Re: Unmuzzy Explained

[Laszlo Vecsey <master@internexus.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?