[46394] in Cypherpunks
Re: Unmuzzy Explained
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Laszlo Vecsey)
Wed Jan 3 16:31:43 1996
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 15:31:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Laszlo Vecsey <master@internexus.net>
To: Jason Rentz <andr0id@midwest.net>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <199601031924.NAA24001@cdale1.midwest.net>
> >So is the idea beyond this that if file or a group of files were to
> >be distributed over many computers (possibly hundreds or more) then
> >none of the computers would be "responsible" for their content? I would
> >think that any participant in the network would have to claim full
> >responsibility for the content, assuming the file(s) could be accessed
> >from any of the participating servers.
> >
> Okay. So what if serveral groups of computers, in public FTP directories,
> allowed anonymous ftp uploads of "parts" of a file that would be construde
> as bad content. The only way to assemble the file is to download several
> parts of it from serveral diffrent servers and assemble the file on your
> system. Thus the illegal file isn't illegal until its assembled. Sorta
> like switchblade knives. Lots of places can sell the parts legally, they
> just can't sell the assembled product. Would the servers that contain
> "parts" of the file be responsible for the content?
PGP encrypting a file and putting it on an ftp site is unusable unless
you have the key to unlock it.. in this sense the file is only partly
on-line and therefore there would be no need to even split the file apart
to various servers! Would the site containing this PGP encrypted data
be responsible for it's content?
