Slashdot Mirror
Freenet Project Taking Donations
We've had word from a number of readers that the Freenet Project has setup an area to accept donations. These folks are doing wonderful work - using a GPL project, non-profit, dedicated to a decentralized free speech network. I highly recommend donating.
People massively distributing illegal stuff will meet the same fate as Napster. Deny it all you want if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
Have you ever tried to use telnet to browse the
web? Using the current Freenet client is like that.
Although Freenet is not ready, it does provide
infrastructure for higher level tools to be
created (browsers or whatever).
Right now, you're probably blaming the
protocol testing tools.
This is the internet!! People should have a right to be annonymous. People should have the right to be anarchist. The internet was made by people like us, we should decide how we want to use it, not some congress person. Saying you think people should be held accountable for what they say is saying you support censorship, and if you support censorship you dont support free speech.
Uh, freenet's not about peddling your thoughts and speeches. It's about peddling kiddie porn and MP3s.
If you knew what freenet was, you'd know that a temporary copy of a requested file is made on each node between the client and server. If you knew what TCP was, you'd know that theres a source address there and besides you couldn't connect to freenet without one. If you knew what the law was, you'd know that explaining to a jury that you are innocent even though your node/server/whatever held and served up a copy of some illegal stuffs to an investigator just isn't going to cut it.
a distributed on-demand data storage system that actually works. Because Freenet sure as hell needs one. It's the .NET of the Free Software community: utter bollocksware.
Yes, this is why I'm working on apt-get over Freenet (see http://eof.sourceforge.net/apt/). Think of the effect of thousands of Debian users getting stuff off Freenet instead of a Debian mirror. It's good for Freenet, and it's good for Debian (since mirrors no longer have to be maintained and will significantly drop in load). The only disadvantage to apt-get over Freenet is that unpopular packages fall out, so there will still need to be a few mirrors around.
Once this post is modded "Troll," it will be self-evident that the leaders of the Slashdot community are borderline anarchist liberals. Perhaps you'll recongnize the irony that I've posted this as an Anonymous Coward and therefore am not available for a rebuttal. See how it can be? Have a nice day.
Posted by damiam:
Would it be possible to modity a Freenet client so that it would refuse to accept and host certain files (filter file names for "rape", "porn", "fuck", "sex", etc.)?
Unfortunately, that conversation was just a buildup to the inane "ESR Is My Bitch" bullshit that is the hallmark of all streetlawyer posts. Hit 'em with some factual, yet annoying flamebaity, stuff, bitch 'n moan about being oppressed by the groupthink, post a story making the person look good, then post total crap. Claim the last post was voted down due to groupthink. Repeat.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
I'd suggest a reading of the docs on the site to understand what sort of information is available on a node, and how it gets there.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
but paypal rejected my beenz.com credit card. How odd.
I'd like to encourage through donation specifically the development of a non-Java version. There doesn't appear to be much progress on alternative implementations (I read somewhere that that was in part due to constantly shifting specs and lack of a fixed API -- sounds like a nightmare for everyone off the main branch), so perhaps donations would help.
On the other hand, without a fixed API, this ain't going anyware.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
The fact is that even when you have free speech granted, the society we live in is such that you sometime have interest to use your right in an anonymous manner. This is because you may speak against some people's opinion. These people, regardless of your right, may do their best to find you and "remove" you ability to speak. ("what the point of a phone call if you are unable to speak?" ;)
Freenet is important in that respect in that it let you exerce your right in an anonymous way.
Despite the belief of many people, being on the Internet will become less and less anonymous. In some country (eg: Belgium), ISPs HAVE TO keep record of who used which IP address when for as long as 12 months... This may question the legality of using Freenet in these countries.
One should not see freenet as an iceland when you can exerce free speech, as unlike in the physical world, the internet can be available "everywhere".
Well, the more I write, the more it seems simplistic view, but anyway, freenet looks like the best project toward its goals today.
I just donated $20 with paypal and the process took less than 1 minute. Compare that to the time to write out a check, print out an envelope, put on a stamp. I think that it should be easier for various non-profits and for-profits to increase their donations in this manner as the cost in time to the donor goes down substantially.
Stuart Eichert
Stuart Eichert
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The basketball games on right now suck, I'm not going to watch WaterWorld, and I think He Hate Me is out with an injury. Please say yes.
Cheers,
He was talking about donating money. If he wants to go back and revise what he said, that's fine — it's his business and his money — but I'm just going on what he said.
Cheers,
You're not just going to tell other people to donate, are you? Seriously.
One other quick question, which I still haven't seen answered. When Slashdot was bought, and the parent company(ies) were going to have IPOs, I believe that you and CmdrTaco would be donating some of the income to Free Software or other projects you supported. Have you done so yet, and to which causes? Thanks.
Cheers,
You may just brush off that comment, but trust me...it's good advice
I'm graduating from college this May, and I recently received a copy of my credit report, to make sure I'd be ok for a mortgage. I've used one credit card since freshman year, but my entire wardrobe is made up of t-shirts from pretend-applications. I opened my report, and it had me listed as having FOUR other cards that I didn't know about. It also had 9 names for me, and 7 addresses. It was a MESS.
Took me about 3 days to sort out...it was really annoying
Juiced? Or Not?
There's a big difference. When the Thirteen Colonies declared their independence, they did it because England was denying them their free speech. But free speech is not restricted on the internet as a whole (it might be in some small areas however). Imagine if one of those Thirteen Colonies had seceeded in 1786 on the basis that they wanted to create a free speech haven. It would have been absurd because they already had it!
I don't have to go to freenet to peddle my thoughts and speeches. I can already do that without fear of reprisal.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I don't see how freenet could have avoided the abuses in the DeCSS or CPHACK cases. Jon could have released DeCSS anonymously with the services of freenet, but he could also have done it anonymously *without* freenet. He got in trouble because he chose to place his name and his license on his code.
Freenet isn't a free speech haven. It's a speakeasy.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Never having to answer the question "Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?": Priceless.
A strange thing happened to free speech a few decades ago. The majority of people took free speech for granted, and a small minority tried to take advantage of that. Then some college kids said enough is enough, and tried to fix things. But being college kids, their brains were the consistancy of tapioca. They meant well but they screwed up big time...
You see, they had this very strange notion that free speech needed an official place to be excercised. So they designated official "free speech areas". If you wanted to protest the war in Vietnam, you went to a designated free speech area and said your piece. Apparently they didn't believe that free speech was allowed on the street corners. The result of that movement is today's political correctness, and the heart of political correctness is UC Berkeley, home of the free speech movement.
Freenet is going down that same path. They're designating an official place to practice free speech. Apparently, they to do not understand that free speech on the internet is for everyone everywhere. If free speech is ever fully taken away from us, it will be in part the fault of freenet and their unfree notion that freedom needs to be corraled inside a fence instead of being excercised anywhere and everywhere.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
What happens when you use it for whistle blowing, and then a reveal-all bug is discovered the next day? Ooops.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
from freenet.sourceforge.net:
"Freenet is a large-scale peer-to-peer network which pools the power of member computers around the world to create a massive virtual information store open to anyone to freely publish or view information of all kinds."
I didn't know what it was, so I looked it up. I'm also gonna be donating.
I should have mentioned... the quote "Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?" is from Mike Godwin of the EFF. It's part of the title quote on the Freenet home page.
Personally, I would have left out the "of the press" bit, but that's just me. I mean, we're not talking about the freedom of just the press, but the freedom of speech in general.
Paypal membership: free
Donation to Freenet: $20
Never having to answer the question "Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?": Priceless.
[I know, it's been done, but I couldn't resist :-) ]
Well gee I wonder why free speech was included in the constitution and not aids or red cross?
War is necrophilia.
No, but all those free MasterCard t-shirts you signed up for in college might.
Downloaded Freenet. OK. Went to Espra. The betatesting signup asks, "tell us your amazingly convincing reason to be on the espra betatest team". Truth be told, my lack of even a convincing reason caused me to kill the page. Such is life.
NinjaBurger?
-Docvert converts MSWord to OpenDocument, clean HTML
If you knew what Freenet was, you'd know that it doesn't let you know what server host what, and even the server admin himself cannot know what he is hosting...
Except even when you snoop the TCP connection it is encrypted, both the content and the search request. Basically they have no way of knowing what infos you are looking for, what results you get and what you download, and who had the info in the first place (other nodes are just cache, and the admin can't even know what is cached).
tcpdump won't tell you which server hosted the data, as each Freenet node is a proxy to other nodes. You can know which was the final node the data went thru, but not the originating server.
And even if you could trace back datas to the first server who hosted them, you couldn't delete them. You couldn't either find the guy who made them available, nor sue the node manager as per DMCA he is not responsible as long as he removes the content from his server upon request.
Frankly I fail to see how tcpdump can do anything else than finding that "A asked a freenet node B some information, and got something in return". That's pretty weak evidences to put someone into jail...
If it was free speech you would be able to post it on your web page and the government would leave you alone.
DeCSS, MP3, the OT III documents, MS source code publishing, etc... they are all censorship done by corporations or "religions". The biggest enemy of free speech is not the governement (although they are not very fond of it) but private entities. Why do you Americans need to accuse your governement of all problems when most them are actually caused by a lack of governement, which lets corporations do whatever they want without any limits ??? I just don't get it...
Read their webpage. They plan to use layers of indirection to disguise who is sending what.
This is a good thing. Great mission statement.
I especially like the idea of using this money to fund lawsuits, since I suspect the Freenet people are very likely to be sued by MPAA/RIAA et al. Probably next year they will have Congress pass a law making Freenet-like services illegal.
----
"Here to discuss how the AOL merger will affect consumers is the CEO of AOL."
grep -ri 'should work'
By declaring the thirteen colonies independent of the United Kingdom (or whatever it was called in 1776), and then declaring them free-speech areas, did that set back the cause of freedom in, say, Canada or England? Hardly. It set a good example.
Oppose the DMCA, the CDA, and whatever other laws try to take away your freedom of speech. But don't attack those who are trying to circumvent the laws, because they are not the problem.
----
"Here to discuss how the AOL merger will affect consumers is the CEO of AOL."
grep -ri 'should work'
I have heard Clarke talk about this thing for a year + and I have yet to see it do anything. Can someone who has used it for anything give us an update?
- I like pudding.
This strikes me as a bit odd. One of Freenet's core ideas is a total lack of centralized control, even of centralized bottlenecks where opponents can monitor traffic. Taking donations, however, seems to be deliberately creating just such a target. It's like painting a big 'Ground Zero' sign out in the desert somewhere and hoping to attract missiles. I can just see the dialog now:
Oppressor #1 [Pointy haired boss amongst the oppressors]: Look! We've finally found those dastardly pirate lovers home base. Let's strike a blow against child pornographers, music pirates, and vicious terrorists everywhere! Fire the missiles!
Oppressor #2 [a uniformed flunky, who presses the button labeled 'Attack Lawyer']: Missiles away, sir. Tracking... tracking... direct hit sir, they're sucking their funding dry. Operation complete sir.
Oppressor #1: Heh. That'll show them.
Oppressor #1 [yells]: All your donations are belong to us!
Oppressor #1 [to #2]: Let's go tell the secret masters at RIAA about our victory. [They leave.]
[Meanwhile, our heros are snickering up their sleeves while they paint a big sign labelled 'Freenet Pyrate and Pedophile HQ' in big red letters on the side of Oppressor #1's house...]
He is talking about just using tcpdump--netstat would do the job--to see what server transfers illegal data. The encryption is irrelevant.
Frankly I fail to see how tcpdump can do anything else than finding that "A asked a freenet node B some information, and got something in return". That's pretty weak evidences to put someone into jail...
Actually, this is what I was talking about. You would know who the direct contact was. They could get him as an accomplice. You only need to make a few "examples" to put fear into people.
"Freenet is designed to make censorship impossible. While most people agree that excessive censorship is bad, some stop short of saying that censorship should be abolished altogether. My personal belief is that censorship of any form is fundamentally flawed."
Freenet Philosphy page
I happen to agree whole heartedly with that. While it's true that Freenet *could* be used for illegal purposes, that is clearly not its intent.
You may argue that Freenet facilitates software piracy, but then, so do computers. Computers make the use and the "theft" of software possible. Maybe you think that's an outlandish statement, well then how about the fact that people can (and probably do) use PGP and annoymous remailers to pass other people's credit card numbers around. Should projects like GNU Privacy Guard and annonymous remailer software not be supported because of this? I certainly don't think so.
Freenet is about privacy NOT piracy, and for me, anything that enables ordinary people to have some degree of electronic *privacy* is worthy of everyone's support.
The A-Infos Radio Project http://www.radio4all.net
Let's keep this in perspective here. If we're talking about a totalitarian world government that restricts political speech and forbids all individual thought, then I agree. If we're talking about an anonymous, encrypted network of MP3s and kiddie porn... um, no.
Well, dear, I can't remember. Last I remember was 2001, when the Internet had freedom of the press -- major democractic governments didn't stop legitimate political or journalistic speech, and totalitarian governments continued exactly as they always had (if the Internet threatened, they could just throw you in jail for using a particular piece of software, e.g. Freenet). After that, things are kind of a blur. You see, Freenet was released, and I devoted my life to the cause -- that is, I spent my days with warez 'n' kiddie porn. (They actually believed that freedom crap!)
Well, I don't live in the US, and I happen to believe that while gunmakers shouldn't be held accountable -- it's not as if they lied about what guns were for, and they were legally allowed to make guns -- they should not be allowed to make guns. But that's irrelevant here; the analogy doesn't hold. The parallel of the gunmaker would be Ian Clarke, the programmer of Freenet, and we're not discussing him. The parallel of Freenet, however, would be a gun that, uncontrollably by the owner, fires random shots. (OK, not a perfect parallel, but analogies are rarely perfect.)
As to the DNS-and-paper argument, it's missing what these arguments tend to miss: common sense. Here's one of the more obvious rebuttals to it. Paper is a medium, it can be used to hold anything. As is Freenet. Again, I happen to think Freenet is a Bad Thing, but I don't believe that it itself is necessarily illegal. But just as using photographic paper to make a print of said eight-year-old is illegal, so is using Freenet to distribute (wittingly or unwittingly) such content. And considering that Freenet works on a popularity model, where nodes give priority to storing the most popular files, I have no doubt that 99% of all nodes will contain some illegal content.
Right. I agree. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. But considering that Freenet nodes give priority to the most popular content, I have no doubt that 99% of nodes would (do?) contain illegal content.
I doubt any other countries would follow suit.
Here I disagree. I can't think of any industrialized country which doesn't have strong control over distribution of either forbidden or copyright content. The US, from what I know (not American) has fairly lax laws on forbidden content. Many nations forbid, for instance, hate speech. France and Germany have prosecuted foreign Internet sites for selling Nazi items. I think they'd be just as quick to go after users of Freenet as the US. The countries that wouldn't care too much, I think, would be the poorer countries.
One of the most-repeated things here is that, as Freenet is decentralized, it's impregnable. Now, it's true that because of the decentralization, there'll always be a few people running nodes. But I don't think that the assumption that individuals running nodes will never be gone after is true in this case.
With something like Napster, there was never a question of going after all -- or even some -- users. Millions of people were using it, and the only group who would really WANT to prosecute people, the RIAA, couldn't risk the loss popularity. But Freenet's a different story. Here's what I see happening.
In the public mind, one of the most reprehensible forms of "information" possible is kiddie porn, so I'll use that as an example.
Someone -- police? concerned citizen? -- intentionally downloads a picture of, say, a terrified eight-year-old with bleeding cuts all over her body being violently raped. They get the IP of the node that sent it to them and sue the ISP and, in turn, whoever was running the node.
There is a court case. The prosecution argues, straightforwardly, that both possession and distribution of such material are crimes. The defense argues that, as the operator of the node wasn't aware of what his computer was storing or distributing, he/she couldn't be held responsible. Now, I'm no lawyer, but this seems to me to be an update of the old grade-school trick of closing your eyes, swinging your fists toward someone, and saying I'm just exercising my right to swing my arms, and if you happen to be in the way it's your fault. In other words, though the owner may not have known exactly what their node was distributing, they did know that it was likely that they would be distributing illegal content, and they installed Freenet anyway.
Running Freenet, then, would very likely be illegal. And unlike in cases like Napster, there would be a large army of publically-supported people interested in finding and going after Freenet users. Why? Remember what we're talking about here -- beaten, raped eight-year-olds. Does anyone believe that a majority of any large country would be in favour of distributing pictures of beaten, raped eight-year-olds? So popularity ceases to be an issue. And once a significant percentage of Freenet users have been prosecuted, many remaining users would no doubt be afraid to run it, leaving only a few true believers and residents of small/developing countries.
I may not be a prophet, but if a system as destructive to accepted notions of what's decent and where freedom and anarchy separate ever becomes popular, there's gonna be trouble. And plenty of it.
One other quick question, which I still haven't seen answered. When Slashdot was bought, and the parent company(ies) were going to have IPOs, I believe that you and CmdrTaco would be donating some of the income to Free Software or other projects you supported. Have you done so yet, and to which causes?
We just had a discussion on kuro5hin about how unlike Larry Augustin (VA Linux CEO) and the other suits at VA Linux, ESR and CmdrTaco didn't sell VA Linux stock when they had the chance. With VA Linux currently trading at around $3 there isn't much money to be made from the stock especially after taxes.
And you can be sure lots of companies are trying out similar ideas; probably some of them got the idea from Freenet. The experiments will probably continue and be funded by VCs in other companies, but Freenet has enough interesting properties to deserve support from people who just want to see what new solutions can be found for old Internet problems.
I agree with you, and I am by no means conservative or liberal. What I should have said in my original post was "borderline-anarchist liberals" instead of "borderline anarchist liberals" to clarify that as far as political philosophies go, when either of them is taken to the extreme, it smacks of anarchy and disorder. I really dispise what the Christian conservatives are doing in the United States with censorship. I blame most of it on the Baptists, a sect of Christianity which, in the United States, participates in wholesale censorship lobbying, degredation of women's roles in the world, etc. (Check out Landover Baptist and their Role of Women Bible Quiz to get an idea of how Baptists' extreme literal interpretation of Bibical verse is used to make the world a worser place.)
-------------------------
Stupid people suck.
"Like I said before, free speech means nothing if you're dead."
To which I say "Life means nothing if you can't speak freely."
Wow. I mean, wow! I've seen moronic trolls with no real perspective outside of a slavish devotion to the first 4 or 5 items in the bill of rights before. I've seen /.ers so wrapped up in their right to swap music that they elevate it to the same level as political dissidents in china or the founding fathers. But you really take the cake.
Tell me you were trying for some sort of irony. tell me you're not really this stupid. please.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Sadly, there are a lot of people who really think like this. Just go back and look at the discussions about the D&D movie. Personaly, I don't get the additude. Like, I can't sing. At all. Really, aweful, no pitch, I got tossed from 7th grade chorus if you can believe that. But my high school had a kick ass musical department, and I stage crewed for the musicals and went to the concerts, and damn it, I know what good singing sounds like and what bad singing sounds like. And I don't care if I'm watching a multimillion dollar star, if I say "her voice was a little off tonight, I hope she gets a rest" I don't need to be able to "do better" to make that judgement.
I don't doubt that there are stuations where an outsider doesn't have the right to say "they should have done that better/different/my way", but telling people they don't have the right to comment unless they can do better gets old real fast when zealots use it against any criticism of something they like.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
you mean as opposed to the government funding the research then the results becoming corportate IP? Its a pretty good tossup, IMHO on whether removing the corporate or the government imputus to research would have worse effects. But AFAIK, research is nowhere near "stagnating" at universities where the major funding is government grants. And we'd be even better off if the results of those studies didn't end up lining corporate pockets when they put in a minority of the cash.
The corporate sector may build a better mousetrap, but the government destroyed smallpox. Don't let your love of the "free market" blind you to the real tradeoffs. The kind of free speach that medical research needs is in no danger, and the freenet model of unverified data, trust by voting and anyone can vote and "be an informed consumer of information" would be a hell of a lot more destructive to medical research than anything the givernment could impose.
Perspective, guys, persective.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
if a reference to the content creator was included with a file -- where you could give money to the content creators
Then use the format's tagging facility. For tarballs, use a text file named README. For MP3 audio, use ID3v2.
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You make an excellent argument, and had I not already commented on this article, I'd mod you up. :-) I do not have too much beef with drug laws and such, but I do believe that our government and society stretch them a bit more than necessary. I am an individualist, if such a thing is to exist. I believe in the individual's rights to choose for him/her-self. Of course, there are other underlying notions with that... such as that individual requiring a certain amount of education on things before running out and deciding on it. Eh, I guess if I were to write a book about my social beliefs, I could cover all the back doors and flaws that /. could come up with. :-)
I apologize. I merely worded it wrong. I meant to say that networks pay the teams to broadcast their games, just like the RIAA should be paying Napster to "broadcast" it's music. I merely said it backwards. I apologize.
*begin offtopic mode - moderators ignore*
As far as "going the way of Napster" is concerned, I see this as all but dependent upon Napster's fate. If Napster is shut down, that will be a huge blow to portals every where. Napster has done absolutely nothing wrong - it is merely the portal. It makes downloading music easier, but downloading music is not officially a crime. Sure, there are intellectual property laws and ... blah blah blah ... I think that is a load of crap. No one cared when I copied my friends' CDs over to cassette a decade ago. I see a double standard.
So I will make two quick comparisons, and then I will shut up about Napster.
(1) Baseball. Baseball games are broadcast on television, often nationally. This makes it easier for the fans to see the games without paying all that money to buy tickets, travel to the game, pay for parking, food, etc. etc. etc. Television is a portal that prevents baseball teams from receiving higher attendance revenue - but wait - these teams pay for television to broadcast their games! Why? Because this increases support for the game of baseball. And look at what Napster has done for music. While the RIAA does everything in its power to state the opposite, Napster and online mp3 distribution through other media has increased CD sales, even with the RIAA raising the average price of a full-length CD! It seems to me that the RIAA should be a little more appreciative of Napster and mp3 distribution, and that artists like Metallica should shut the hell up.
(2) Drugs/weapons dealers. The view that the anti-Napster community will likely take is that Napster is similar to a drug dealer in that it is making it easier for anyone and everyone to commit a crime, that crime being the infringment on someone's copyright, the trespassing on someone's intellectual property. As you could guess, I see nothing logical about this argument, and I am against it. Go figure.
Sorry for such a long, semi-off-topic post. It isn't completely off-topic - it does relate to the issue at hand. But... I guess you guys can be the judge of that.
Are there any good clients out there?
You're one of those basterds who have been getting request failures for "*brittiny spears*" for the past few months, aren't you?
------
Not a typewriter
Criminy, this is what counts as being good work? Oh come on now, besides the fact at it uses popularity to determine file storage (err, most of www.textfiles.com would go kerplunk, I know that most of their files are rarely accessed, but well appreicated when they are) the fact is that it is NOT ANONYMOUS!!
# sec4.1) would have to use remailers anyways, so why the hell not just build up a decent kill file and pay $9.95 for the worlds largest uncencorable source of, well, everything!
Most people seem to miss this, but over the internets current structure (TCP/IP) every computer has an address. Any other alternative system STILL REQUIRES AN ADDRESS. Your address is passed along to the server that you are downloading the file from, obviously, or else the server wouldn't know where to send the file.
Now then, with freenet the files are distributed over multiple sources. Which is perfectly nice, for making it hard to track who is DISTRIBUTING the files. But for who is retrieving them, hell, that is easy. Any half asses packet sniffer, or hell, if you are on dialup, a packet capture device hooked to your phone line that only activiates when you connect to the internet, could easily keep track of the requests you make and the files you download.
Err, now, wait, freenets FAQ states that it is not encryped safely! In fact, they say that they are less secure then remailers. What is more, you would have to go through a remailer style message delay to get true security.
You know how friggin ANNOYING a packet delay system would be if it was connected to a file transfer system?? Yet, this is the ONLY way that freenet will ever be secure. Well, that and high encryption levels combinded together with it.
Doh, seems to me that all of a sudden getting those MP3's could be a major pain in the ass.
Not to mention that you without such systems, you would not be truly anon, and would be open to any smart ass with some tracerouting.
Heya, but wait, where then you ask IS there a truly anon system with file transfer and delayed sends and encryption and an already established user base and a complex and meaningfull layout of subjects?? Want that tech to be proven too? Plateform support???
Try usenet. Turns out that freenet (by there own admission, try http://freenet.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=faq
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
To quote from the freenet FAQ:
"Freenet does not offer true anonymity in the way that the Mixmaster and cypherpunk remailers do. Most of the non-trivial attacks (advanced traffic analysis, compromising any given majority of the nodes, etc.) that these were designed to counter would probably be successful in identifying someone making requests on Freenet."
Someone making requests on freenet can indeed be identified. If I put a packet snifffer/analyzer on your connection I would be able to tell what you where asking for, and then mabye what you where recieving (since asking for something illigitimat not neccisarily illegial, but actualy getting it often times is).
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Your point is fair enough. If 'free speech' means not only the freedom to speak, however, but also the freedom to hear others speak, then freenet can still be quite valuable on the free speech front.
You don't *have to* hide things on freenet. That's merely optional. You can post them and announce them. On freenet, they cannot be removed. (until they disappear eventually from lack of interest.)
*You* can decide how much freedom/security/anonymity/accountability you need, but *your speech* (as it is embodied on freenet) will remain free.
I believe that the best way for Freenet to garantue it's survival is to put it into use for as many "non-suspicious" purposes as possible, e.g.:
If Freenet is only used by those who require the freedom, then it is easy to claim that "Freenet is only used by criminals" and to "outlaw the use of technologies such as those utilized by Freenet" - with the obvious result that Freenet will not be available for legal - but "suspicious" - purposes.
Claus
Thanks especially to all who supported the Offshore Napster Server Fund. There's been an out pouring of not only money but hardware, services, and support. I hope the same happens for Freenet.
Matt
Pirates are the end users who use the programs and infrastructure to do things that are antiquated laws have deemed to be 'illegal'.
Should the RIAA be suing the creators of FTP or IRC because they can be used to share copyright material?
Matt
I'd prefer to donate my money for cancer and AIDS research, the Red Cross, etc.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
I couldn't get to the the paypal site. Slashdotted already. Ironic isn't it? A scalable, secure, information exchange system that I can't donate to because of the overwhelming number of requests....
there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
tee hee
Before we resort to calling each other names here is an excerpt from Freenets web site:
Freenet itself merely provides the infrastructure for storing and retrieving information, it does not provide an easy-to-use interface for the user. To address this issue we encourage the creation of Freenet clients.To restate what they've said, they know there isn't an cool looking front end right now because they're been working on the infrastructure. But they encourage all those willing to help to create a client.
We should, of course, come to an informed decision first before donating instead of blindly throwing our money at something. I would even suggest, those leery of donating your money, try donating some time and help the cause.
Assuming, of course, you agree with the philosophy of Freenet. Otherwise donate your time and/or money to another worthy cause.
Wait! We can keep this on-topic yet!
Unlike Napster et al., Freenet is designed such that no matter where Mir leaves a crater, there will be very little or no loss of data from the Freenet network. Obviously "highly survivable" is a very important feature.
K45
This signature has eleven vowels.
Ah! The moderators have a sense of humor.
You make a valid point until you drag the whole liberal versus conservative thing into the debate. Being a non-religious moderate, I say plague on both of your houses, but since you took up for the conservatives against the liberals I'll do a a little conservative bashing of my own to balance things out. Conservatives are a bunch of control freak blow-hards who wish to strangle free speech and truly free markets by advocating freedom and liberty for themselves at the expense of the less wealthy and unlike minded to their religious or economic beliefs. A conservative's idea of freedom is having the legal right to shut up and repress people of different religions and ideals while monopolizing resources in the name of laissez-faire capitalism and creating an aristocracy of wealth.
Oh, and I don't need Freenet to anonymously bash anyone. However, it does come in handy if I have something to say about a major corporation or wealthy individual with deep enough pockets to legally harass me into financial ruin, whether what I said was true, or I was legally and constitutionally entitled to say it.
Okay I just made a small donation (so far this month I have made four such small donations to various orgs, paypal is just so darn handy).
But remember kids, it ain't free speech if you have to hide it in freenet. If it was free speech you would be able to post it on your web page and the government would leave you alone.
Hmm, just thought of something, PayPal knows a shitload of personal information about me, and they also know my copious eBay buying and selling habits, and what subversive internet projects I donate to, and what online erotica sites are which I donate to, etc., etc. Kinda like a credit card company but without the pesky consumer protection laws. Could this cause me trouble someday?
...surprisingly, there are many people in this world who don't understand the concept of civil disobedience, ie., nonviolently disobeying unjust laws. If Freenet were outlawed, yes, it would still be hard to stop. But it would be mostly stopped.
The vast majority of people let their governments think for them. If the government says Freenet is the abode of perverts, terrorists, and hackers (a term that I expect will be even more vilified in the coming years), then the average person will see Freenet as a den of evil. Freenet users will be stigmatized and criminalized.
What's more, there may well BE ways to attack and/or shut down Freenet nodes. Freenet isn't that old and hasn't had as much extensive field testing as other networking protocols like TCP/IP; we don't know all the vulnerabilities yet. Furthermore, while hiding the node contents from the server sysadmin would seem to grant him "deniability", that only works in a sane country. I fully expect that such logic will be incomprehensible to judges and politicians, to whom any Freenet user will be seen as a sicko terrorist trying to hide behind the Constitution.
And remember kids, when sickos and terrorists hide behind the constitution, it's best to ignore the stupid thing so you can tell your constituents you're tough on crime! After all, who cares about some piece of paper written more than 200 years ago? Not us!
I'm not saying people should stop copying and swapping mp3's. If the RIAA had been more (much more) reasonable about this, then yes, I would have been in favor of stopping the pirating. But after their recent actions, including their attempts to weasel out of paying royalties to the actual ARTISTS they claim to represent, screw them. I think the RIAA deserves to go down hard, so swap those mp3's folks. Just don't do it on Freenet until AFTER the RIAA's dead (should only take a few years).
The thing we need to remember is that Freenet is MORE IMPORTANT than this. There are people in dictatorial nations (China etc) who should be able to speak freely. When we say that freedom of speech is an inalienable human right, we should mean what we say and extend it to ALL humans, no matter how evil a government they toil under. And personally, I see the U.S. becoming much more authoritarian, so don't be surprised when you see U.S. citizens turning to Freenet to protect their speech. Congress can't seem to get that "shall make NO LAW" part through their heads.
This is a bigger issue than swapping mp3's, people. For the sake of the people that desperately need Freenet, we need to keep our eyes on the goal.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
..politically, just to survive. Freenet has to, and I mean HAS to, distance itself from the mp3 issue. If it gets heralded as the new free mp3 swapping online site, it will not last half as long as Napster did. Freenet needs to make it VERY clear that its primary concern is providing a network for freedom of speech online.
While this will be repugnant to many in power, if Freenet avoids being labelled "Napster II" by the mass media, the RIAA might not come down on it like a total ton of bricks. Or at least they might not throw enough money at it to buy any amount of judges and congresspersons. I'm not saying Freenet should lick the RIAA's boots, but it should definitely NOT come across with the "fuck you" attitude Napster had.
But if Freenet IS seen as the "new Napster", and if 15 million 14 year olds hop onto it so they can download Dr. Dre, you can be sure that no judge or congressperson will be capable of seeing a difference between the two, especially with the RIAA lobbyists battering down their doors. Freenet, instead of going massively public, should go *mildly* public and try to avoid being seen as the new mp3 swap system. Let Gnutella take that rap.
I'm as much against the RIAA as anyone here, but the more I learn about Freenet, the more I think it would be a tragedy to make this mistake and see Freenet ruined. This has real potential, and I'd hate to see it end prematurely because of the sympathy for the RIAA that arrogant Napsterites stirred in the government.
Not a flamebait, but what I really think. Try responding rather than moderating, huh?
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Freenet should survive because it could replace HTTP as a file-sharing protocol. Data is replicated throughout the network, which prevents the Slashdot effect. This will enable people to publish stuff without shelling out major bux for bandwidth.
submissions != donations.
Like, I can donate as much money i want to a magazine but that doesn't mean they will take the article I just submitted.
:)
Goat sex free since 2001
Good point, but if it isn't distributing illegal stuffs, just for free speech, then restricting its existance would be a federal issue in US.
However, I'm not going to emphasis on US' laws. You may not realize how important anonymous channels of free speech is to other countries.
There are couples of countries you can name that will jail its citizens for distributing or merely reading news that are not welcomed by their governments.
People living in the demoncratic countries may not understand.
THe tough part is going to be tracking anything down in Freenet - stuff is encrypted - you have no idea where it comes from, etc.
Great system
--
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
I swear, I start to feel dumber each time I search for a key on freenet, and I have to wait a half hour for the results. I can personally guarantee that freenet will be vaporware until it becomes as fast as the www.
Talk is cheap, until you can back up your words with a program of your own, I think everything you said was BS.
Oh definitely. And if you go to a movie and don't like it, I guess you can't criticize it unless you make a better one. And if you think the President of the USA makes a bad decision, you can't criticize it if you haven't been in his position. Maybe if you dislike Windows you have to make a new OS to be able to criticize it? Maybe you should think about the logic of your statements dumbass.
"The latest information on the location of the center of the debris impact area is approximately 2,000 nm south of Tahiti and 2,400 nm east of New Zealand in an area that is completely free of islands and any human habitation."
;-)
Wow, 2,000 nm, that's pretty darn close
Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer
less than 1 minute. Compare that to the time to write out a check, print out an envelope, put on a stamp.
At least twice as quick, I'd say.
Now we know - people don't like writing cheques because of the time. And all along we thought it was about money.
@ .
Best thing they can do is upload some money to the freenet network... its bound to be popular, and will be replicated all over the place!
This could easily prevent the slashdot-effectish bank runs that we have from time to time as well.