending on how big biz sees it.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by SoonUDie
@doom9
While I share your concerns about “Big Brother”, the nightmare world described by George Orwell is a bit different than what I’m trying to describe. In 1984, the government used false wars, “Big Brother”, brainwashing and other methods to control the populace both physically and mentally in order to keep themselves in power.

I am a life long US citizen so I can speak with some authority on this point. That is "exactly" what my government is currently trying to do. And all with the help of the media.

False war? Well we had one that was justified largely to the public with false or highly suspect reasons. I would agree that something needed to be done. But the story today is different from the one that was fed to us before. But that is as far as we should go with that here.

Brainwashing? Hello! Broadcast and cable news anyone. They begin and end with the terror threat level and color for the day. They tell us that our neighbors are fiends wating for their opportunity to strike us. That there are attackers waiting in every shaddow. Cable news is 24/7 death, destruction, murder, pestelence, tornadoes, fires, earthquakes, car chases, crashes, etc, etc, etc. Ever heard the addage "no news is good news"? Do you question the wisdom in that? Or would you disagree that good news isn't news? Fear is instilled in the general populous on a daily basis. And feer can cause people to take leave of their senses. P2P users are not you friends and neighbors. They are "pirates". Not upstanding citizens or pillars of any community anywhere. They are bad people and through some convoluted and dubious explanations they are supposed to be a threat to you. So you should fear them. And do what you are told. Brainwashing anyone?

I wont even touch on big brother because that is blindingly obvious.

Originally posted by SoonUDie
What I propose is simply what Mug Funky said: due process. While we do have a certain right to privacy and to freedom of action, that right extends only far enough that we don’t step on others’ rights.

Due process is great. But what good is it when your rights are taken away from you? How can due process protect your rights if you don't have rights? Things like fear and terror cause people to give up their rights in the name of something they think will make them safer. Even stupid things. Especially stupid things. Folks I give you the DMCA. A document drafted to protect those who don't need protection. A document drafted to protect those who the general public needs protection from. Sound stupid? You betcha! But with enough fear you can get people to do anything.

Originally posted by SoonUDie
Terrorist activity through bittorrent may be highly unlikely, but another type of crime happens constantly: piracy. We can’t simply ignore piracy because it’s only a crime involving loss of money – it still hurts people and violates their rights.

We can ignore it. And in fact in all likelyhood we should be ignoring it. I dare you to find any official factual public document in existance anywhere in the world with solid numbers and math to back it up. Does P2P really hurt more people than it helps. Or is that simply what those like the RIAA have been telling us every day for nearly the last decade. "Stop! Your hurting us!" On a daily basis I hear just as many stories claiming how P2P helps us as hurts us. And the only common theme between all these stories? No solid numbers to be had anywhere. It's junk science. Or what Bush likes to say "not actionable intelligence". Yet every day people take action it. Hardly intelligent.

Originally posted by SoonUDie
The question is, how do you combat p2p piracy without infringing on the rights of legitimate p2p users?

Step one. Remove the undue stigma on P2P. In order to have legitimate P2P users there needs to be general public consensus that all P2P is not in some way fundamentally illigitimate or illegal. This is currently not the case so we have our work cut out for us.

Step two. Actually define clear irrivocable rights for our newly invented classification of legitimate P2P users.

Then and only then will you be able to prosecute P2P users without infringing on their rights. Because only at that point can they have rights. How can anyone in good concience prossecute people for abusing their rights when their rights are not clearly defined to anyone? I know my rights. And they say I can copy and transcode all my DVD and CD all I want for my own use. They also say that I may not. So if I am simultaneously allowed and not allowed where do I stand? Should it be at my discretion? Aren't laws that abolish my rights here unconstitutional? Apparently not.

Originally posted by SoonUDie
I doubt anyone will agree on one answer. At the moment, we’re seeing one “solution” in action: prosecuting people who write programs that have a high chance of being used for illegal activities.

Guns here have a high chance of being used for illegal activities. Hell the lions share of illegal activities here involve guns in some way. We don't prossecute gun manufacturers as a preventative measure? On any given public road or highway on any given day that one or more people travel it there is a better than 87% chance that someone was speeding there. Do we prossecute 87% of all drivers as a preventative measure? No. And those are just two things that have been shown to have a real and calculable monetary cost to the general public as well as human and many other costs that things like P2P could never have.

Originally posted by SoonUDie
As I stated above, I believe that the best way to combat file-sharing is to make users identifiable to law enforcement agencies under the restrictions of due process.

In the absense of rights due process caeses to function. And why should I trust agencies who in these duties have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, with my identity? What gives them the right to take my rights?

Originally posted by SoonUDie
The RIAA is already trying something like this, but they’re obviously being nastier about it. Prosecuting a file sharer should follow exactly the same procedure as any other criminal case, and remain in the jurisdiction of the court system.

How could it? Criminals have rights after all. Pirates/P2P users don't. The system has serious flaws that are being seriously exploited to the serious detrement of the general public. No seriously. Anyone remember "Taxation without representation"? If you have had an american history course chances are you have heard it before. In my oppinion "Prossecution without clear legal definition" should be just as serious. Anyone up for a roadtrip to Boston to steel a bunch of CDs and DVDs to dump in the harbor? j/k ;)

[Chez_Wimpy]

Several of my coworkers noticed this story yesterday and pointed it out to me. The fact that they nonchalantly accepted that he was a criminal for writing a p2p program shocked me. Furthermore, the charges of aiding to conspire to pirate media is so blatantly two-faced in a country as dub-crazy as Japan. CD burners never really caught on here (though nowadays they come standard with PCs) because people were too busy copying CDs to Minidisc... or MD to MD! Hell, when you go into the "video" rental shop, you can pick up that latest album from M-Flo, as well as a couple of blank MDs. I suppose that the ubiquitous dual CD-player MD decks are an aberration, and got out under the gun (from electronic giants like National Panasonic and Sony). What about the dual MD decks? The PVR hard-disk / DVD burners? I suppose the Japanese government figures those are for copying your personal A/V creations. In the last couple of years, they have been adding copy protection measures to nearly every CD released, which does stop a lot of the casual copying (though not with a PC and the right tools, or I would suspect from a CD->MD toslink connection). However, if Japan is really serious about arresting people who make dual use software, what about dual use hardware? Sony's profit motive, copy protect the discs while manufacturing hardware implicit for copying, is clearly important to someone in power here ($$$), enough so to exempt them from the kind of legal action against their hardware (Betamax in the 80s) that took them to the Supreme Court in America. The unwillingness of individual Japanese to fight back in court against their accusers fills me with dread, because an arrest here is 90% of a conviction, and consequently as much a legal precedent as are Supreme Court rulings in the United States.

[duartix]

Why would honest people need to be anonymous? Do you elect your government? Do you think every one who votes and believes in a secret vote is disonest? If so, you are INSULTING a s**tload of the planet's population.

I could write a few dozen pages starting with sperm donors, ending up in art actioners, but my conclusion would always be the same:

Anonymity is the citizen's latest protection today.

Anonymity is the citizen's last protection these latest days.

It's the kind of view portrayed in your sentence, that is ravishing individual rights across the alleged civilized world.
ENOUGH!!! :angry: :angry: :angry:

(EDIT: bold sentence edited for intended meaning)

[mf]

Hey hey, relax. Don't interpret my sentence global and isolated from its context please. Did you ever read "in general" in my post? Well, if you did, I didn't type it. So take a chill pill and read my second post in this thread as well.

[duartix]

Chill pill taken. ;)

I have a lot of respect for the Japanese culture, but this kind of actions make me go rampage mad! :devil:
It reminds me of something Anton Chekov(?) once said:
"First they came and took the black,
I didn't speak out then because I wasn't black,
Then they came and took the jews,
I didn't speak out then because I wasn't a jew,
Then they came and took me
and when I looked around there wasn't anyone left to speak...

This is why I'm shouting...

I've read both your posts, and since I didn't know where you stand that's why I said: the kind of view portrayed in your sentence.
Your sentence (out of context) looks just like the kind of dangerous arguments that securitarist politicians are using these later days.

[echooff]

we know most guns end up hurting the wrong people and very few actually managed to use a gun to protect themselves,


While doing a research paper for one of my graduate classes, I looked into this very question. This statement is completely untrue. Just a bit of misinformation put out there by the antigun lobby and repeated endlessly by their supporters and reporters who don't bother to check facts. It is called laziness in the real world. The same thing is happening with p2p. There are people using it for neferious purposes. It is easy to paint with a broad brush, and the lazy media is easy to manipulate. It may not be long before p2p is outlawed, or they scare normal people away through threat of lawsuit.

Before anyone bothers to blast me please be aware: I do not now, nor have I in the past, or do I plan in the future to own a gun. I'm not anti gun, just not interested.

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by Zarxrax
But a handgun is designed only to kill...No, its also very useful for other things, like...


- Switching off the lights when you are going to bed

- Turning off this disturbing alarm-clock when you wake up

- Opening this "f#cking hard to open" milk-carton for your breakfast

- Menacing ppl you dont like to get some money to buy new milk for tomorrow


Bye

[mf]

Originally posted by duartix
Chill pill taken.Great. :)Your sentence (out of context) looks just like the kind of dangerous arguments that securitarist politicians are using these later days. The dangerous part is the consequences that securitist (aka bribed) politicians want to make this statement imply. It's useless to fight the analogy itself, cause it in itself is true. If you share public domain files (aka not copyrighted), you should not have anything (don't take the "anything" literally, everyone has right to privacy) to hide (except in strange countries, like unmei mentioned). It's better to fight these proposed consequences. Or of course the theft analogy, which is downright false (see also the Shoplifting vs. Downloading thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65012), if you disagree).

[Neo Neko]

It's a war. A largely silent war. The old guard is fighting tooth and nail to halt the progress of the future. A future which they refuse to take part in and most definatly will not be a part of. But you can't fight the future. It is inevitable. At best you can only hold it off for a short while. But they are more than happy to try.

For years now there has been a most heinous force attacking these poor innocent mega corporations. A force known as change. But in these markets change is slow to come for many reasons. Not the least of which is the fact they fight it. For instance TV and radio broadcasts in the US can only be done on licensed frequencies which are all almost completely controlled by big business. These public frequencies are not accessable for public use. And a few nutcases got it in their heads a decade ago to lobby the government to mandate the use of 30+ year old techology developed durring world war 2. What technology you ask? Spread spectrum of course. If the government and FCC specifically mandated the use of SS there would be no need to license frequency ranges. They would be avalible to anyone and everyone. Not that you could not put restriction on their usage. And it would not require massive wide spread infrastructure changes. Not like switching from analog to digital for TV and radio. Or from NTSC to HDTV. But fortunatly the mega corporations had exponentially more money to lobby with and effectively negated the lobying of those intelligent college educated nutcases.

I hope the sarcasm was clearly evident there. Anyhow while all that was going on unbenownst to most people a technological renesance was in the works that would be known to everyone. One which by now you are all familliar with. Namely computers and the Internet. Their potential has long been ignored and suppressed by the mega corps. General computing devices today can do what it used to take high dollar high end equipment in the past to acomplish. Which means that quite litteraly anyone can now do it. Which is great and all. But still missing something. A wide spread far reaching distribution mechanism. Enter the Internet. At first glance it was nothing much to look at. Barely able to adequatly transfer text. But it has never been still. Always progressing. To the point we are at today. Where it holds the possibility to transmit better than what is considdered broadcast quality to everyone who is connected to it by everyone who is connected to it. Middlemen be damned.

That is what has the mega corps crapping their pants. They are all of a sudden unnecesary. Obsolete. And they just had to do something about it. The best example of the public's ability to serve itself is peer to peer technology and networks. That is why they are so evil. Not because people trade licensed materials outside of their license. That's nothing new. But that people could use it to prolifferate licensed material within it's license without them. The mega corps that is. Artist's and content producers have a direct line to their audience. They just don't fully realize it or take advantage of it yet. But it is only a matter of time till someone does it and is highly sucessful. So much so that everyone else will rush to follow.

[Atamido]

Originally posted by SoonUDie
What I propose is simply what Mug Funky said: due process. While we do have a certain right to privacy and to freedom of action, that right extends only far enough that we don’t step on others’ rights. This is of course assuming that the government is acting in a way that is legal and right. There are examples today with the US and the war in Iraq, but I think it is easier to view these things from history.

In the US, during the 1940s and 1950s and attitude became prevalent which became known as McCarthyism. Basically, it meant that you believed that communists were evil and should be locked away. It became a government run witch hunt to discover who was a "communist". They created a propaganda machine that made everyone afraid of communists and convinced them to turn in their neighbors and friends if they suspected them. (very much like 1984) These people were forced to admit that they were guilty (whether or not they actually were) and name other people that could be charged.

For those that don't know, in the US its a constitutional right to be able to believe what you want, despite how unpopular it may be. The people that set up the government here recognized that there was always a possibility that the government could turn bad, and is in fact the entire reason that it is legal to own weapons. If the government were to ever become bad, the populace is supposed to rise up in revolution to restore proper order to the government. (not a real possibility now with advanced weaponry and such)

So, you have a situation where people had their rights trampled on and were imprisoned simply because they held an unpopular belief. And all of this was government run with the support of the people.

So keeping in mind that this happened relatively recently, and that it can (and will) happen again, why would it be bad for there to exist a form of communication that keeps your identity anonymous?

I am not saying that the government needs to provide this form of communication. I am saying that the government needs to allow it to exist because otherwise people will be persecuted for what they believe, and they will not have the rights specifically given them in the constitution.

(Laws may vary by geographic location. Certain rights afforded in the US are not considered rights in other countries. Other legal mumbo jumbo.)

[Atamido]

Originally posted by SoonUDie
Terrorist activity through bittorrent may be highly unlikely, but another type of crime happens constantly: piracy. We can’t simply ignore piracy because it’s only a crime involving loss of money – it still hurts people and violates their rights. Of course. Prosecute and arrest people that are distributing and obtaining information that they don't have a right to a copy of. This really has no bearing on the issues being discussed. Just because an item or idea is used for a specific cause the majority of the time, does not mean that all other causes are illegitimate.

The use of drugs is a simple example. There are many drugs that are considered a "controlled substance" and illegal to use in most cases. However hospitals and other medical facilities would have difficulty funtioning without the use of the drugs.

This is just a simple example and others could also be made. But it is enough to make the point that it is possible to have one use of and item or idea illegal, without that item or idea itself being illegal.