|
|
Posted by anthonyberet on 09/21/05 22:42
Technomage Hawke wrote:
> anthonyberet wrote:
>
>
>>This is something I have been thinking about.
>>Supposing on a browse of a user, you didn't get just their collection
>>but those of everyone on that primary? (this is similar to the
>>'ghost-files' bug).
>
>
> seen that many a time. its one of the reasons I just don't use WinMX. as for
> KazaA, I wouldn't trust the sharman networks to do anything right without
> backdooring my machines (hence, they aren't trusted either)..
>
>
>>Then the **IA couldn't get a definitive list of a user's shares without
>>downloading them.
>
>
> you'd be surprised at what can be done. getting a definitive list is one
> thing, getting the actual files, thats another. an accusation of sharing
> without actual evidence of sharing is nothing more than an accusation.
> unfortunately, the MMIA (Multi Media Association of America <yeah, its
> corny, but accurate>) is of the "legal opinion" that if you list it, you
> must be guilty by intent to share (even if no real files are present)
>
Yes, the RIAA stated in court recently that they generally don't
download files before issuing subpeonas.
>
>>In order to combat that threat, what if a small number (say 10%) of
>>transfers would be proxied via another peer on the primary?
>>- In that case, there would always be doubt about whether the IP address
>>recorded was actually the source of the files.
>
>
> unfortunately, the winmx network isn't decentralized enough to do this.
> you're better of getting a TOR server running and routing stuff via an
> encrypted domain.
>
- Sure it could do i t- would take a bit of work though.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|