we are doing a mock trial and i need to get some main points to my argument of the question found below. i would like to see what your input is.

Question:
****(I am the defendent for this case)

Should Barney be held liable for providing material support to a terrorist organization?

Background:

Freenet is a Peer-to-Peer networking architecture designed to facilitate anonymous and uncensorable publishing and retrieval of digital information [Clark et. all]. Users contribute disk space and bandwitdh to the system, and the collected pool of resources is used to store and retrieve files. [What is Freenet].

The Freenet system uses encryption and digital signatures to allow users to anonymously upload files, which will then be distributed and mirrored across the participating nodes in an unpredictable manner. The scattering of files makes it extremely difficult to remove information once it has been posted to Freenet. [Clark et. all]. As all communications are encrypted, participating nodes have no knowledge of the content, or the final destination of any request [What is Freenet]. Freenet was created to promote and protect free speech in potentially hostile environments [The Philosophy Behind Freenet].

For more information visit the Freenet Web-site.

Scenario:

Professor John Frink, having read about the open-source Freenet effort, pitched in and helped design and implement version 1.0 of the software. He told his friend, Barney Gumble, about the software; Barney decided to offer his computer as a node, in the interest of helping promote a forum for free speech on the Internet. Barney discussed his decision to join with his friends, Lenny and Carl. Lenny, a cryptographer familiar with the system, warned Barney that although the project had noble goals, it could also be used by criminals and terrorists for sinister purposes. Barney acknowledged Lenny's concerns, but replied that he believed that free speech was more important than any potential misuse of the system. In defense of his plan to join, Barney related a use Professor Frink had told him: "Cookie Kwan uses Freenet to receive uncensored news from her relatives, who are trapped in North Korea".

Hank Scorpio, an underground terrorist leader, realized that Freenet would be the perfect medium to distribute the information, and instructions, needed to enact his plan to overthrow the government. He published detailed instructions for the creation of high-impact explosives, as well as a list of targets to be destroyed: the Springfield Nuclear Power-plant and the Springfield Elementary School.

On opening day of the school year, Robert Terwilliger entered Springfield Elementary, and detonated a high-impact explosive. Terwilliger was killed instantly. The building's subsequent collapse left no survivors.

Springfield parents who lost children in the blast included: Ned Flanders, who lost both of his sons, Rod and Todd; Kurt and Luellen vanHouten, who lost their only child, Milhouse; Clancy and Sarah Wiggum, who lost their only child, Ralph; and Peter and Sue Muntz, who lost their son, Nelson.


During the ensuing investigation, Police Chief Wiggum (father of deceased child Ralph Wigum) determined that Terwilliger had been a cell of Scorpio's terrorist organization and had been using Freenet to communicate with other members of the organization. Wiggum seized Barney's computer, the only active Freenet node in town, and employed Lenny to examine the data-store. Lenny found copies of Scorpio's instructions and target list; he also found evidence that Barney's node had been used to retrieve those files, by an unknown number of users. Chief Wiggum eventually determined that, other than the freenet data-store, Barney had no connection to the terrorist organization.


When news of the police findings reached the Flanders, vanHouten, and Muntz households, they filed class-action lawsuits against both Professor Frink and Barney Gumble, claiming they had both contributed to the wrongful deaths of their children.

Opposing links:


'Cubby v. CompuServ Inc' ruling

 

It wouldn't be ethical for me to provide you with the answer

 

Ditto^

 

I agree with the two above. This is less about coming up with a concrete answer, but justifying your defense with facts about the case and maybe appealing to the "mock jury's" emotions. People will argue it both ways, your job is to argue it one way or another and then support your argument.

 

I think a big weakness as the defendant is that if Lenny managed to find copies of Scorpio's instructions and target list, as you note in the second last paragraph, it should have been possible for the service provider to also find such info.

But I do agree with S1999+1, this is more a test of your ability to justify your arguments rather than coming up with the right answer. I am studying a legal course at the moment and it is quite possible to pass an assignment or exam even if you give the "wrong" answer, as long as you argue your case logically.

 

ttt

 

can someone that understands this please provide me with a clear explanatory summary

 

There's several scenarios that are similar to this:

1. In England, people found with child porn on there machines are let off because a "hacker" or "trojan" placed the files there without their knowledge.

2. Hack attacks being traced back to machines and the owner of the machine denying involvement because their machine was hacked by outsiders.

There's a debate going on today on Slashdot about #2, and #1 came up several times since this past summer.

With your case:
1. Look up "attractive nuisance" and see where that goes, especially for lawsuits.
2. Freenet is supposed to be difficult to crack, if the Chinese Government hasn't (supposedly) cracked it, I doubt some unshaven geek would in in any reasonable time.
3. Lenny, the defendant's "friend" was used by the police to get evidence on the defendant? There's gotta be something wrong with that right there.

I can see arguing the case from the standpoint of having the evidence thrown out. But the assignment is about responsibility.

There are no right answers.

In my opinion (IANAL, and this is off the top of my head. You are responsible for your own research, not me) :
His computer was used, though he wasn't responsible. Kids died, and someone has to pay for the crime. It's all about blame you see. The fingers can point all they want, as long as they are not pointing at you. There's no possible way the defendant can win if this were a real life scenario. Liability is AFAIR a "preponderance of the evidence", you do not need a unanimous jury decision to say he's liable (simple majority?). So assume he's 1% liable and there's a $1B verdict. Got a spare million to pay off for the rest of your life? You're gonna have to.

 

1. Someone had a computer set up for public use.
2. This computer was used by a terrorist organization to organize a terrorist act.
3. There's no reason to believe the owner of the computer had any knowledge of what the computer was being used for by nature of the software being run on it.
4. Victims and relatives of the terrorist attack are suing the computer owner for contributing to the attack, probably because of negligence on the computer owner's part.

That about does it.

 

Under the USA Patriot Act they can throw Barney's ass in a cell at the Army base in Guantanamo Bay and keep him there indefinitely without legal representation or an appearence in front of a judge, simply for suspicion of aiding and abetting a terrorist. No joke....

Key points for both sides to argue - negligence, intent. Obviously, there was no intent by Barney to specifically help the terrorist. However, was he negligent by setting up his computer to be so easily used by anyone for a deviant purpose?

What kind of class is this anyhow? 3 families would not qualify for class action status in most courts.