--- In the_gdf@y..., "givemebackblujaguar" <TheSeeker@E...> wrote:
> --- In the_gdf@y..., "joakim_a" <netfox100@h...> wrote:

> Since BearShare returns query hits regardless of it's security
> settings, there's nothing to stop the RIAA/MPAA from using any
client
> they want to gather lists of hosts sharing a particular file.

These are not admissible in court. No one can prove or disprove that
there exists a rogue server which returns query hits containing other
people's IP addresses. In fact, companies like MediaDefender have
been avoiding the "random IP address in query hits" strategy of
making searches and downloads less efficient because doing so would
further weaken the "a query hit is sufficient as evidence" argument.

Furthermore, there is no way to tie a query hit to its temporal
origination. Therefore, users with DHCP or other dynamic IP address
assignment schemes have an easy alibi: they were not using the IP
address in the time range specified.

I rather doubt that query hits alone are being counted as significant
proof of illegal activities.

> So basically, there is no security in the secure channels feature,

Thats a biased comment, completely ungrounded in fact.

Lets take secure leaves for example. This offers a pretty strong
security statement:

- No Secure leaf has more than 10 Ultrapeer connections

Note that clients like Qtrax and Shareaza allow leaves with limitless
numbers of Ultrapeers. This incredibly selfish behavior causes a
flood of query traffic. Although it maximizes results for the local
user, it impacts the network greatly. If every client behaved like
Qtrax, Gnutella would surely fall.

Therefore, requiring secure leaf connections assures that your
Ultrapeer cannot be used as an entrypoint by these abusive clients.
Unfortunately, it prevents more well behaved clients from connecting
as well. They can attach to Morpheus Ultrapeers if they choose.

Further clustering in the BearShare portion of the network will
shield most of our users from the monstrous traffic and spam that is
being passed around the general network.

Its almost like you started with the premise that "BearShare Secure
Channels" doesnt work or provide useful benefits, and then tried to
support your premise through specious arguments.