More Powerful Than The Government?

[RealitY]

Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@24 April 2003 - 21:29
It may mask, through, NAT, your particular machine IP, if you have a LAN. But, if your machine accepts the connection, and they see what they want in your MSF, then they have the IP of your router, which is given out by your ISP. Whether this is given out dynamically - every time you log on - or statically (obviously an easier target), the IP can be traced back to your ISP. The only answer is to block incoming IPs that are known to be used by snoopers or ranges of IPs that may be. Peer Guardian is good, but even better is to copy those ranges into a stout firewall like ZA Pro or Syquest Pro. That's what I've done. Syquest is a little easier to work with mechanically in importing the IPs. Is this clear as mud? 

Guess I need to call my Cable company and ask where they stand on this.

Two addition questions...

1. How much value does the "Remove Local IP's From .DAT" option carry in the KL Options.
I have used DatView and when clicking the "eye" on the right you can see the IP's of anyone you DL from (never got a blank one yet).
I guess this means that if this option is checked, then others would not see mine, though I would imagine this does not mask on any level larger than being seen through DatView or the like?

2. TIDE-HSV, I was very serious in the question I posed to you HERE at the top of Page 10 (last paragraph)

My deepest concerns lay with the DCMA and its apparent interpretation, thus possibly giving holders of copyright material more power than the FBI. I am personally thinking of recording a cd about taking a shit so that via the DCMA I can freely and without a court order invade the blond chicks privacy down the street based on the fact that she may be sharing my copyrighted material (shit). The DCMA is an ugly beast, absurd, and needs to be put to rest or modified. Maybe the law man here, Tide, could suggest what course can, and possibly will be taken to do so. It worries me greatly that at the cost of sharing some files, this ammunition could lead to the loss of some of my freedom and privacy.

On another note I read somewhere that simply by having your IP and Port your SF can be viewed due to how KaZaa functions. Example type http://localhost:1214/ (substitut your port if different as the default is 1214, KL running). I am curious how to get to the end result as this may even bypass the privacy patch.

Again, given serious thought I have considered changing my Handle to PARANOID (haha).

[nahan]

Hey im runnig enough firewall tech to keep people out .
So im not worried at all.

[chloe_cc2002]

"possession is 9/10 of the law?"

Ownership though is always intangible. Ever heard of equity's darling. He may dispossess because he purchases for value without notice of any prior titleholder whose title is tainted by some malfeasance.

[chloe_cc2002]

"possession is 9/10 of the law?"

Ownership though is always intangible. Ever heard of equity's darling. He may dispossess because he purchases for value without notice of any prior titleholder whose title is tainted by some malfeasance.

[chloe_cc2002]

The concept of permanent deprivation brings back all those amusing cases as to what constitutes an intent to permanently deprive a person of their property....eg the restaurant cases..where the patron sits down to a meal and does a runner....it is all a bit stale now.

My other half (american) found the concept of intent to permanently deprive strange and couldn't get his mind around it, given that conversion is generally not a crime in the US.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by Switeck@25 April 2003 - 06:42
Are ALL part of a concerted, well-planned effort to gain control over us in every way possible.

And we are playing right into their hands!
RIAA website attacks by 'unknown hackers'...multiple times, piracy reports, p2p useage rise, insanely publicized piracy court cases, rampant internet porn (especially on p2p networks which cannot be blocked by current Net Nanny-style software), and even computer viruses (often prevalent on p2p networks) furthers public sentiment that hackers/p2p pirates are anarcho-comunists bent on wrecking the US economy that need to be stopped AT ALL COSTS.

My deepest concerns in a nutshell.
I think the choice was Privacy or Piracy, though I think we longer can even choose the way things lOOk and given the actions we have taken. On the other hand I feel that even though we are seen as Thieves (currently accepted at large), hopefully many will still say NO at the invasion of our Privacy in namesake to stop us. Many times our freedoms have been threatened and undermined, while cloaked by the necessity to eliminate the bogeyman (us). Let's hope those at hand don't truly believe we are that large of a threat to take our rights, while giving them an exorbitant amount of power in the name of a dollar!!

[TIDE-HSV]

Sorry, Reality, I didn't realize there were dangling questions. On connection, once they've connected, they know your IP. IF you have the privacy patch, then they can't see the remainder of MSF. However, they can still tell that you have the film/mp3 that they are DLing from you at the moment. I think the best thing we can do is to write our congressmen. Don't laugh - it actually works. Go to http://www.anti-dmca.org/ for help in formulating what you want to write. So far, most legislators are only getting input from the RIAA/MPAA. And, Chloe, good luck on explaining the intangible nature of ownership - you'll need it.

[RealitY]

Originally posted by REALITY@24 April 2003 - 06:50
The DCMA is an ugly beast, absurd, and needs to be put to rest or modified. Maybe the law man here, Tide, could suggest what course can, and possibly will be taken to do so.

Well perhaps I can answer my own question somewhat as I had not given this much thougt...

Verizon's claim is that the subpoena violates the requirements of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The company maintains that the Act only applies to files hosted on an Internet company's network and not on the computer in a subscriber's home or office.

I'll buy that. Then Verizon goes on to say...

"Verizon feels very strongly that the privacy, safety and due process rights of hundreds of thousands -- or perhaps millions -- of Internet subscribers hang in the balance of the court's decision," said John Thorne, senior vice president and deputy general counsel for Verizon, in a statement.

Shit if these guys sold beans, toilet paper, or soda, then I'de be farting all day and wiping my ass with fluffy VerizonTP while sucking down VCola to the happy belch of someone supporting the real issue at hand, our FREEDOM.
Cheers to the guys at Verizon!!!!

Oh, and for those at Comcast well...
I wouldn't take a free promtional blow job from a Playboy Bunny if you were giving them out (well maybe, anyway...).
You !@#$%^&*() F**kin' Commy Pussies!!!!