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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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...
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'
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...]
"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
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.
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...
*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.
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.
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
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