[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20050407164140.01d7c618@localhost>
Date: Thu Apr 7 22:49:05 2005
From: lists at domain-logic.com (Randall Perry)
Subject: Re: Case ID 51560370 - Notice of Claimed
Infringement
>That's *AFAIK* not possible, if this would be true the edonckey/emule
>protocol would have a big design flaw and poeple couldn't even trade
>millions of files every day, some (most?) downloads would be corrutped
>as they could have potentialy downloaded a wrong chunk which in fact
>is from another file.
I came across this discussion:
http://forum.emule-project.net/lofiversion/index.php/t25107-150.html
..."Thats the point of file hashes. Emule doesn't work with file names for
anything apart from searches. It uses hashes. So they can say you have a
file with the same name and hash as one on e.g. sharereactor. Now that
makes it pretty clear that you are sharing the file (this is not conclusive
but makes it very likley,see my above post). In a criminal case you might
just get off (not beyond ALL resnable doubt) but in a civil case you are
screwed. "........
The opportunity for collisions causes 'reasonable' doubt. With all the
100's of terabytes being shared on P2P, I would imagine it quite possible
for a couple of hashes to match. (again, not concrete, but _possible_)
The problem is that such evidence admitted to court sets precedence for
plausible matches (as opposed to innocent until PROVEN beyond reasonable
doubt) to be presented as concrete fact. And I am not a P2P guy (except
BitTorrents of Fedora and Debian), but I am concerned about this mindset
for prosecution bleeding into digital signatures, encrypted emails (that
they cannot encrypt but see a string that resembles the characters 'I did
it' ).
Yeah, sorry about the analogies :)
http://www.domain-logic.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists