p2p, anonymity and security

[Greg Rundlett]

Derek Martin wrote:

> I feel obligated to point out that you are basically advertising in a
> relatively public forum your intention to violate Federal law.  This
> is rather a bad idea, particularly in today's climate.
I am not advertising any intention to violate any law.  My intention is 
explicitly stated and legal (and this is a wholely public forum).  I 
think it's a good idea to discuss anything.  Who gets to discuss illegal 
things?  Only lawyers?
   It is
> certainly possible to exchange materials which do not have copyrights
> to which you are not the owner via these file sharing networks;
> however I don't think anyone here is naive enough to believe that is
> (exclusively) what you intend...
You confused me a bit with this wording.  I think you meant to say that 
you agree there are thousands of legitimate uses for this technology, 
and only the naive here will forget all the fair-use rights bestowed 
upon us all.  Or  else you were saying that I could share all the 
Grateful Dead songs, public speeches, and other forms of un-encumbered 
media that I want.

> What you have said is almost certainly not enough to charge you, but
> if interested parties were/are paying attention, it's probably enough
> for them to get a subpoena...

IANAL, so I can't say with any degree of certainty what requirements 
must be met to subpoena a person.  But expressing "I would like a gun to 
hunt food" does not equal "Subpoena: Show me your murder weapons".

To the legal eagles ready to take my rights away, there are much bigger 
fish to catch: http://www.archive.org/audio/etree.php