Slashdot Mirror


Freenet 0.5.1 Released, P2P Network Stabilizing

mids writes "With version 0.5.1, Freenet isn't only the most secure & anonymous P2P network, but also getting pretty fast! Reliable downloading of files as large as 700MB from Freenet at average download rates as high as 100k/sec on a broadband internet connection are sighted (which compares quite favorably to more conventional P2P applications)."

629 comments

  1. Terrorism by sokkelih · · Score: 5, Funny

    This allows fast and anonymous terrorism! ;) (Check out that Microsoft Says piracy is Terrorism -thingie.)

    1. Re:Terrorism by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well if we use the new Napster we can make sure to give the music industry what they need: money to make bombs. So maybe in some twisted business relation that download really does indirectly support terrorism by reducing money to the war machine! ... Though, we have yet to see proof that music sales are really hurt.

      It's just one massive web of headache.

      --
      --------
      Free your mind.
    2. Re:Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      This allows fast and anonymous terrorism! ;) (Check out that Microsoft Says piracy is Terrorism -thingie.)


      Jokes that require footnotes aren't funny (1)

      (1) we treat the parenthesised portion of the parent as a footnote, though technically it's an aside (2).

      (2) labouring the point isn't funny either.
    3. Re:Terrorism by WPIDalamar · · Score: 1

      I know the post was meant as a joke... but really... does it? I know all the great things freenet accomplishes. Freedom of information, letting people access it, stuff like that. But what about when it does get used for "bad" things. Are there any moral (or even legal!) consequences to running a node that this information is served off of? Does just because you don't know what is served off your node, make it ok?

    4. Re:Terrorism by peterjhill2002 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who else finds this a disturbing arguement:
      " I don't want my node to be used to harbor kiddie porn, offensive content or terrorism. What can I do?
      The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find disgusting. If this is not acceptable to you, you should not run a Freenet node."

      From the freenet.org documentation page. I find it hard to believe that "the true test" of Freedom of Speech means tolerating child porn. You can be sure as hell that I will take their advice and not run a Freenet node.

    5. Re:Terrorism by unborn · · Score: 1

      Government is to reduce violence. If kiddie-porn exchange does not result in violence, any government involvement would be violation of Free Speech. Same goes for offensive content. Now, about terrorism, if you, with full knowledge of the possibility of you helping out to have violence comitted, still do it, you are a criminal. However the term terrorism is used too loosely these days, it is just the food for any type of fish.

      And secure mail is as secure as Freenet, so even though it doesn't protect from kiddie porn and terrorism, would you take advice and not use PGP?

    6. Re:Terrorism by Griobhta · · Score: 2, Informative

      If kiddie-porn exchange does not result in violence

      That is a big IF. Most would argue that the act if kiddie porn is in itslef an act of violence on the child in question and each transfer of that file furthers this.

      g

    7. Re:Terrorism by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Are there any moral (or even legal!) consequences to running a node that this information is served off of?

      There are certainly legal consequences. As for moral consequences, that all depends if you find the spread of information to ever be immoral.

    8. Re:Terrorism by peterjhill2002 · · Score: 1

      Hum, big difference between using PGP, where I control my personal use and the use of my equipment and running a server software where I have little or no control over the way that my machine is being used.

      The same arguement allows me to see the use of anonymous remailers. Anonymity can be a good and powerful tool.

      as for kiddie-porn, there is no reasonable excuse...

    9. Re:Terrorism by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1
      So would you refuse to run a anon. remailer on the basis that some of the mail might contain KP? This would still be distributed using YOUR server under this sceneario.

      It seems a difficult position to state that you are in favour of anonimity and then say except for and their immorality/communism/terrorism/etc.

      By it's nature true encription and anonimity covers all activities - it is impossible to do so.

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    10. Re:Terrorism by kableh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "true test" isnt tolerating kiddie porn per se, it is tolerating speech you disagree with. There is a quote, often misattributed to Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I doubt I, or anyone else, would put their life on the line for a kiddie pornographer, but I truly believe it is a symptom of a greater problem, like drug addiction.

      So don't run a node, like you said. Frankly, I acknowledge that kiddie porn exists, and I agree that it is awful, but I have to imagine that it gets exaggerated by the popular media just like the few child abductions related to the internet have.

    11. Re:Terrorism by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1

      *except for ... (insert hated group du jour)

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    12. Re:Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just out of interest - are you actually /trying/ to sound like a set of Godspeed You! Black Emperor album notes? Or did it just happen that way?

    13. Re:Terrorism by Zone-MR · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe that "the true test" of Freedom of Speech means tolerating child porn.

      You may find it "hard to believe". I feel as strongly as you against child pornography. However, if you truly believe in a system allowing freedom of speech, you also have to accept that the ability to speak freely and annonymously will inevitably be used by some people for purposes you strongly dissagree with.

      Freedom of speech means accepting the ethics that everyone should have an equal right to publish whatever information they feel like publishing, no matter how much you or society dissagree with that information or the morals behind it.

      So in short yes, I fully agree with the original extract from the FAQ. A true test for weather or not you believe in freedom of speech is to chose whatever topic you find revolting, immoral, and simply wrong. Then decide - would you be willing to give up your viewpoints that humans should have a fundamental right to freedom of expression, in order to stop certain information from being traded. No matter which way you look at it, it is the truest test of your beliefs.

    14. Re:Terrorism by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      the act if kiddie porn is in itslef an act of violence

      Sure

      and each transfer of that file furthers this.

      Open to discussion. 60% of child abuse cases (like most other violence) happen within the family or close friends
      Whether those cases are furthered or not (or the opposite) by consumption of child porn I dare not judge. The copying of a file is not child abuse (however, the child's human and personal rights are further violated)

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    15. Re:Terrorism by jxs2151 · · Score: 1
      Government is to reduce violence.

      That's a rather simplistic, self-serving kind of statement now isn't it?

      You really can rationalize kiddie porn because you feel it does not result in violence?

    16. Re:Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Most would argue that the act if kiddie porn is in itslef an act of violence on the child in question and each transfer of that file furthers this.


      This is also known as voodoo molestation - the idea that there's some sort of psychic link between the abuse victim and any pictures made of the event, and that if you look at them, you're hurting them.

      I guess you think that cameras capture souls?
    17. Re:Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I would be in agreement with you on that statement.

      Not only do I think it should be illegal, it -is- illegal. People don't want to be party to a vile crime such as that, even if they do believe in freedom of speech. Tolerating sexual abuse of children has precious little to do with freedom of speech, I'm sure most people would agree with that. Sadly there's also a few that wouldn't.

    18. Re:Terrorism by Griobhta · · Score: 1

      OK look at this scenerio

      Suppose you are the victim of abuse and you are like many struggling to get on with your life. Only to find out that there are picture available on the internet depicting the acts that were inflicted on you. Does that have any effect on you? Does it further the sense of abuse and humiliation?

      I say to you that the fallacy is in thinking that there is no harm in viewing these files.

      But this is getting off the origional topic i suppose so that shall have to end it here.

      g

    19. Re:Terrorism by peterjhill2002 · · Score: 1

      Oh, btw, since when is kiddie-porn a form of speech? I did not realize that the Bill of Rights protected it.
      "Amendment I

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

      So, if I need to tolerate kiddie porn to be a supporter of free speech, then how come it is illegal in the U.S. when we have Amendment I of the constitution?

      I know I am being a little idealistic about our Bill of Rights. Between Terrorism and the Drug war, alot of those rights have been trampled on.

      Speaking of rights (this is slightly off topic, but I'll risk moderation) I saw Kevin Mitnick speak last night, and I find the Federal prosecuters actions despicable. Forcing him to waive his right to a speedy trial. Threating to put hiim into solitary confinement. Everyone here already knows about it, but damn if our government doesn't just suck sometimes.

  2. warez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    warez warez anonymous warez. great. can i be caught using freenet?

    1. Re:warez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you use IE

  3. The problem isn't speed. by ketamine-bp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is whether the users can use it as easily as other comparable software. i.e. if you want to get more users, you have to have more files in your network, if you want more files, you need to get more simple-minded users, and if you want to get more simple-minded users, keep the interface easy and clean.

    my 0.02

    1. Re:The problem isn't speed. by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 1

      Insightful... it all comes down to the user interface, unless you're monopolistic.

      Remember the good ole days of editting config.sys and autoexec.bat, tweaking every line to get DOOM or Wolf3d to work on your old 286, 386, or 486? We didn't care about easy interface, it was the only game in town so we did whatever it took.

      Today... if anything comes with less than 1 click install shield (on windows), I'm pretty pissed. Even Linux, if anything comes with more than a 1 rpm click, 1 red-carpet click, or what not... it better be pretty cool >:)

      --
      --------
      Free your mind.
    2. Re:The problem isn't speed. by ketamine-bp · · Score: 1
      Even Linux, if anything comes with more than a 1 rpm click, 1 red-carpet click, or what not... it better be pretty cool >:)
      It does.
      bash-1.00# apt-get install softwarename
    3. Re:The problem isn't speed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If apt-get is so great, why are you using Bash 1.0?

    4. Re:The problem isn't speed. by Drakonian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure about that. If you make it plainly obvious how to avoid sharing your own files, people will quickly turn that off and you'll get a bunch of leeches. If you obfuscate it somewhat like most current P2P programs do, and make it scan your hard drive on first install then your average user just forgets about it. I'm not saying it's good or right, but I think that's probably the way it is.

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    5. Re:The problem isn't speed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps he doesn't want a shell which is comparable in size to that 700MB pr0n movie? ;)
      --os

    6. Re:The problem isn't speed. by Greg+W. · · Score: 1

      If you make it plainly obvious how to avoid sharing your own files, people will quickly turn that off and you'll get a bunch of leeches.



      This is not how Freenet operates. Freenet doesn't "share files". It's a publishing system, like the World Wide Web, or Usenet. It's a distributed encrypted hard drive. It doesn't have any content until you put something in it.



      The analogous term for "leeches" in Freenet is "transient nodes" -- nodes which can initiate requests (and insert content), but which never answer or route requests for other people. If you're on dial-up, fine, run a transient. Nobody will expect a dial-up user to participate in Freenet. But beware that when you run a transient node, you lose plausible deniability. Any data in your node's data store came from your own requests or inserts. This is a trade-off that you may choose to make, or not.



      If you want to participate in Freenet, then just set up a permanent node and let it run. Make sure it's not firewalled, and that you won't exceed any bandwidth limits your ISP may impose on you (Australia, etc.). You don't need to insert any content of your own, unless you wish to.

    7. Re:The problem isn't speed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or: emerge package-name

    8. Re:The problem isn't speed. by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 1

      Actually there are only a few compelling reasons to leech files:

      1) The RIAA is targetting uploaders for persecution. So if you just download you're safe.

      This problem is solved if freenet gets the anonymity feature right.

      2) Local network congestion and PC lag.

      This is most noticeable when playing online games. If Kazaa is working in the background things get very laggy. The solution to this is easy and I'm surprised Kazaa hasn't implemented it. Simply allow the user to designate "time windows" for uploading. If it were me I'd leave my P2P application running 24/7, and set the controls so that all my uploading was done while I was asleep, at school, or at work. Hopefully the freenet apps will have a feature like this.

      3) Bandwidth caps.

      This is the most difficult problem, especially for students in universities where caps are being enforced. Hopefully 802X and other "free"(I.e. unmetered) wireless P2P technologies will resolve this problem.

      "Leeching" is mostly about avoiding poor performance, or the "law", or a big bill. The first two problems are easily solved in software. The third relies on faster connections, which I'm sure we're all hoping for.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    9. Re:The problem isn't speed. by master0ne · · Score: 0

      what about karma? :-p anyway your right, a "shared folder" with "dynamic links" to all install shield executables, and all .mp3 and .avi etc should be included (aslong as user is provided a way to cancel the sharing of certin files)

      --
      Noone writes jokes in base 13!
    10. Re:The problem isn't speed. by chrisseaton · · Score: 1

      "my 0.02"

      Why do you need to say that?

      It kind of means "in my opinion", but no one was going to think it was a Shakespeare quote or anything.

      _Please_ can people stop doing that?

    11. Re:The problem isn't speed. by QuietRiot · · Score: 1
      Make sure it's not firewalled, and that you won't exceed any bandwidth limits your ISP may impose on you

      This can be easily done in the configuration file. Upload and download rates can be throttled. Firewall's your own problem.

    12. Re:The problem isn't speed. by JourneymanMereel · · Score: 1

      I got in trouble for that in English class... I wrote "I believe" in one of my persuasive papers. The instructor pointed out to me how unnecessary that phrase was; I wrote it, so of course I believe it.

      --
      Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
    13. Re:The problem isn't speed. by Zigg · · Score: 1

      You forgot step two: twiddle thumbs (small packages), eat dinner (medium-size packages), go to bed and pray that it doesn't error out overnight (the biggies).

    14. Re:The problem isn't speed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah, apparently your instructor hasn't been many college english/philosophy/social science classes recently.

    15. Re:The problem isn't speed. by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1
      "my 0.02"

      Why do you need to say that?

      It kind of means "in my opinion", but no one was going to think it was a Shakespeare quote or anything.

      It also means "my opinion isn't important, so feel free to skip this comment."

    16. Re:The problem isn't speed. by onepoint · · Score: 1

      in reference to bandwidth caps on wireless networks ....

      due to the abuse already being seen, most of the smaller players are telling there clients the better times when they can do the megadownloads, otherwise they will advise the client that if they bought 125kbps size pipe then they will have only that. bandwidth management is a huige issue in wireless due to the abuses.

      Oh and for those that say we will just bury it under port 80. think again, you can squeeze the pipe to the client without having any issues.

      onepoint

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    17. Re:The problem isn't speed. by Makoss · · Score: 1

      Local Network congestion: It just takes a bit of knowlege to solve this. Anyone who is not lazy shouldn't have a problem. Bandwidth Caps, now there is a problem with no free solution. Only choice is to cough up the $$$ for an unlimited connection. I pay $79 a month for 1.5/256 with no restrictions of any type and a static IP. Use it to serve a webpage, SSH/VNC from afar, blocked ports and bandwidth caps suck.

      --
      Building a better backup.
      Zettabyte Storage
  4. Freenet + Gutenberg by Judebert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't combining Project Gutenberg's freely available texts with Freenet's distributed storage be a great enhancement for both projects? Especially now that Freenet is stable enough to be considered viable for Gutenberg's purposes...

    --

    For geek dads: Contraction Timer

    1. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. Furthermore, I think now is the time for Freenet to gain a reputation as an "online repository useful for the distribution out of print books and/or books in the public domain" before it gains a stigma for "anonymous sharing of pirated software and child porn."

    2. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by warpSpeed · · Score: 4, Informative
      That is a nice idea, as long as you have some one willing to put forth the resources for continious reinserts of the data.

      Freenets model is that data is transient. If some data is not used frequently, or used widely, it gets dropped eventualy. To insure avaiablilty you would need to constantly reinsert the data. Running a freenet node and inserting large quantities of data are two different things.

      I run a node, because I can, and there is little effort involved in keeping it up and running. The quality of the software has improved dramaticaly. For a while it was a pain to run due to the java VMs sucking up all avaiable ram and frequent crashes. Now I check that is is running once every few days or so.

      If more people start to setup nodes, and the software is idiot proof, this thing could take off.

    3. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by slux · · Score: 1

      the thing about freenet is that it is an unreliable storage unless there is constant demand.

      Only popular content will prevail and that means it isn't very suitable for archiving data.

    4. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Freenet has child porn?!

      Wow!

      FINALLY I can stop molesting the neighbourhood kids!

      Thanks FREENET, for making the world a safer place for children!

    5. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by TopShelf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That reputation will only be built by latching onto a highly visible project in more than just name. It would be interesting, for example to have a client built around a project like Gutenberg that somehow restricts the content shared to legitimate project material. That way people and organizations could adopt Freenet without worrying about the content...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    6. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and another post by someone that has not voted

    7. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't realize Jon Katz was British!

    8. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kind of like slashdot... If it's not popular, it gets -1 moderated, and will get killed once the story is archived.

    9. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Freenets model is that data is transient."

      To my mind this is quite unfortunate. One of the great values of the web, at least in my case, is locating obscure information. Thanks to google, it is now possible to dig out information on incredibly obscure topics. Freenet would lose all of this information.

      I think Freenet has some very specific uses, namely the already mentioned protection of critics of harsh governments, but the problem is I don't trust the internet community to have good judgement about what they will view. The odds are quite good useful information on some subjects will vanish while worthless but popular crap sucks bandwidth. Look at US TV for a view of what happens when lowest common denominators decide what gets viewed. My guess is Freenet would spiral long run into music and porn.

    10. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, if thats what you need to keep telling yourself in order to feel all warm and fuzzy inside!

      So who did you vote for; Bush, Gore (But it was counted as Bush), Gore (But the electrole college ignored the popular vote and you got Bush anyway), Nader (If you did, all those people who don't understand the concept of voting effectivly accuse you of voting Bush anyway), someone else (But the chad hung, and your vote was thrown out, or was counted for Bush), intended to vote for Gore (But you're black or your name sounds a little like a black persons name, and you found that you had been dropped from the eletrol register), or didn't vote (See: Nader).

      Go two party system coupled with an ineffectual and outdated electrol system! Our glorious leader (All hail!) will protect us!

    11. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by jweatherley · · Score: 1

      That would explain why it's full of pr0n, warez and tunez then.

      --

      --
      Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
    12. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you strike first, you will be no better than Iraq. You want Iraq to tolerate being attacked for NO reason, and if they do the same, you start crying. Hypocrite.

    13. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by Greg+W. · · Score: 1

      My guess is Freenet would spiral long run into music and porn.



      Instead of guessing, why don't you come find out? Write up, or find, some content you deem to be worthwhile. Publish it in Freenet. See how long it remains available without your having to reinsert it. Set up a cron job to reinsert it automatically every week, every month, or whatever.

    14. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't combining Project Gutenberg's freely available texts with Freenet's distributed storage be a great enhancement for both projects?

      Slightly OT but I was following a discussion on Project Gutenberg the other day and came across an interesting site, Distributed Proofreading . This site lets you proofread a page at a time, comparing the scanned image with the OCR'd text and making corrections. According to the site, they are now "the main source of PG e-books."

      I've only done a dozen or so pages. Each page takes between 5-10 minutes, depending on the complexity (I just did an index page, which took quite some time, but most are quicker). The OCR software does a good job; there are few errors. Hopefully they'll use the "output" of the human part of this effort to combine with the output from the OCR, to refine the OCR so even fewer errors get through as time goes on.

      It's a bit time-consuming but if you just do one or two pages at a time it's a nice break from whatever you're doing. ;-) And you can think of it as volunteer work.

      As for Freenet being stable enough, I (and others) have a problem with Freenet dropping information which is "unpopular" (i.e., noone's requesting it). Example, not all of Shakespeare's works are downloaded, so a few of them "disappear." Then there is no longer a "complete collection of Shakespeare" on Freenet. (Yes, I know the solution is to constantly insert the data, but that requires effort and a running computer, and when the "maintainer" disappears without notifying anyone then the data runs the risk of disappearing as well.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    15. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Your statement is de facto advertising to everyone hoping it's already got the stigma.

    16. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saddam lost the first Gulf War, and he lost the right to make or have certain types of weapons. Remember that? It was sometime after Saddam invaded Kuwait to take their oil, after we went over there to keep him from a) starting a monopoly on Middle Eastern oil and b) killing Kuwaitis, but before he told the UN weapons inspectors to leave Iraq, and also before nobody was paying any attention to him for eight (gee, isn't that how many years Clinton was in office?) or so years.

      He's had many, many years to build up weapons he was told by the world he couldn't have. Plus, he's flat insane, mean as fuck, hates Americans, and cares so little about the people who live in Iraq that he gases them to test chemical and biological weapons.

      Stopping him is inevitable. Do you want to do it now, or after he's sent a suicide bomber to my city and let loose anthrax, VX, or, given another few years, a nuclear weapon. In your ideology, it might be OK to die just because you don't want to throw the first punch in a fight that's going to happen anyway, but me and millions of other Americans don't want to die just because you're too stupid to think two or five years ahead.

      If you can't set your do-gooder attitude aside, try to think about what you said, "you will be no better than Iraq." First, Iraq is what Saddam says it is. The people who live there are too poor to leave, and shouldn't have to leave anyway just because a madman is in power. Also, it implies that you're not one of us (meaning an American). That's fine with me. War is horrible, but it's necessary to defend ourselves sometimes, otherwise we'll all be dead.

    17. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      War is horrible, but it's necessary to defend ourselves sometimes, otherwise we'll all be dead.

      ...Or in this case, not defend ourselves but go on the offensive and kill many many of those innocent and poor people you are talking bout saving from this madman.

      but me and millions of other Americans don't want to die just because you're too stupid to think two or five years ahead.

      But it's OK for millions of innocent Iraqis to die when we bomb their homes? Nice logic. You fill the stereotype of the typical arrogant American quite nicely.

    18. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People might take you more seriously if you learned to spell 'electoral.' But probably not.

    19. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by technos · · Score: 1

      I used to scan books for those guys.. It's amazing how fast they could go through a dry 500 page historical novel.

      Unfortunatly you can't really use the human caught errors to refine the OCR process. There are quite a few people scanning for them these days, and they're not using standard OCR software for one, for two to correct the OCR output of one of those programs takes an exhaustive amount of work.. Tweaking FineReader to ignore the dots in the margin of a copy of Queen Josephine without screwing up punctuation took me 45 minutes and didn't even eliminate all the odd marks it treated as text.

      Now consider it usually took me 20 minutes to scan the book and 20 to OCR it, you've just doubled the effort and gotten no real gain of it.

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    20. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by danila · · Score: 1

      As far as I understand, to keepd data on the network all you need to do is store a copy of all files locally. Basically you need to provide a web-hosting, but without worrying about traffic. If demand is high, data is moved from you and closer to the users. If demand is low, you have to occasionally (but not often) reinsert it (probably automatically).

      BTW, this is somewhat similar to how eDonkey works now. When you share a 700Mb file, you give out may be 7Gb (usually less) of it and then it basically spreads by itself, because everyone is downloading (therefore sharing) it. You keep it in your share and it will be forever available, even when demand (and availability) drops.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    21. Re:Freenet + Gutenberg by warpSpeed · · Score: 1
      As far as I understand, to keepd data on the network all you need to do is store a copy of all files locally. Basically you need to provide a web-hosting, but without worrying about traffic. If demand is high, data is moved from you and closer to the users.

      This is not quite correct. You can insert the data into freenet, but once you insert the data it may or may not stay on your machine. This is one aspect of how you guarantee anonymity. If no one (other nodes) requests your data, or other data is inserted and is more popular, your data could get dropped.

      So, to counter act the possible loss of data, you need to periodically reinsert the data into freenet to make sure that it is available. Of course this does not guarantee that the data is available to all freenet users, it just increases the possibility that it is available.

      The trade off is anonymity vs. availability.

  5. Is this needed? by Montgomery+Burns+III · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Ask yourself: Is yet another P2P solution really what we need as a society?

    Without being merely flame bait, Is this something that we need? How about development of teaching software for our children?
    --

    'ta
    1. Re:Is this needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about spending billions on feeding the hungry instead of buying bombs and missiles? Go away fruitcake.

    2. Re:Is this needed? by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1

      Note: IAHFU (I Am a Happy Freenet User) As it is fundamentally web based, freenet represents the a system where being able to publish is not dependedent on being able to buy server space. This represents a very real democratisation of the net ($10 a month is a lot more in Asia), and the totally anonimous nature of the ntwork allows for much freer political speech. It is also worth noting that it automatically spreads frequently requested data across the network, meaning no more slashdot effect. This also makes for a more effecient network, as data is stored near to you. You want to support the freedom of code? Get freenet and do your bit to make an uncensorable internet.

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    3. Re:Is this needed? by CrypticOutsider · · Score: 1
      Without being merely flame bait, Is this something that we need? How about development of teaching software for our children?

      Well you can download teaching software for your children (I don't think we share any).

    4. Re:Is this needed? by Deth_Master · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But this is a secure P2P unlike most p2p apps which are completely open. The transmissions on this net are encrypted. Also it doesn't seem to function like most p2p apps, which let you share only what you want and get whatever you want, the only cost being bandwidth. Freenet takes part of your storage and donates it to the network, that's the way it works, you have to donate some. I couldn't find out how to share things on the network though, and I'm not sure I like the idea of keeping the most popular items on the harddrives of multiple people and letting unpopular things just dissappear...

      More flamebait...

      Why do we need software to teach our children?
      Wouldn't teaching them in person be better, or are we all too busy?

      --
      find ~your -name '*base* | xargs chown :us
    5. Re:Is this needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then don't code for or make use of Freenet. Spend all of your time writing applications for our children. Although I don't really consider them our children as I was never stupid enough to have kids. Personally I would rather see more P2P stuff as opposed to childrens software, but don't let that stop you from writing your own educational software.

    6. Re:Is this needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note IASFSOPMNATSTO (I Am So Fucking Sick Of People Making New Acronyms Then Spelling Them Out)!

    7. Re:Is this needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't someone please think of the children?

      I say kill the little brats. It'll make education costs plummet, help reduce food costs, and stop wasting our precious materials on toys. Think of all the lower-class to poverty level families this will help!
      So, I'm sure you understand when I say that I think of the children regularly. I think of ways to get arsenic into the smaller one's formula,and I regularly spend at least an hour a day thinking of ways to give cancer to the older ones (one at a time murder simply doesn't appeal to me. If I ain't getting 30-40 children at a time, I'm not happy.)

    8. Re:Is this needed? by caluml · · Score: 1

      The thing needed in P2P is not encryption, but anonymity. I am working on a version of P2P that utilises UDP, and spoofs the source addresses. You never know who is sending you the file you asked for.

      ACKs, and things are tricky though. ;)

    9. Re:Is this needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note IASFSOPMNATSTO (I Am So Fucking Sick Of People Making New Acronyms Then Spelling Them Out)!

      IANAL.. No seriously, I ANAL.. that's right, I take it up the ass.

    10. Re:Is this needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment makes me think of Lovejoy's wife on the Simpsons: Won't somebody please think of the children.

      May I suggest that you don't write another p2p solution and that you get to work on that teaching software society needs. (And let other people contribute to society however they want to.)

    11. Re:Is this needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UDP doesn't have ACKs, dumbass!

    12. Re:Is this needed? by FatalTourist · · Score: 1

      Hahahahhahaha! Funny!
      I think Windows is fine the way it is. MS should stop developing OS and start making something that I deem more valuable... hmmm.. how about a virtual squirrel mating program!
      I really shouldn't have to spell out the silliness of your argument so I won't.

      --


      Escape Pod Films: Sketch Comedy and Web Series
    13. Re:Is this needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is yet another P2P solution really what we need as a society? ... How about development of teaching software for our children?

      What good is teaching software for our children if governments, media companies, and others in power have the technological power to suppress dissenting or objectionable material by locking it out of everyone's DRM-enabled hardware?

      Freedom, especially the free exchange of ideas, is essential for education. Teaching our children about freedom and enabling the free exchange of ideas are pretty damn important. Then again, people don't seem to care much about freedom these days, so maybe you're right - maybe we should forget about it.

    14. Re:Is this needed? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      If your ISP is any good, you're probably not going to get your spoofed packets out of their network.

    15. Re:Is this needed? by caluml · · Score: 1

      You just spoof them to within /16 or /20 or /24 or whatever ranges they do have.

    16. Re:Is this needed? by silicon_synapse · · Score: 1

      We wouldn't have that problem if they just brought back those steel Tonka trucks. Those things were deathtraps, but they sure were more fun than those balls of plastic that slightly resemble some form of a truck that they sell these days.

    17. Re:Is this needed? by cryptowhore · · Score: 1

      In a P2P evolution sense, yes. This sort of innovation provides the grassroots technology that others will later stand on. Hopefully, some of those others are teachers. I'm currently working on a collaborative learning/research tool on the P2P framework known as JXTA http://www.jxta.org Though I'm just in early planning stages, there are many research and learning tools available. I think that there is definitely a need for savy UI developers to come and make some of this stuff children friendly where applicable though. FYI, my project can be found at http://goop.jxta.org And I seriously recommend looking at some of the other projects hosted as they seek to do a lot more than just file share.

      --
      Happiness is a slider variable
    18. Re:Is this needed? by master0ne · · Score: 0

      [flamebait] Why do we need software to teach our children? Wouldn't teaching them in person be better, or are we all too busy? we need software to teach our children because the rest of us are all to busy downloading pr0n, and trying to get the latest version of windows to boot. [/flamebait] freenet is great anominity and security, i dont like the idea of unused data disapearing completly, but it should be less replicated... oh and by the way if encryption is what your looking for filetopia is a great p2p progie that lets you share data over encrypted channels, and it's flagship feature is CHAT, kinda like napster. but freenet promises to be so much more, i am just waiting for content to grow more, beyone pr0n and skript kiddies virii. my 2cents.

      --
      Noone writes jokes in base 13!
    19. Re:Is this needed? by karlm · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Ah yes, the equivalency of workers myth. I can design good secure network protocols and code up crypto algorithms. If I wrote educational software for your kids in thier spare time, they'd be looking at ascii art images of data flow diagrams. Do you really want your kids using educational software that I write? I suppose I could write up an ascii art app of a puppet teaching kids to count, but that would only teach your kids to hate counting. On the other hand, crypto is great, but if your 4-year old can perform differential cryptanalysis on STEA, then your kid gets classified as a weapon of mass destruction and put in a bunker in Oklahoma with VX warheads, and I don't want that kind of bad karma. I can write good crypto education software for your 4-year old or I can write crappy story reading software for your 5-year old or I can write a 2048/256-bit encrypted asynchronous message passing P2P freamework. Nobody wants me writing educational software. Besides, it's my free time. I don't complain about your Bedoin chant porn habbit, so why do you complain about the software I write in my spare time?

      Besides, if I wrote crypto education software for children, the Chinese would just say "screw CPUs, in 10 years we can have a beowurf cruster of crypto cracking kids". They draft 2 million 5-year olds and in 10 years they have more crypto theorems than they know what to do with. Falungong and the democracy movement can't keep any communications secret and the world is a worse place.

      You know what? By your logic, everyone in the world should drop what they're doing and go work on a cure for cancer. Let's see. I've got some Windex. I'll start out testing Windex on oncomice! No? What's wrong? I'm an MIT student and most people think I'm pretty smart, but very few people want me doing cancer/ebola/HIV/SARS research.

      What about those guys that keep writing yet another Sawfish theme? Do you think they should be helping Apache run faster instead? I don't think so. They have graphics talent and enjoy the work. To get them to work where they have little talent or interest would make crappy sftware and sad programmers. I say even if not one person uses their next Sawfish theme, they've still made the world a better place by making themselves happy with honest endevours.

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    20. Re:Is this needed? by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1
      Ask yourself: Is yet another P2P solution really what we need as a society?

      Freenet has lots of other uses. For example, let's say I accidentally create a popular web comic. Many web comics are suffering because they want readers, they want to give away their work for free, but can't afford the bandwidth. Freenet creates an automatic caching system that lets them distribute their content over a cheap modem connection once. Their entire site can be hosted through Freenet. As long as they remain popular, their work will be cached online for free. Web providers will like it because Freenet acts as an automatic cache, saving their upstream bandwidth bills. Everyone wins.

      Also, Freenet makes it easy and safe to publish material that you may feel is ethical and important to publish, but puts you at risk. Let's say I live in a moderate repressive country and have video of human rights abuses. I can't publish the content in my own name for fear of retaliation. Or perhaps I have evidence of a company's safety violations, but know that the company will use the DMCA and other tactics to shut down sites exposing it, perhaps simply bankrupting me with a string of groundless lawsuits. Footage of your governments troops committing war crimes that would be censored under the grounds of "national security" can be distributed. Freenet provides a place that can't be shut down to host the information and protects the publisher from possibly unearned retaliation.

      If that's not a benefit to society, I don't know what is.

    21. Re:Is this needed? by Eil · · Score: 1


      I'm not sure I like the idea of keeping the most popular items on the harddrives of multiple people and letting unpopular things just dissappear...

      This is one of the biggest complaints of freenet and it is a valid one, but this aspect of freenet is completely necessary. What would happen if files on freenet were simply allowed to accumulate? Trolls (and evil music executives, which are indistinguishable to the naked eye) would fill up freenet with crap until the whole system collapses. The designers of freenet had two options: a) allow old, unused data to expire and make room for new data or b) allow a gaping hole in overall network integrity.

      Freenet's mission being what it is, can you blame them for their choice? Would you rather have freenet be easily compromised or see a few uninteresting files drop off here and there? (Remember that if they *were* interesting, they would be accessed more often and this would prevent from expiring.)

  6. What's the life expectancy of Freenet? by gregwbrooks · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I've watched Freenet from afar but not participated in it - any thoughts from users or the developers on the network's life expectancy (at least, as a legal entity) given the current legislative climate in the U.S.?

    Seems to me that a secure, distributed, encrypted P2P system could be used by (insert dramatic music) terrorists!

    --


    "It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
    1. Re:What's the life expectancy of Freenet? by GigsVT · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I tried to install freenet, but it was written in Java, and hence was total crap and wouldn't even run. Something about a CLASSPATH that would have taken me hours to research and fix. I just ran something else instead.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:What's the life expectancy of Freenet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG terorists!?! we better ban it!

      better yet, they could use email to comunicate, so we better ban that to.

      and even worse they could send Biological weapons such as anthrax through the US post office!!! OMG i hope no "terrorist" get any ideas from reading this! we better put fences outside our house post signs telling the mail man to go away!

    3. Re:What's the life expectancy of Freenet? by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1
      Sure, but then they could also just use an insecure plain old unencrypted email. God damn...am I using a weapon that terrorists also use...maybe they use browsers also...am I a terrorist?

      Seriously, terrorists could use the public phone system and (yes I know about Echelon) there's a good chance that their communications would be lost in the noise. The NSA is so crap they'd be lucky to track down terrorists using a phone with GPS on it and shouting "KILL THE PRESIDENT...KIDDIE PORN...PROFIT!" at the top of their voices.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    4. Re:What's the life expectancy of Freenet? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      It depends on how fast they anger the RIAA / MPAA. Nothing gets legislated out of existance here without a rich group feeling threatened by their existance, and Freenet is currently too small to worry them. Until Freenet superceeds Kazaa, they will probably be ignored. Of course, by then they will be too large to stop (if the creators have learned anything from Kazaa, it should be how to legally stay ahead of the law).

    5. Re:What's the life expectancy of Freenet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to me that a secure, distributed, encrypted P2P system could be used by (insert dramatic music) terrorists!

      I wouldn't be too worried about that. Given the open source nature of this project, it is quite likely that one or two of the developers are actually NSA spooks who have deliberately inserted some subtle weakness, or possibly even an outright back door.

      Conspiracy theory: Perhaps the NSA initiated the project in the first place. This would forestall alternative efforts at making a secure public network, while at the same time giving an easy way to install back doors to scan content and identify particular users as targets for further investigation.

    6. Re:What's the life expectancy of Freenet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to me that a secure, distributed, encrypted P2P system could be used by (insert dramatic music) terrorists!

      Terrorists use Windows. Freeze Microsoft assets.
      Terrorists use caves. Outlaw caves.
      Terrorists use paper. Outlaw paper.

      The fact that terrorists abuse technology shouldn't cause us to throw the baby out with the bath water. Sooner or later even the moronic politicians (redundant) will figure it out.

    7. Re:What's the life expectancy of Freenet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government aren't that interested in the actual message that people sends,
      It is much more interresting to have a matrix of people who interact.
      Then it is easy to see how they communicate and who to take in to interrogate.

    8. Re:What's the life expectancy of Freenet? by pseudochaotic · · Score: 1

      Actually, they would probably disperse bioweapons through the air, which is why I propose we all grow gills.

      --
      And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
    9. Re:What's the life expectancy of Freenet? by Tomble · · Score: 1
      I tried to install freenet, but it was written in Java, and hence was total crap and wouldn't even run.
      If you don't like Java (I don't either, although I did manage to get Freenet to just about work a few months back), be aware that GNUnet is a similar sort of thing, but written in C. But unless you're using *nix, you'll have to wait a while before it works for you. Also, it's under heavy development, and you'll prolly need to upgrade at certain releases.

      It has a few advantages, like far better usage of (and anonymity for) dial-up users, plus greater protection against DOS type attacks. It also has some disadvantages against Freenet, but AFAICT, none that won't be addressed in future versions.

      --
      Be careful! New moon tonight.
    10. Re:What's the life expectancy of Freenet? by Tomble · · Score: 1
      It has a few advantages,
      Doh, I forgot to mention the fact that GNUnet's also searchable (automatically, and from the outset, I mean).

      I'd been told something about Freenet recently getting some sort of search mechanisms added on top (I don't remember the details, but it sounds as though at least part of that is manually maintained index pages), but it's sounding now like some users here aren't finding them good enough. OTOH, I myself can't comment on any search facilities Freenet may now have, as last time I tried it I only found 1 or 2 index pages of mostly unreachable stuff.

      I also don't know if the Freenet project still makes use of those out-of-band (ie, on the real www) "key index" sites, where members of the public submit keys to Freenet content, but many of them appear to have thought they were giving keywords to a search engine, and many of the other keys were in an older, apparently incompatible key format. Needless to say, I found very few items in those key indices that actually returned any content before I gave up on the thing. Either way, reliance on such a mechanism to make content ultimately accessible would sound like a pretty big weakness in a system that means to supply anonimity and uncensorability.

      --
      Be careful! New moon tonight.
  7. Joke all you want by dreamchaser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People can joke all they want about downloading their porn or grabbing music and videos anonymously. The biggest boon of Freenet, not to mention other efforts an anonymous P2P, is for people in countries with oppressive regimes. Information may want to be free, but so do people. What's more important, downloading the latest pop music in MP3 format, or free (as in 'I won't get shot for this') speech?

    1. Re:Joke all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The biggest boon of Freenet, not to mention other efforts an anonymous P2P, is for people in countries with oppressive regimes. Information may want to be free, but so do people

      That's why the various security services and intelligence agencies in the US don't like P2P networks.

    2. Re:Joke all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is a slight benefit under oppressive governments, but in all likelihood the government would just ban the use of encryption in private communications and they'd still be screwed. The power of Freenet is that a)they don't know what traffic is being sent and b)even if they did know what was being sent, they don't know who requested it. A government that didn't care about trying to save face in free speech could just ban Freenet outright. They can always tell if you are using it, just not what you are using it for.

      The real benefit is under a government that is moving towards restrictions on free speech, but can't afford to make such a bold move as banning Freenet totally.

    3. Re:Joke all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I embed the text of the US constitution in my Splinter Cell bins.

      Long live political speech! (FPS included)

    4. Re:Joke all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Troll

      This is one of the big problems with peer to peer, it cannot be policed effectively, which means that it will always be used for bad things.

      Now many people say something along the lines of 'cars can be used to kill people, so should we ban cars then?' which would be a good point were it not utter rubbish. Cars can be used to kill people but their benifits (getting people from A to B, reducing the need for walking, providing employment to millions of loyal americans) far outweighs this prolem. Their cost/benifit analysis is good and in addition there is a well defined way of policing their use.

      peer to peer networks on the other hand are used for the following:
      1. Distributing pornography (immoral and in many cases a breach of copyright, in addition the lack of policing means that children as young as 3 can see this stuff)
      2. Movie/Mp3 sharing (stealing: and don't give me that rubbish about legal MP3s, go do a search on Kazaa for any commercial record and you will get literally thousands of hits)
      3.Circumventing goverment restrictions (ok some govermnets put unreasonable restrictions on what their citizens can view but these are few and far between and in many cases these countries are fairly lawless anyway and so need strong tactics to maintain law and order. Most regulations imposed by governments are well thought out, examples including not selling nazi memorabilia or posting instructions as to how to make a dirty bomb. the anonymity provided by p2p is ideal for material such as this to be exchanged)

      From this we can see that the cost benefit/analysis of anarchic p2p is simply too low for it to be acceptable. I know this isn't a popular view with the slashdot crowd but if you really want to chare open source software then petition the government to set up a well policed and accountable (i.e. hold the names and addresses of those using the service) centralized service through which people can do this.

    5. Re:Joke all you want by makapuf · · Score: 1

      the simple fact of using this king of network would make someone utterly suspicious in that kind of regime, don't you think ?
      I'd think steganography could be much more of an option in that cases.

    6. Re:Joke all you want by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      "or free (as in 'I won't get shot for this') speech?"

      So now you will just be shot for using freenet.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    7. Re:Joke all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Talk about high moral standards, and freenet being good for people in oppressive regimes, but most people use it for trading commercial songs, ebooks, porn, and commerical applications.


      The US Military will do more for people in oppressive regimes than freenet will.

    8. Re:Joke all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Michael Moore = gay


      The only person that has profitted more from Columbine than Michael Moore is Jon Katz!

    9. Re:Joke all you want by praedor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's funny. So why can't China or Your-favorite-regime simply block/ban downloading freenet itself? It could also simply block the appropriate ports. Or track who is using the thing in-country and assume they are guilty of something and just take em down.


      Though freenet COULD be a boon as you say in THEORY, in fact it is a particular boon to child pornographers and pedophiles but you have to break a few eggs eh? What's a few dozen/hundred/thousand child molesters when you could have a hundred or so people (and terrorists of course) publishing complaints about this or that government?


      Personally, just SAYING it is a boon for those under the thumb of nasty regimes are just words until you can back that up with FACTS. DATA. Anything else is dookie and heresay.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    10. Re:Joke all you want by sisukapalli1 · · Score: 1

      So, using freenet, we can now safely speak against the policies of am hawkish axis of evil consisting of one Mr. President, his Secy of Defense, and his Attorney General, aided ably by some now defunct corporations?

      S

    11. Re:Joke all you want by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1
      It is already having an effect in China - a Chinese (yes the PRC, not the ROC) hacker group has produced a freenet on a disk adaptation.

      This is being disseminated over the net (by me among others).

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    12. Re:Joke all you want by arvindn · · Score: 1
      That's funny. So why can't China or Your-favorite-regime simply block/ban downloading freenet itself? It could also simply block the appropriate ports.
      Ok. Imagine for a moment that the internet was built from the start on the freenet model. Then there would have been no way for China to block access to it, right? Now imagine that freenet gets really popular and bandwidth gets cheap to the point that most of the content on the internet is on freenet. This scenario is futuristic, but not impossible: the more freenet nodes there are, the more incentive there is to join freenet. So if this happens, China can no longer block freenet without missing out on all that content :)
    13. Re:Joke all you want by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1

      It is also worth noting that freenet is next to impossible to block as it picks a random port though you can pick one should you wish. The whole point of the freenet-on-a-CD which I mention is that you can inject info, even from public PCs then remove the evidence (bury the CD etc). Even aside from the PRC, Iraq etc, I might want to publish a document anonimously at any time - think Enron whistle blower. Would you seriously suggest that freenet has no legitimate use?

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    14. Re:Joke all you want by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1

      What? You mean they have filtered out under-3 access? If they're doing that, just keep out everyone under 18. Problem solved.

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    15. Re:Joke all you want by Dionysus · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't I have to know about the document for me to read the document? My understanding of freenet is that, since everything is encrypted, unless you know what you are looking for, you won't be able to retrieve it (no search function). Coupled with 'unpopular' documents being removed from the network, then whistleblowing on freenet is next to useless.

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    16. Re:Joke all you want by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      You can get arrested and throw in prison in China for being a member of Falun Gong (IIRC) or do the same thing in the US just by selling mod chips for Playstations or telling people how to remove the copy protection on their e-books. There's human rights abuses and freedom violations in every country in the world now. At least encryption gives like minded people the chance to talk about reform without threat of violence from their own government...and yes, a prison sentance is a form of violance, even when you get colour TV and clean showers.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    17. Re:Joke all you want by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1
      To a certain extent. There are portal sites - think Yahoo! in the early years - that offer links. It is just like the web pre google as hyperlinks work. In addition it is frequently spidered, so the directories are quite complete.

      There are already whistleblower and political sites that seem to work fine, the trick is just to put it in in file linked from website format and it will be found. This has the pluspoint of keeping the warez kiddies away as it is difficult to find a document which is non HTML.

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    18. Re:Joke all you want by praedor · · Score: 1

      OK, so where is all the important info then that is getting published in Time, Newsweek, etc, or talked about on CNN...or ANY UN human rights organization citing freenet documents (lacking attribution of course, and thus unconfirmable - but that's another problem) as a source or using "evidence" pulled off freenet? There isn't any. It just isn't a big deal worldwide and given the problems with it, it isn't ever going to replace the regular net.


      No doubt then that there may be a few kids here and there, computer geeks usually, in China using freenet to post their inane and totally unimportant (in the big scheme) rantings or political utopian dreams and poetry, but it just isn't a major factor in anything...unless there is hard evidence somewhere for you to present to the contrary.


      I'll bet that one of the "best" files on the freenet (other than kiddie porn pics) are things like "anarchist's cookbook" or "turner diaries". Real important, useful, stuff like that. Then, how would anyone know since there is no search mechanism, no way to find anything unless you are part of a kiddie porn ring who give each other the details of where the nekkid pics of the neighbor's little boy are.


      Do the wider Chinese populace have any interest in, or access to, anything useful on freenet produced by the local Chinese teenagers you mention? How would they find it and what, exactly, would it do for them? They get to read inane things like "Falung Gong Rocks!" or "Xing's head is shaped like my left nut!"


      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    19. Re:Joke all you want by evvk · · Score: 1

      > The biggest boon of Freenet, not to mention other efforts an anonymous P2P, is for people in countries with oppressive regimes.

      Including countries with oppressive patent and trademark legislation.

      Oh, wait, Freenet didn't work through firewalls.

    20. Re:Joke all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no. First, Freenet runs on a random port, so you cannot "block the appropriate ports".

      Second, Freenet nodes are their own distribution mechanism. In 5.1, Freenet nodes provide a web interface to downloading a copy of Freenet, so any node anywhere is a webserver with a copy of the binary for download, as well as a small set of node references for attaching the downloaded node to the network.

      -sgm

    21. Re:Joke all you want by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1
      1. Distributing pornography (immoral and in many cases a breach of copyright, in addition the lack of policing means that children as young as 3 can see this stuff)

      Hey, some of us adults like porn and since it harms no-one should be allowed to enjoy it. If you can't keep your kids from getting into your liquor cabinet and porno collection then put a key on the cabinet door and supervise your children better. Or maybe - let your kids decide for themselves what they want.

      2. Movie/Mp3 sharing (stealing: and don't give me that rubbish about legal MP3s, go do a search on Kazaa for any commercial record and you will get literally thousands of hits)

      Fair use allows me to share the video/sound with friends who drop over to my joint - or lend the record/DVD to them. Peer2peer is going too far but maybe there is a nice middle ground. I should be able to share (and have shared with me) my digital collection with my "peer group" without threat from the copyright holders.

      EXAMPLE: imagine a peer network where instead of connecting anonymously to millions of others you only connect to your friends - and they to theres - six degrees of seperation they say. Now, you digitise your content and make it available to your friends (and perhaps tag it to allow them to lend it to their peer group - maybe letting this go 3-4 groups deep). When they borrow something from you, you can't watch it again until they return it. Of course, my friends are slackers and will doubtless lend it on to mates of theirs. I should be able at some point be able to revoke the loan so I can watch it again, but that will prevent whoever currently has the "copy/licence". Now we have a system where we enjoy all the current freedoms, without stepping on the right to profit of copyright holders. Even better, since you loan the digital copy (a backup) your original is not in danger of being fscked up. The companies would complain that we could loan it twice/encode it twice, or watch it on DVD while a mate watches the copy - but compared to the alternative that is meaningless whimpering. Fair use already allows us to make a copy, and good sense says that is kept offsite at a friends place - this would simply allow it to be done digitally.

      Circumventing goverment restrictions

      17th century Japan placed restrictions on the rights of it's people to carry weapons (which thankfully is thought responsible for the sudden emergence of really cool weapons from Okinawa (Suri Karma, Nunchuku, etc). This led to a police state that made it hard for the people to resist further and more destructive abuses from their government. Free speech is a greater weapon than any sword - to lose it (and America is already on the way towards this) is to embrace an abusive state/goverment - whether this be fascism/capitolism/totalitarism or other. Free speech means the right to *unpopular speech* not the right to popular speech, which is already protected by the consent of the hurd.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    22. Re:Joke all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      typical fascist reply...

    23. Re:Joke all you want by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      The biggest boon of Freenet, not to mention other efforts an anonymous P2P, is for people in countries with oppressive regimes.

      What is the boon? I think the only way you can say that people in countries with oppressive regimes are helped is by saying that all countries have oppressive regimes. Otherwise it's a simple matter of creating an anonymous hosting account in a non-oppressive country.

    24. Re:Joke all you want by Greg+W. · · Score: 1

      So why can't China or Your-favorite-regime simply block/ban downloading freenet itself?



      They can block freenetproject.org and sourceforge.net, but it's also possible to download Freenet from any existing user's node, if that user sets up the distribution servlet. Or if you're old-fashioned, you could just ask your American pen-pal to e-mail it to you. (Well, that won't work if all e-mail is read by the government, as it is in China. But in some other places, it might work.)



      It could also simply block the appropriate ports



      No, this won't work because Freenet nodes use arbitrary TCP ports. When you install a Freenet node, a random port number is chosen (which you can accept or change) during the configuration.

    25. Re:Joke all you want by praedor · · Score: 1

      OK. So a hacker group has done this...for what purpose, hacking? (in the bad sense rather than in the benign code hacker sense). What important and regime-changing literature has been published and widely read? It doesn't count worth a damn if a small group of hackers make it and use it amongst themselves. This is merely masturbation. If it is IMPORTANT than IMPORTANT things are being disseminated and actually read outside a small hacker circle...and it is having a measureable effect.


      Is it? Having any measureable effect? Is it leading to regime change?

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    26. Re:Joke all you want by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1
      It isn't a big deal ... yet.

      After all, who uses that crazy linux thing? It's just written by some teenage hacker, it couldn't ever size up to windows.

      It is dangerous to dismiss something at the start of the growth cycle. And there are sites that I have visited on freenet that have genuine political debate. Even some that openly support terrorism. Try getting that hosted on the real net nowadays.

      I firmly believe that Freenet will become the home of true free speech. And yes, you will get crap on it. Look at blogs. Freeing speech does indeed make you realise how little most people have to say. This does not mean that speech should not be free.

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    27. Re:Joke all you want by praedor · · Score: 1

      One of the biggest problems here is that it appears you want free speech without ANY consequences for whatever you say/do in the name of "free speech". You WANT to be able to yell "Fire!" in a crowded disco and not eat shit for the deaths you cause from the stampede. You WANT to say "Kill the president" and not eat the legitimate shit you should eat for such "speech". There is no recognized fully free speech anywhere on the planet. There are SOME things that are not said without consequences, and rightly so. Fine, say it, but eat the full load of shit for saying it as you should and quit trying to hide (not YOU, the generic, broad you) behind the convenient cry of "free speech". Free speech is NOT intended to mean free to say ANYTHING in ANY way. For ANY society to work, even free societies, there are (and HAVE to be) widely recognized limits. Your "property rights" are legitimately limited in extent. You "right to bear arms (and bare breasts)" is also limited. You "freedom of speech" is simply not unlimited and never was intended to be by any Founding Father.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    28. Re:Joke all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      biggest boon of Freenet, not to mention other efforts an anonymous P2P, is for people in countries with oppressive regimes.

      That's a great idea, but it's not the reality. I actually heard recently of a bona-fide case where Freenet had been used that way. One. After all this time. Compared to the hundreds and hundreds of times such use has been claimed to show how it's good for something besides porn and pirated software. Last time I looked, Freenet couldn't even deal with a simple NAT firewall; how, then, could it get around the sorts of measures a nation like China could put in place to stop it? The claim that Freenet is used to help oppressed people might have a very small grain of truth to it, but that grain is outweighed by barrels and barrels of claims that have no basis in reality and are made only to deflect criticism over what really are Freenet's primary uses.

    29. Re:Joke all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just SAYING it is a boon to child pornographers and pedophiles are just words until you can back that up with FACTS. DATA. Anthing else is dookie and heresay.

      PS: This was at +5 insightful??? WTF?

    30. Re:Joke all you want by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Then we have a fundamental disagreement - I do believe that speech must be free. You cannot have censorship without monitoring all communications. I believe that this is too high a price. For every instance that you quote of free, anon speech being bad (plotting to kill the president, shouting fire (glad you know law :) )) I can quote instances such as telling Jews how to escape under Nazi rule, Christianity under Stalin, even being able to reveal program security holes without being detained under the DMCA. The problem with relying on a legal basis to guarentee speech is that it is at the sufferance of whoever controls society. This is shown in the Weimar-Nazi transition, and even in the US (I'm not from there though) speech is becoming less free.

      You can't have a little cesorship just like you can't get a little preganant, and I am not prepared to entrust the protection of my freedoms to a body which may change its view at any time (like the Patriot Act post 9-11).

      I think that it is interesting to note that Japan has a constitutional bar against the government intercepting communications between citizens (letters and I think thelephone calls but can't remember if there was a revision or not for that) and as well as being an excellent example in the respect of citizens does not seem to have give Japan a higher rate of crime, KP, priacy (incert evil of choice) the other countries.

      I do not believe that in a state that has set out to monitor all communiactions (Total Information Awareness) of its citizens, and already listens to all phone comms in my country (the UK) is going to respect privacy in any way. I therefore find it nessisary to turn to technical menas to protect me liberties.

      As I say, it may be just a fundamental difference in world view.

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    31. Re:Joke all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this won't work because Freenet nodes use arbitrary TCP ports. When you install a Freenet node, a random port number is chosen (which you can accept or change) during the configuration.


      That doesn't help. Government-controlled ISPs can use packet filtering and block or detect anything that isn't a recognized "legal" protocol, regardless of the port number. And if they can detect Freenet being used, they'll know exactly which homes to raid.

      But the authors of Freenet know this! They aren't trying to make it undetectable because that would be impossible. Instead, they want Freenet to replace HTTP as the standard protocol so all governments are forced to allow its use (or else suffer a negative effect on their local businesses).

    32. Re:Joke all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you actually believe that tripe that you just spewed all over our screens? Please, get some help. If not for yourself, do it for your family!

    33. Re:Joke all you want by ryanvm · · Score: 1

      The biggest boon of Freenet, not to mention other efforts an anonymous P2P, is for people in countries with oppressive regimes.

      Do you really think that a country with an oppressive regime wouldn't just outlaw Freenet? Hell, it'll probably get outlawed here in the U.S. [Save the non-funny Ashcroft jokes.]

    34. Re:Joke all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a few dozen/hundred/thousand child molesters when you could have a hundred or so people (and terrorists of course) publishing complaints about this or that government?

      This is insightfull? #1, although reprehensable, pedophiles are not all child molesters and #2 Look out, there is a Terrorist under your bed - RUNNNNNNN rightdown to your HomeLand Security Office (TM) and report it!!!!

      Moron.

    35. Re:Joke all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because in this country, you've always been free to be wrong.

    36. Re:Joke all you want by andrewski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The same could be said about Avation! Why do they want to fly? It's just a rich gentleman's sport, nothing useful ever gets done by airplanes. It doesn't count worth a damn if a bunch of rich guys show off up there!

      Or, how about writing and reading? What's the point? All that it's useful for is for priests and the nobility to communicate dry messages to each other! What would I ever want to write down?

      Or, how about emerging from the sea? Why would you want to do that? All that would happen is that you'd dry out up there! The world is like 70% water anyway! Just stay down here, or you might dry out!

      The true impact of technologies and advancements are not often evident for many years.

      Additionally, you are a dolt if you think that just because something isn't on the news, it's not important. What planet are you from, anyway? I would say that sometimes what doesn't make the news is more important than what does. What, in society, is a measurable effect, by the way? Sometimes an effect like freedom isn't measurable with any metric we have right now. Barring the invention of psychohistory, we have no way of knowing, either.

      I cry troll upton thee.

    37. Re:Joke all you want by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Who gives a shit whether Freenet is used for what you consider to be earth-shattering important uses or not? The web in nearly its entirety is filled with inane, useless, masturbatory sites and yet I don't see anyone but a few brainless twits calling for its destruction.

      Here's a newsflash: if Freenet doesn't ring your bell *then don't use it*. That's right, just don't download it and install it. Nobody's pointing a gun to your head.

      As for the rest of us, whether or not we use it is *our* choice and *our* business. It isn't your choice, and it certainly isn't any of your damned business. Hear that? It - isn't - any - of - your - damned - business.

      Was that slow enough for you?

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    38. Re:Joke all you want by Eil · · Score: 1


      What's a few dozen/hundred/thousand child molesters when you could have a hundred or so people (and terrorists of course) publishing complaints about this or that government?

      Personally, just SAYING it is a boon for those under the thumb of nasty regimes are just words until you can back that up with FACTS. DATA.


      Okay, but you show me a few thousand child molesters using freenet first.

      Personally, just SAYING it is a boon for child molesters are just words until you can back that up with FACTS. DATA.

  8. Slashdotted, heh. by DarklordJonnyDigital · · Score: 5, Funny

    File sharing clients don't get Slashdotted... they just give an error saying "More download sources required".

    1. Re:Slashdotted, heh. by slux · · Score: 1

      And freenet doesn't get slashdotted at all. One of it's features is that popular content becomes more widely available and unrequested content fades away. When thousands of slashdotters get on freenet and request a site, they'll also be distributing them to each other.

    2. Re:Slashdotted, heh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually.. because of some bug in previously advertised Freenet, new nodes flooded the network (with announces) to its knees.

      I think that's fixed now, but Freenet wasn't able to cope it the first time.

  9. Speed/Content/Searchable by Geekbot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think there are really only 3 pivotal factors for any P2P.
    1)Speed: If you have a gazillion files but it take 4 hours to get an mp3, no one will use it.
    2)Content: I can go to kazaa and find music, software, video's, pictures, basically, everything. If a user has to use 3 different P2P engines to get what they want, it wont last.
    3)Searchable: If it's a pain to find the files you are looking for then you wont use it, and so fewer files will be available, and more people will end up dropping it due to content.

    Speeds seem to be terrible on all of the services I've used. Kazaa (Kazaalite) has the ability to download from multiple users, making up for that a little bit. I'm curious what speeds freenet can pull down from individual users. I've been thinking that those terrible speeds might just be from restrictive caps that ISP's might be placing on the P2P popular ports.

    1. Re:Speed/Content/Searchable by Manwe's+Herald · · Score: 1

      Each freenet client choose a port randomly during its installation. so restrictive caps are not a problem with freenet. the problem is probably the searchability. for content to be available on freenet someone must upload it to the network. Then someone who want to download it must know the "address". but one advantage is that once something is on the network nobody can delete it and it don't matter if the original owner is online or not. Freenet is not really like other P2P filesharing, it's more like a distributed anonymous storage.

    2. Re:Speed/Content/Searchable by Greg+W. · · Score: 1

      I'm curious what speeds freenet can pull down from individual users.



      Why would that matter? Freenet has enormous latency on single-file operations, because it has to go find the file, which may or may not exist, and if it still exists, may or may not be easy to locate. The actual time spent transferring a single HTML or text or even JPEG/GIF file is usually small compared to the search latency.



      But if you're downloading a large splitfile, then it will spawn as many simultaneous download threads as you ask it to (if your computer can handle it). I've personally seen non-cached splitfiles download at 18 kB/s averaged over a period of several minutes, with the default 10 threads. For me, that's pretty good. As the story at the top of the page says (you did read it, yes?), other people have seen speeds of up to 100 kB/s on cable modems. (But I wouldn't count on that in the typical case.)

    3. Re:Speed/Content/Searchable by gimpster · · Score: 1

      I'm sitting on a good broadband connection over which I've been able to download files from the regular Internet at speeds up to 1.5 MB/s, so I have the necessary bandwidth...

      With Freenet I've been able to download large splitfiles with an average speed of about 50 KB/s, with peaks over 100 KB/s. I tend to get about 2-3 KB/s on average downstream from fastest nodes I connect to, so you need a lot of connections to speed things up.

      --
      Martin Geisler --- Visit http://www.gimpster.com/
    4. Re:Speed/Content/Searchable by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      I'm curious what speeds freenet can pull down from individual users.

      Some people are getting up to 100 k/s, but not me. I opened the Gateway page (right click on the blue rabbit in the system tray, select "Open Gateway") and then middle-clicked on each of the 4 sites (to open in separate tabs in Mozilla), and after 20 minutes the second one ("The Index Index") has completed but the other 3 are still loading.

      This seems rather unusable. I haven't gone farther but so far I'm unimpressed.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    5. Re:Speed/Content/Searchable by Greg+W. · · Score: 1

      I'm sitting on a good broadband connection [...] speeds up to 1.5 MB/s



      Holy shit. That's EIGHT TIMES the speed of a T1. That goes a little tiny bit beyond what I'd call "good".



      /me mumbles something about 1200 baud modems, and uphill both ways.

  10. How does this compare to Edonkey/Emule? by NoDoZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know I see 300k/sec downloads on emule, and I find just about anything I'm looking for on it.

    Why is freenet better than edonkey?

    1. Re:How does this compare to Edonkey/Emule? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think it's more anonymous. ie if that American ISP being sued (?Verizon? - and I'm assuming you're American here) is forced to hand over the name and address of the frequent mp3 trader that the RIAA requested you will need to switch to a secure, p2p network.

      I believe freenet is, or aims to be, the only network offering that level of anonymity and protection.

    2. Re:How does this compare to Edonkey/Emule? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because on freenet you can find things or post things yourself 100% free from censorship. This probably doesn't seem like a big deal when you just want to grow your music and video collection, but in countries where basic news services are banned, and freedom of speech is limited (ie: everywhere) then Freenet provides a safe forum to exchange views.

    3. Re:How does this compare to Edonkey/Emule? by Manwe's+Herald · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you are looking to just another filesharing network like edonkey/kazaa/gnutella, freenet is not for you.

      Freenet is different.

      For content to be available on freenet someone must upload it to the network. The advantage is that once something is on the network nobody can delete it and it don't matter if the original owner is online or not, but "publisher have to make an effort if they want content to be available. Freenet is not really like other P2P filesharing, it's more like a distributed anonymous storage.

    4. Re:How does this compare to Edonkey/Emule? by Espectr0 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So, they store the files on the server?
      How dumb. That killed napster, you know?

    5. Re:How does this compare to Edonkey/Emule? by warpSpeed · · Score: 4, Insightful
      So, they store the files on the server? How dumb. That killed napster, you know?

      I hope your kidding. Central control killed napster. There was only one switch that needed to be turned off, and the RIAA went after that one switch. With Freenet storage is totaly distributed, there is not one place that you can turn the switch off. And that is the point. No one organization can control it.

    6. Re:How does this compare to Edonkey/Emule? by Manwe's+Herald · · Score: 1

      there is no central server

      the files are splited, encrypted and stored on multiple node on the network. each person installing freenet is running a node and is storing files from other person on his hard disk. You can't know what you are storing and the authorities don't know neither. All the traffic is also encrypted. each node know of some other nodes and ask them if they have a file and if they don't they ask their neighbor too. Then the content is propagated back to the original requester and no node know who it was exactly.

      It's often slow but very secure and hard to control or stop.

    7. Re:How does this compare to Edonkey/Emule? by Mullen · · Score: 1
      I know I see 300k/sec downloads on emule, and I find just about anything I'm looking for on it.

      Why is freenet better than edonkey?

      Your not getting 300k/sec with emule. I have been using it for a long time now and the absolute highest I have ever gotten is 50k/sec. The eDonkey protocol is really just a dumb design. Your forced to share with many people, which is cool, but the max upload rate of emule is 3 or 4k/sec, which is lame. The idea is that it's better to share to many slowly than a to few fast. This means, a thousand people has to have the file your looking for, and you have to be able to connect to a lot of them to get what you want a high speed. This just does not happen.

      --
      Linux O Muerte!
    8. Re:How does this compare to Edonkey/Emule? by krel · · Score: 1

      Flaimbait?! Of course he's joking. It's a joke, it's funny.

      --
      karma: ouch!
    9. Re:How does this compare to Edonkey/Emule? by sulli · · Score: 1
      Imagine a beowolf cluster of children from Natelie Portman and Kevin Mitnic, in Soviet Russia, profiting!

      From reading this thread, it seems like that's what's on freenet.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    10. Re:How does this compare to Edonkey/Emule? by foobar2222 · · Score: 1

      Central Control may have killed napster.
      But they'll never get moose and squirrel!

    11. Re:How does this compare to Edonkey/Emule? by linzeal · · Score: 1
      I have downloaded from people on emule/edonkey/overnet off a single node at +50K, I have also uploaded above 6K to a single person. when my max cap is only 10k (adsl).

      It sounds to me like you need to limit the amount of connections emule uses or go to dslreports.com and find your max upload speed.

  11. 100K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoah, tell me if it's just be but 100K/second is really really slow. At that rate a 200MB file will take a half hour to download. You're going to have to compete with the 800K-1MB speeds of other networks if you want to stand a chance.

    I tried freenet once, and there's something else about it. I can't figure out how to use it! It doesn't have its own search box or anything, I was supposed to use the web browser and visit sites using freenet:// instead of http://. But there was no obvious intuitive way to search freenet. When there is, give me a call.

    I do like the anonymousness however.

    1. Re:100K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's just be.

    2. Re:100K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering most cable/dsl customers get a max of 150K downstream and 15K upstream, I'd say it's acceptable.

    3. Re:100K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey monkey-brain. That's 100KByte/sec not 100KBit.
      If you're talking KBit, with cable I max out at 2400 KBit/sec.

  12. The REALLY nice thing about freenet by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Note: IAHFU (I Am a Happy Freenet User)

    As it is fundamentally web based, freenet represents the a system where being able to publish is not dependedent on being able to buy server space. This represents a very real democratisation of the net ($10 a month is a lot more in Asia), and the totally anonimous nature of the ntwork allows for much freer political speech.

    It is also worth noting that it automatically spreads frequently requested data across the network, meaning no more slashdot effect. This also makes for a more effecient network, as data is stored near to you.

    You want to support the freedom of code? Get freenet and do your bit.

    --
    "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    1. Re:The REALLY nice thing about freenet by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1

      Apologies for repost, it was in error.

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    2. Re:The REALLY nice thing about freenet by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, it could be vulnerable to the slashdot effect - sort of. The freenet distribution comes with (iirc) 100 'seed' nodes. These are exported periodically from the hawk.freenetproject.org node. Your node picks 50 of them and uses them as peers. It soon migrates off the seed nodes and onto other nodes. But those first 50 could well be slashdotted.

    3. Re:The REALLY nice thing about freenet by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1

      As far as I can see this is the avenue for a governemt/RIAA blackhat attack - having all node names changed to gov't servers that record all IPs. If in China etc, the gov't can and would just come around and arrest you on that basis.

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    4. Re:The REALLY nice thing about freenet by CybrGuyRSB · · Score: 1

      You don't have to use the default seed nodes. It is possible to get a node listing from somewhere else that you trust and import that into your node.

    5. Re:The REALLY nice thing about freenet by onepoint · · Score: 1

      you are hitting the nail on the head with that one.

      If an ISP, notices that your running a freenet system, you have just placed them in a very unique state. they could terminate you for having a server, or they could be subject to court orderes if your server is found to have been a storage location for illegal porn, ( how would you like to be arrested for running a server that had kiddy porn ) even after the charges are dropped you'll never get that blotted out of your records.

      nothing wrong with the idea, but personally I would prefer to know what I'm storing.

      onepoint

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    6. Re:The REALLY nice thing about freenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      subject to court orderes if your server is found to have been a storage location for illegal porn


      And how exactly do you propose that anyone could find that out? Nobody (and I mean nobody) knows what is stored at your node. Even requests for illegal material could (and would) be routed through your node as a means of disguising both the client and the (real) server.

      Read up on FreeNet before spouting such nonsense.
    7. Re:The REALLY nice thing about freenet by Greg+W. · · Score: 1

      The freenet distribution comes with (iirc) 100 'seed' nodes. These are exported periodically from the hawk.freenetproject.org node. Your node picks 50 of them and uses them as peers.



      Actually, it's 273 at the time of this writing. Hawk is set to keep 300, but 273 is all it could find at the moment.



      But yes, your point is well taken. There's always a burst of instability when a lot of new users join the network. It was really bad when 0.5 was released, but the changes in 0.5.1 (and having 273 seed nodes in the snapshots directory instead of 100) make it less of a horror than it was last year.



      Ideally, though, once Freenet has grown and matured, the slashdot effect for a given piece of content (say, Ian Clarke's video on the pornBush Freenet site) should not exist.

    8. Re:The REALLY nice thing about freenet by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1
      ANd then it has become vunrable to attack as these must be distributed to people. I can honey pot, put around false nodes.

      Course this is all irrelivant if your govt just bans encripted tansmissions (as is still the case in france for some methods of communication AFAIK).

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    9. Re:The REALLY nice thing about freenet by youBastrd · · Score: 1
      This also makes for a more effecient network, as data is stored near to you.
      Of course it's more efficient: the files are already on your machine :)
      --
      No one has ever fired for blaming Microsoft.
    10. Re:The REALLY nice thing about freenet by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

      Grab a few dozen refs, merge them all. You'll use a mix of each list.

    11. Re:The REALLY nice thing about freenet by arodland · · Score: 1

      True. But just because it's a "release" don't forget that that first digit is a 0.

      There are other methods; they're just not quite pretty yet, and not in heavy use yet. The most obvious leap forward is DistributionServlet, which is a way to download a copy of the freenet software from a trusted friend, rather than the freenetproject website -- and the seednodes you get that way also come from your friend. It helps integration into the network (because of the possible slashdotting issues mentioned above), and it protects against some types of blackhat attacks as well. Unless your friend is compromised -- but I said "trusted friend." If your trust is misplaced, that's not my fault.

      And don't forget out-of-band methods; you can still always take your node software, export your routing table, put it on a usb keyfob or something, and give it to a friend.

      Having said all of that, no, Freenet can't really stand up to a concerted attack by a very large adversary -- and probably never will be able to. But it goes a lot farther than anything I've ever seen, and it's only getting better.

      --hobbs

  13. Freenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are copies of every Enterprise episode released on Freenet as well as sites about magic.

    I have left it running for weeks and never notice the hits on it from other users. As for downloading files, it is very efficient as long as you have a large upstream. Remember that you are sending data out while downloading because the overhead with communications is very high.

    Page insertions are the biggest problems now. Frost has taken care of this problem, but it is still slow to get anything on the network.

    This is the type of setup we need for the future. I use it everyday.

    1. Re:Freenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Also be sure to check out Freenet Insertion Wizard, FIW.

      http://freenet.sourceforge.net/tiki-index.php?pa ge =Applications

  14. Re:Speed by flokemon · · Score: 1

    Speeds seem to be terrible on all of the services I've used. Kazaa (Kazaalite) has the ability to download from multiple users, making up for that a little bit.

    Applications such as Kazaa let you configure how many uploads you accept at the same time, and you can cap the upload speed as well.

    The faster p2p application I know was probably Audiogalaxy, where you could not cap the speed, and if you wanted to be able to download 10 tracks simultaneously, you had to allow 10 simultaneous uploads as well. Also, it would try and connect you with the user who you could get the fastest download from.

  15. The problem is... by benjiboo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Even though there are many legitimite uses of file sharing apps, P2P will be forever linked with copyright infringement and misuse. If the holy grail of a fast, anonymous, reliable and completely distributed P2P apps was ever reached, it would inevitably attract the mp3 sharing masses.

    The bandwagon rolls on though. The only way to stop P2P IMO is go after the ISP's. I'm no sysadmin, but I'm sure it would be possible for block certain ports, report heavy downloaders etc. At the moment nobody dare do this for fear of a mass exodus of customers, but if the law made sure that all of these ISP's had to comply, I'm sure they alone would be able to stop the spread. How feasible is it for the ISP's to put barriers in place?

    --
    Vacancy for signature. Apply within.
    1. Re:The problem is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not feasible at all. Any P2P network could use any arbitrary/dynamic ports. The responsibility can not lie with ISPs. Maybe media companies should revert to vinyl? Surely the video format on vinyl must have improved since the early 1900's? :0)

    2. Re:The problem is... by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

      Freenet uses a randomly selected port number. Try filtering that! :)

    3. Re:The problem is... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Informative
      FreeNet isn't really a P2P network as you are probably thinking - for instance, it doesn't have built in searching (or didn't last time I checked). It's not like Kazaa where you type in the files you want and get it, it's more like the web, where you have to find those files and locate them.

      Plus, it's not a sharing model, it's a publish model. You have to upload files to the network, a process that used to be a total PITA anyway, if you wanted it to propogate enough to be useful.

      So FreeNet isn't useful for pirates. Which is cool. What it is useful for is things like load balancing - if you've ever been slashdotted, or ever found it hard to pay the bandwidth bills, freenet offers a way out. They were even playing with streaming radio over it a while ago, though I think really IPv6 multicast is a better solution there.

      So freenet is about freedom of speech, load balancing, cool P2P experiments, lots of things - but not MP3 swapping.

    4. Re:The problem is... by RLiegh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me adjust my tinfoil hat before I answer. ;)

      The way that I see it, ISP's are heading the way of cable companies. In the future you will have one state covered by, say, AOL and a local teleco ISP; another state covered by MSN and a local teleco.

      Once matters reach that point, it will be fairly trivial for them to block whatever ports are being used by freenet, etc (or maybe block all ports but port 80), and users who don't like it are SOL.

    5. Re:The problem is... by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      If an ISP uses an "deny everything except what we allow" (ports for mail, web and chat, probably); then randomly selected port numbers wouldn't do much good, AFAIK.

    6. Re:The problem is... by praedor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Does this mean that if I am downloading the latest distro release from (distro) that I get screwed because I was downloading a whole lot of "stuff" and thus must be "pirating"?


      Heavy downloading cannot be the switch that cuts off a user or set of users. Also, what if you are in on a collaborative project of some kind? Into multimedia development? You could end up with lots of back-and-forth file swapping.


      Any flag setoff for cutting off a user at the ISP had better be pretty robust so that it doesn't nail innocent net users (who are using the net for its INTENDED PURPOSE afterall). How do you do that? Ban mp3 downloads/transfers? What if they are MY mp3s? Or MY videos? Maybe I'm an amateur film maker or in a garage band.


      P2P cannot be killed without gutting one of the primary reasons for the internet's very existence. It was NOT designed just to distribute commercial products properly paid for. That is a tack-on that came well AFTER file sharing/data sharing.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    7. Re:The problem is... by zornorph · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is a very easy way to at least slow down the amount of leeching that occurs on P2P... charge people for the amount of bandwidth they use. Here in North America, we can download many gigabytes of data on cable/dsl before our ISP's will say anything, so we will happily download everything in sight. However, if we had to pay for the amount of traffic that we downloaded, I'm sure little Johnny would be put in his place by his dad after the first month's ISP bill arrived.

      This of course does not address the issue of who pays if you are hit with a DDoS attack (perhaps you could be relieved of the responsibility of paying if you call the ISP when the attack is detected?) but it would definitely stop a large amount of P2P leeching, and would not affect those of us who download Linux isos from time to time.

      --
      http://bike.stu.ph/rides - free GPS routes available for Garmin, Magellan, GPX and Google Earth
    8. Re:The problem is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And neither will active ftp, streamcast, custom IRC (port 5555 anyone?) and lots of other applications that dinamically choose which ports to use.

      Not to mention that nobody would go to an ISP that has such a policy.

      And, just in case you haven't noticed yet, you _can_ put freenet on a port that is allowed, and unless the ISP inspects each individual packet, it _will_ work (nobody does that anyway.)

      Dumbass, think before you post.

    9. Re:The problem is... by pebs · · Score: 1

      The way that I see it, ISP's are heading the way of cable companies. In the future you will have one state covered by, say, AOL and a local teleco ISP; another state covered by MSN and a local teleco.

      Hmmm.. Well, then how does wireless fit into the picture? Considering that the standard method of Internet access will eventually be wireless. Are we going to have one wireless provider for each region? I would hope not.

      --
      #!/
    10. Re:The problem is... by Chalex · · Score: 1

      Freenet, Bittorrent != Kazaa, EDonkey

      All are P2P, but not the same.

    11. Re:The problem is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you do that? Ban mp3 downloads/transfers? What if they are MY mp3s? Or MY videos? Maybe I'm an amateur film maker or in a garage band.

      Dear sir:

      I don't want to download your amateur home videos or your crappy garage band music. I want to download professionally produced home videos and popular music. I particularly like Top 40 music, which has been painstakingly crafted to appeal to a wide audience such as myself.

      Sincerely,

      Joe Sixpack

    12. Re:The problem is... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      So run freenet on port 80. Works there just fine -- and it's even possible to multiplex with a HTTP server. Support for tunneling the freenet protocol through entirely valid HTTPS is also quite possible.

    13. Re:The problem is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that nobody would go to an ISP that has such a policy.

      What if you live in an area where your only options for broadband internet are the local cable monopoly or the local phone monopoly. You know, places like most of the U.S. outside of major cities.

      neither will active ftp, streamcast, custom IRC (port 5555 anyone?) and lots of other applications that dinamically choose which ports to use.

      Not their problem! What are you going to do? Switch back to dial-up? *snort*

      And, just in case you haven't noticed yet, you _can_ put freenet on a port that is allowed, and unless the ISP inspects each individual packet, it _will_ work (nobody does that anyway.)

      Sure... You CAN. For a while. Until the MPAA, RIAA, Ministry of Fatherland Security, or some other sinister agency figures out who and where you are.

    14. Re:The problem is... by praedor · · Score: 1

      Thank you Joe Sixpack for your interest! My family and friends lack your exquisite taste and class and like my films/movies (or so I tell myself) and even like my music. Unfortunately, now not only have I lost my net connection for "illegally" disseminating music and movies, but they also lost theirs because they were "obviously pirates" downloading mp3s and movie files to which they "had no right".


      I am having to use my neighbor's computer right now to reply to you. Hopefully they wont get taken out for helping a criminal such as myself.


      Sincerely, John Sixpack

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    15. Re:The problem is... by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      Even if residential broadband becomes an oligopoly with one cable company and/or DSL from the baby bell, you can always get a T1 for $1000 with no restrictions on reselling bandwidth or running servers. If you get 10 people to go in with you in a co-op arrangement, that's starting to look affordable. But that's a big IF, whether you can find 10 neighbors within wireless range or can affordably wire up an apartment or condo building.

    16. Re:The problem is... by karlm · · Score: 1
      Freenet uses a random flat distribution of port numbers above 1024. You can manually set the port number if you want, but it's set to a random value at install time. Have fun blocking the unprivledged ports, ALL of them. BTW, it is possible to create a protocol for which ALL of the data looks like random noise. The timings and sizes of the packets will still work against you, but that can also be minimized.

      Or, you could use SSL/TLS, IPSec, and/or IPv6 encryption and hide your higher-level protocol headers. You'd still have to be careful about traffic analysis, but ISPs can't start breaking SSL connections mid-trasfer based on statistical analysis of the datastream b/c of computational and memory costs, as well as costomers getting pissed of that their online shopping experience has gone to hell.

      If you didn't mind patching your kernel or running freenet as root, you could also run it on port 443 (https). The current implementation does not use SSL, but an emergency switch could be made.

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    17. Re:The problem is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm no sysadmin, but I'm sure it would be possible for block certain ports, report heavy downloaders etc

      Major ISPs should do this? Bye bye internet.

      That is, until it takes off in China. Then we'd get the mother of all firewalls between East and West, the West censoring warez and the East censoring politics.

      I think the best bet for copyright-holders may be to flood the P2P networks with non-working, fake warez. That'll force crackers to digitally sign the warez, which they may be reluctant to do.

      How feasible is it for the ISP's to put barriers in place?

      I'd say about as feasible as getting the oil companies to support a ban on gasoline-powered cars.

    18. Re:The problem is... by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > > I'm no sysadmin, but I'm sure it would be possible for block certain ports, report heavy downloaders etc
      >
      > Major ISPs should do this? Bye bye internet.
      >
      >That is, until it takes off in China. Then we'd get the mother of all firewalls between East and West, the West censoring warez and the East censoring politics.

      So you're saying "start buying stock in transpacific cable-laying companies today" :-)

    19. Re:The problem is... by damiam · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you can set Freenet to run over port 80 (or 443). That way they couldn't tell it from standard web/https traffic.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    20. Re:The problem is... by RLiegh · · Score: 1

      What if you live in an area where your only options for broadband internet are the local cable monopoly or the local phone monopoly. You know, places like most of the U.S. outside of major cities.

      I live in a city of 31,000 people, approximately. (Moving is not an option, btw). Our choices for *dialup* are as follows:
      AOL
      Walmart
      MSN (through the local teleco)
      Local ISP who is too shitty to mention.

      The last one is the one that I am going through. I'm ditching them, however, as they only offer *Web-Based* email. (I know: "wtf"). This would be fine...if it hadn't been broken since December.

      So, here in The Sticks, even if you were willing to go back to dial up to access freenet; it still may not be an option (esp if AOL, etc get rid of ShitIspCo)
    21. Re:The problem is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Amerika? You drooling idiot. Americans don't get shit for internet access. You don't even know how fucked you are and you talk as though you're all hot shit. You're a joke.

  16. About as long as XP P2P by 4r0g · · Score: 1
    Interestingly enough, the Windows XP Peer-To-Peer SDK does also encrypted "graphs & groups" between nodes, and the data shared in the group is encrypted.
    [insert the usual quips about NSA backdoors], but still...

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/p2psdk/p2p/portal.asp

    --
    - 4r0g
  17. One feature I would like... by mschoolbus · · Score: 0, Troll

    I hope it has just as much pr0n!!!

  18. Re:I can't believe it! by Night+War · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What? As the dreamchaser said before, the last thing that will save the world is free speech and the associated benefits of surviving opposal against a regime. And be sure, even though the Europeans aren't being shot for being against Bush, they certainly didn't like being called "old". So, oppose WW III by promoting openness!!!

  19. Great speed? It's already /. ed :0) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe someone can post the client on a mirror and we the project can share their site through P2P?

    Oh wait no, it's just sourceforge being slow. Must be the engine they use :0)

  20. Here it is by OrangeHairMan · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can jump straight to the fast SourceForge download site here: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group _id=978&release_id=147101

    Orange

  21. well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it was released a week ago, shortly after that, a story was posted on kuro5hin.org.

    Has SlashDot become so secondary??

    (btw, I've been running freenet for a month now and transfers rarely go beyond 10kb/s, that is, if they even finish. The dev that thought programming freenet in JAVA(TM) would be a good idea needs to be shot.)

    1. Re:well... by CybrGuyRSB · · Score: 1

      no it wasn't. last week the release candidate was released, but the actual 0.5.1 wasn't released until yesterday.

  22. [OT] Re:The REALLY nice thing about freenet by Psiren · · Score: 1, Insightful


    What the hell is the point in defining an acronym, and then never using it in the rest of your text? Why even bother doing it? It's completely pointless, and really annoying. Stop it for fuck sake.
    </rant>

    1. Re:[OT] Re:The REALLY nice thing about freenet by arvindn · · Score: 4, Funny
      What the hell is the point in defining an acronym, and then never using it in the rest of your text? Why even bother doing it? It's completely pointless, and really annoying. Stop it for fuck sake.
      TIAFC,AICDATAIW (This Is A Free Country, And I Can Define All The Acronyms I Want).

      Ha!

  23. Perfect timing. by Limburgher · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Freenet is the perfect medium for journalism, because it is anonymous and cannot be taken down by any governmental entity.

    Class, can anyone think of why this might be helpful RIGHT NOW?

    Also, check out Freeweb. Easy Freenet Web publishing. Servereless. Beautiful. Windoze-only, but nice for daily news sites. Used to run one back in Freenet 0.3.9.

    --

    You are not the customer.

    1. Re:Perfect timing. by Limburgher · · Score: 1

      Sorry. Link was wrong. Try this.

      --

      You are not the customer.

    2. Re:Perfect timing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freenet is the perfect medium for journalism, because it is anonymous and cannot be taken down by any governmental entity.
      Class, can anyone think of why this might be helpful RIGHT NOW?


      Let's see. Besides a copy of Freenet, you need access to the 'net. And need the desire to hear information from the rest of the world.

      Nope. Iraqis fail the first test, Americans fail the second.

    3. Re:Perfect timing. by truenoir · · Score: 1

      It might be the perfect way to get information out, but it does nothing to make that information true or at best unbiased. Anonymity means that you don't have to take responsibility for your actions. You *could* have the "truth" (99% subjective anyway), or you could have a work of fiction from an angry 16 year old.

    4. Re:Perfect timing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you dont need any free medium for journalism. the most propaganda coming from the U.S. an the journalism there should be free (see CNN)

      greets from Germany

    5. Re:Perfect timing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Class, can anyone think of why this might be helpful RIGHT NOW?

      I can't. Were you referring to journalists in Iraq? They'll be shot as soon as they're found transmitting radio signals. Doesn't matter if they're using freenet.

    6. Re:Perfect timing. by The+Mgt · · Score: 1
      "it does nothing to make that information true or at best unbiased"


      The same can be said of any news source. Especially government vetted ones.
    7. Re:Perfect timing. by kindbud · · Score: 1

      freeweb.org redirects to freeweb.intereva.it, a news site in Italian. Got a more recent link to this Freeweb of yours? Sounds interesting, but I can't find its current home through Google.

      Oh wait - here it is on Sourceforge. Doh!

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    8. Re:Perfect timing. by truenoir · · Score: 1

      I'm well aware of that too ^_^
      I was simply saying that just because this isn't controlled doesn't make it true either. At least traditional news sources can be contacted so that corrections and apologies can be made, and have credibility to uphold (to a degree). CNN might have a liberal slant and brush over some facts, but they're still interested in being mostly right...as opposed to the Enquirer (just a thrown together, unbased example, I don't know or care to know your opinions of CNN or the Enquirer). To that end, "serious" news sources want to be at least mostly right. If they're not, they lose respect. With anonymous reporting, we could have one source writing conflicting reports with no penalty (Ender's Game anyone?).

  24. Java by arvindn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The reason I haven't tried it yet is that it's written fully in Java. Nothing wrong with that, of course, except I can't afford to overload my Pentium II 333 Mhz box anymore. Already running a webserver on it. But I'll be sure to give it a go when I get more hardware.

    1. Re:Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because it's in Java, doesn't mean it's slow. Java is a VM language like Perl and Python. All these languages are as fast or as slow as the coders coding them. There have been several fast Java apps out there as there have been several fast Perl and Python apps.

      Give Freenet a try. Not trying Freenet because you think it might not be fast enough is a lot like saying that you're not going to try Linux because you think it's too hard.

    2. Re:Java by arvindn · · Score: 1
      From the freenet download page:

      Hardware requirements

      We recommend a processor equivalent to at least a 400MHz Pentium 2/3, with at least 192MB of RAM.

      Perhaps that will convince you?
    3. Re:Java by warpSpeed · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Dude, you don't need flashy hardware to run Freenet... Here are the specs on a a simple system I have running freenet

      [freenet@freenet freenet]$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
      processor : 0
      vendor_id : GenuineIntel
      cpu family : 5 model : 4
      model name : Pentium MMX
      stepping : 4
      cpu MHz : 200.456
      ...

      This is an old system that I had lying around doing nothing. All I contribute is the power to run it and a little BW. The lack of power of the processor self throttles the bandwidth :-)

    4. Re:Java by lubricated · · Score: 1

      I have give it a try on my 400 MHZ Celeron with 256MB or Ram.

      What a hog. It used up tons of Ram. It may be all well and good if that's all that the computer is doing, but computers are multi purpose machines. Running even one java program (freenet/limewire in particular) eats up way too much ram and other resources that you want for your other apps.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    5. Re:Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They 'recommend'. I run it here on a P166MMX with no problems..... Maybe you should actually try it first.

    6. Re:Java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perl and Python do not run on a VM.

    7. Re:Java by radish · · Score: 1

      I run Java on my mobile phone - it's not going to unduly stress you server!

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    8. Re:Java by MidKnight · · Score: 1

      From what I know, most *NIX-based systems (at least, I've seen this on various flavors of Linux & Solaris) don't report Java memory usage statistics correctly, which typically causes uninformed people to believe that "All Java Apps are RAM hogs". This really isn't the case.

      The problem is that most *NIX process tables don't expect separate threads to be sharing the same memory space, as is the case in different Java threads running under a single Java VM process. So, if you have a VM that is using 20 MB of memory, but it has 10 threads, then any process table-based tools (ps, top, pmap, etc) will report that Java process is using 200 MB of memory. At least, this was the case in JRE 1.3....

      Anyone else know the details of this better than me?

    9. Re:Java by lubricated · · Score: 1

      I do realize this.

      But java programs still take lots of ram
      Java programs take up more cpu resources

      My computer feels noticably slower(subjectively)
      This was noticed by my wife too, and she doesn't know when something is running or not, so I consider it a double blind study.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
  25. It's so damn slow, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It can't be used practically. If you want to upload something important, chances are you'll be found out and shot before it gets on freenet. that is, assuming java doesn't return some error like NullExeptionPointer.

    There is another problem, if you don't tell anyone the key, evetually it will just disappear. And since there is no search engine, this is even worse.

    It's great for kiddie porn tho, just download the cryroom file.

  26. Usability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Usability, ive never used freenet before so im probably missing something, but i installed it(on windows) and cant for the life of me figure out how to search for something. so bottom line im uninstalling it as soon as i post this. i do consider myself a geek but the interface for this program better change dramatically if they want more users. people want a program that can install and find a simple easy to understand interface. they dont want to have to read READMEs and such.

  27. Anonymous ? Fast ? by burbledrone · · Score: 1, Troll

    Have any of you actually used Freenet ? It's a mass of broken links (or perhaps they would have arrived eventually - I only waited an hour).

    More importantly, have any of you clowns actually read the Freenet specifications ? There's no anonymity in it - there's just hiding of the information needed to perform the most direct, trivial attacks. Do you really think a governmental or corporate adversary couldn't do better than that ?

    1. Re:Anonymous ? Fast ? by gimpster · · Score: 3, Informative

      You have to run a Freenet node for some time before the speed starts to pick up. The longer you run your node, then better it gets integrated into the network.

      I've been using Freenet for a month now, and the performance has been growing steadily. Try downloading Freenet from my server to get a different set of seed-nodes than the ones distributed from SourceForge.

      --
      Martin Geisler --- Visit http://www.gimpster.com/
    2. Re:Anonymous ? Fast ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Try downloading Freenet from [my server] to get a different set of seed-nodes than the ones distributed from SourceForge.


      Is there any way to just get your seednode list, without dealing with a distro you may have compromised?
    3. Re:Anonymous ? Fast ? by gimpster · · Score: 1

      Hehe, you're right, one cannot be too careful.

      The seednode list is part of the "compromised" distribution tarball/zipfile :-) So you could download the release from SourceForge and then replace seednodes.ref with the one you got from my server.

      --
      Martin Geisler --- Visit http://www.gimpster.com/
    4. Re:Anonymous ? Fast ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you just run an hourly cron job to copy your current seednotes.ref to your website?

    5. Re:Anonymous ? Fast ? by gimpster · · Score: 1

      I don't think the seednodes.ref file changes that often, but I've now made it readily available for download and made a small description here.

      --
      Martin Geisler --- Visit http://www.gimpster.com/
  28. Forward Error Correction by Orasis · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Since proper attribution is usually appreciated, people should know that the Forward Error Correction (FEC) library comes from Onion Networks' FEC library that they developed for Swarmcast.


    The most up to date version of the Java FEC library can be found here.

  29. Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just as soon as New York melts down the Statue Of Liberty, and you replay the War of Independce without the support of France. Then we'll start talking about being patriotic.

    1. Re:Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really need to catch up on your history. France didn't do jack shit.

    2. Re:Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Then where did you get your weapons and supplies from, the Indians? Man, those gun powder making Indian tribes are a clever bunch!

  30. Child Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if anyone has done a survey to see how much child porn is on freenet? I am not game to, because AFAIK you can be thrown in jail just for possesing child porn!

    But freenet is not alone. I know that there is some child porn on KaZaA. Heh, don't you love porn that will not allow previews(.avi files), you have to wait until the entire file is downloaded, that turn out to be child porn. Quick view and then delete is their fate.

    1. Re:Child Porn by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can be arrested and charged for posessing child porn. I knew a guy online who was in the military, and ran a ftp server from his home. People would basically come and go trading files, mostly porn pics.

      Someone stuck a bunch of kiddie porn on the site, and the short story is he's serving 5 years in military prison, and the fact that he had no idea that it was there didn't make a difference.

      The same thing would happen to you if you let some friend store a bunch of his boxes in your garage, and they were full of child porn.

      Now, since freenet distributes all of the "published" stuff across everyone elses machines basically, are you criminially responsible if someones kiddie porn is partially stored on your hard drive?

      The answer is probably yes, though IANAL.

      How can individual users claim that they have no responsiblity for what's being served by their machines?

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Child Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From their FAQ:
      I don't want my node to be used to harbor child porn, offensive content or terrorism. What can I do?
      The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find disgusting. If this is not acceptable to you, you should not run a Freenet node. There is another thing you can do. Since content in Freenet is available as long as its popular, you can help limit the popularity of whatever information you do not like. For example, if you do not want a file to spread you should not request it and tell everyone you know not to request that specific key.

      This flip response is all fine and good until it's your child who's abducted by a pedophile. No thanks, Freenet, child pornography is NOT speech, nor should it be free.

    3. Re:Child Porn by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      the fact that he had no idea that it was there didn't make a difference.

      I wonder if there would be a difference because, not only do you not know that there might be child porn on your computer, but because it is all encrypted (and you don't have the key), you have no way of finding out.

    4. Re:Child Porn by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      This flip response is all fine and good until it's your child who's abducted by a pedophile.

      Quick your child is in danger! burn all the cars and telephone poles and power plants before them pedophiles use the internet to abduct your child, or drive by and snatch them, or...

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    5. Re:Child Porn by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but they have no way of finding out.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    6. Re:Child Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the result of the opressive, elitist and fascist justice on the USA.

    7. Re:Child Porn by shy · · Score: 1

      the How can individual users claim that they have no responsiblity for what's being served by their machines?

      same way the US government can claim they have no responsibility for what the regimes they install do after the fact?

      whats good for the goose..

      --
      ---- keep it simple.
    8. Re:Child Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      This flip response is all fine and good until it's your child who's abducted by a pedophile.


      What, you actually believe in "stranger danger?"

      Actually, almost all abductions are by relatives or close friends of the family. Same thing with molestation. Lock up your father, your husband, your brother, your son... and then your mother, your wife, your sister, and your daughter as well, because it's not just males that offend, either.

    9. Re:Child Porn by plugger · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that the idea is to employ the same argument as an ISP: 'It wasn't me, it was one of my users. I can't possibly be expected to monitor all multimedia crossing my network'.

      However, in the case of Freenet, one could argue that since obfuscation of request and content sources is a core design goal, the owner of a node is wilfully making it hard to police. Whilst IANAL, I imagine that this would be considered when judging any case against an operator.

    10. Re:Child Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This discussion isn't about prior restraint, you fool. It's about child pornography. And I can see by your response that you think it's harmless. No use discussing this with you then.

    11. Re:Child Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice misrepresentation of the quoted material. I actually had to pause and reread it to make sure it didn't actually say that.

    12. Re:Child Porn by cow_licker · · Score: 1

      except that everything that is stored on your computer is heavily encrypted so that even you don't know what is on there.

      --
      $_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;$ t=255;@t=map{$_%16or$t^=$c^=($m=(11,10,116,100,
    13. Re:Child Porn by Eil · · Score: 1


      Don't know if it would hold up in court, but the original design specification of freenet called for each node to automatically encrypt all of the data stored on the node's hard disk such that even the node operator couldn't peer at what was in there.

      Question to anybody who uses freenet: is this in the current implementation? Compared to the original spec, are there any major features of freenet that are still vaporware?

  31. Put Freenet through the test! by ezfur · · Score: 1

    We need to put Freenet through the Slashdot challenge!
    Freenet can put a website up and we see if we can bring it to its knees! I say if it can take it then it's a viable technology. Maybe this will be a new yardstick of technological feasibility.

    What's a sig?

    1. Re:Put Freenet through the test! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freenet can put a website up and we see if we can bring it to its knees! I say if it can take it then it's a viable technology. Maybe this will be a new yardstick of technological feasibility.

      You do realise that this is just what Freenet is best at? Lots of requests leads to lots of propagation of the data, which leads to better availability. Your own attempt to grab the site, and put load on the system, allows many other users to use _you_ as an alternate source.

  32. Unlike other people, I tried this.... by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 5, Informative
    In a most unslashdot way, I actually d/led and tried it out before the article was posted here. Freenet is not the same as the other P2P programs, Freenet is about distributed anonymous storage with the ability to store different kinds of data with encrypted and anonymous access.

    What it is about is the ability to store anything, particularly items that may give the holder problems, like the film of a cop selling drugs to kids.

    It isn't eDonkey, it isnt Kazzaa. With both of these systems you know what you are sharing, with Freenet you don't. With traditional P2P, MPAA can go round logging who is sharing LOTR and send them DMCA cease and desist notices. If you are living in Farkistan, you can publish your videos of police executions without fear that the police can track you down. Once you have loaded a file on the net with freenet, you don't know where it is, and neither does anyone else until they are given a hash key.

    You just have some file storage assigned to the network which is browsable by a hash key through your local web browser. Freenet appears as localhost:8888 to your browser so you can access with a locked-down Mozilla or even IE (less wise because of the holes). People can know that you are running Freenet, but that is all (assuming you clear browser caches and so on).

    The downside is because you can share anything anonymously, people do. However, unless someone is prepared to publish a reference to young Britney and her dog, nobody is going to find it.

    The curious thing is that if you have a fairly static IP and are contributing space to the net, you have no idea what is stored on your machine. It could be human rights info, it could be copyright material, it could be very illegal pornography. You just don't know.

    Also it seems to take a long time to get into the network. It is painfully slow to start and until it starts caching information locally, a letter may be faster.

    1. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >> The curious thing is that if you have a fairly static IP and are contributing space to the net, you have no idea what is stored on your machine. It could be human rights info, it could be copyright material, it could be very illegal pornography. You just don't know

      And regardless of if you know or not, you're still responsible, legally and/or criminally.

      I personally wouldnt touch freenet with a 10 foot pole because of this. How would you like to have your home raided at 3 AM because NAMBLA is now hosting its web forums on your PC?

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nobody knows where the information is coming from. Nobody can tell the NAMBLA forums are now on your PC (Despite the fact you can't do that with Freenet anyway).

      After all, how can you be liable for the information in your Freenet node when you can't tell and there's no way to find out?

    3. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And regardless of if you know or not, you're still responsible, legally and/or criminally.


      You may be responsible (in the legal sense), but nobody knows who hosts what. That's the whole point.

      If nobody knows who hosts what, then how are "they" going to find/prosecute anyone???
    4. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes and what do you think they would find on your machine? Encrypted data that's what.

    5. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      If nobody knows who hosts what, then how are "they" going to find/prosecute anyone???

      It's really simple

      1. Do a search for child porn.
      2. Download one of the search results.
      3. Note IP address which is sending the results.
      4. Contact ISP and connect that IP address with a person.
    6. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1. Do a search for child porn.
      2. Download one of the search results.
      3. Note IP address which is sending the results.
      4. Get the case thrown out at trial when the defense submits the design documentation that shows the node that responded to you didn't necessarily have the data until your node requested that it do a search on your node's behalf, thereby dropping your entire case firmly into the category "entrapment".

      Seriously, freenet is designed so that you can no more claim that the node that replies is responsible for the data that it replies with than the routers that the IP requests flow through are.

    7. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Note IP address which is sending the results.

      Bzzzt, wrong answer.

      Files are transmitted node-to-node in reverse of the search path. Everything you get comes from the upstream node you asked for it from, not directly from the hosting system.

      Now, if you compromised 99.9999% of the nodes on the network, you could be *somewhat* certain that if your childporn request was answered by an IP you hadn't compromised, that it *might* be on that server. (In which case you compromise it and search again). If it came from one of your own servers, check its connection logs to see where it got its answer from, and repeat.

      I'm still waiting for the day when people use banning software that might be used to commit a crime as a precedent to start banning guns. I can't believe the NRA is so short-sighted that it can't see this day approaching.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    8. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Seriously, freenet is designed so that you can no more claim that the node that replies is responsible for the data that it replies with than the routers that the IP requests flow through are.

      Except that routers are owned and run by rich and powerful corporations, which the government is less likely to sue.

    9. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Files are transmitted node-to-node in reverse of the search path. Everything you get comes from the upstream node you asked for it from, not directly from the hosting system.

      I'm talking about the IP address of the upstream node you asked for it from. They are just as guilty of possession and transfer of child pornography as the hosting system.

    10. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way..

      Would an ISP be responsible if one of their customers used their gateway to transfer encrypted data, wich later proved to be child porn?

    11. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Would an ISP be responsible if one of their customers used their gateway to transfer encrypted data, wich later proved to be child porn?

      Maybe.

    12. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Maybe.

      Ah the wonders of modern law. Nobody's innocent or guilty, theres just "maybe".

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    13. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We wage war on the same pretext these days.

    14. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by karlm · · Score: 3, Funny

      More strictly speaking, the document also gets cached on all of the nodes on the return search path. If you're the secret police of Farkistan trying to find who has embarassing videos of human rights violations, you end up spreading those embarassing videos all over the net. "Of course it's on my hard drive, you put it there by the shear act of looking for it, genius."

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    15. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by Stoutlimb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And regardless of if you know or not, you're still responsible, legally and/or criminally.

      If that is true, explain why every owner and operator of every ISP and phone company in the civilized world isn't already in jail? Their computers undeniably carry child porn on their usenet servers.

    16. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1
      The problem is like the ISP, once you know wht is on your system, you arer responsible for it. Otherwise you probably do not even have all the info as files are squirrelled away all over the place.

      You can point to your quite innocent GWB fan boy site whilst hiding away the details of his failings that the Secret Service are trying to prise out of you. Once you load the information, it could sit anywhere. You or anyone else can't know what is yours and what isn't.

      Freenet is far from perfect but it is an important start.

    17. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by gimpster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is, that it could have been your system that made the upsteam system go get this illegal content. So by mearely checking and requesting illegal material, you help spreading it!

      This makes it kind of hard for you to argue, that the node you got the illegal material from was doing anything illegal before you asked for it. I think that's what they mean by plausible deniability.

      Go read this article for an interesting analysis of the legal consequences of nets like Freenet.

      --
      Martin Geisler --- Visit http://www.gimpster.com/
    18. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      If someone sends child porn (in a sealed envelope) through the US Mail, is the US Mail guilty of child porn trafficking?

    19. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      If someone sends child porn (in a sealed envelope) through the US Mail, is the US Mail guilty of child porn trafficking?

      No.

    20. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by damiam · · Score: 1

      Imagine the sweet jobs that'd open up if the government required all ISP's to hire staff to browse all the porn newsgroups deleting child porn.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    21. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    22. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farkistan police won't care. Click Click chains-on-hands and behind bars.

    23. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me introduce you to Mr. Rhetorical Question.

    24. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      More like Mr. Non Sequitur.

    25. Re:Unlike other people, I tried this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I like beer.

  33. Yeah, like THAT'S a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may not be aware of it, but he is French!

    Isn't his hole smaller than average in France?

  34. Uh... by Hard_Code · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think people are missing the point. AFAIK, Freenet is not supposed to be an alternative whizzy network for general use from which people should expect fast downloads and response times, and be able to download MP3s or warez or whatever. It's mostly to support free speech. I'm sure that activist in China is not just going to give up because it took them 10 seconds to upload instead of 1...when the alternative is not being able to speak at all.

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    1. Re:Uh... by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And I'm sure the chinese will use it to discuss democracy and angles and kittens will trade muffin recipies over it.

      Or else the only people "hiding" their speech on it will be pedophiles and Ku Klux Klan members.

      I dont want a single electron in my PC devoted to storing or serving data for either of those groups.

      I wont be part of any 'network' that doesnt let me control what data is being stored and served from my machines, not just because I could be held liable, but because I find the stuff morally repugnant.

      The fact that it's Open Source or Written in Java(TM) doesn't make the tiniest bit of difference to me.

      I like some of the tech, and it intrigues me as to how this could be used in a corporate intranet setting (massive redundant databases distributed over all those PCs in the cubicles, rather than another rackmount?).

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Uh... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      Or else the only people "hiding" their speech on it will be pedophiles and Ku Klux Klan members.

      Or both. There's no perfectly anonymous solution which can't be used by anyone.

    3. Re:Uh... by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1

      Ironically I when I explored Freenet for the first time one of the first sites I found was a site full of copyrighted recipes. :)

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
  35. 100k/s is fast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where the hell do you live? 100k/s in SLOOOOW.
    If I get below 300k/s it is slow, normally I get 1Mbit/s+ on other P2P networks with T3.

  36. too risky for me by elohim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd like to use freenet, but I can't. I can't risk the possibility, however remote, of having child porn cached on my computer. I have too much to lose.

    1. Re:too risky for me by Bloodshot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I can understand your paranoia but I think the risks of you getting in trouble for having child porn stashed on your computer is very remote. From what I understand about Freenet, the anonymous nature of it makes it incredibly unlikely they could actually track individual files and find out who is hosting what.

      IANAL, but a good lawyer could probably successfully argue you have no way of knowing what's being stored on your computer as it is part of an anonymous network. It would be like a bank being held liable for criminals stashing money from the drug trade in it. The bank doesn't know where the money comes from, do they? But I guess you can only afford a good lawyer if you've got lots of money. I'm pretty sure Pete Townsend won't do any jail time for his having viewed and/or possessed child pornography.

    2. Re:too risky for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing you will have cached on your computer is encrypted data. You or anyone else will never know what it is unless you know _EXCACTLY_ what's there.

    3. Re:too risky for me by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      From what I understand about Freenet, the anonymous nature of it makes it incredibly unlikely they could actually track individual files and find out who is hosting what.

      They can't find out who initially contributed what, but it's quite easy to find out who is hosting what. Just look at the IP address of whoever is connecting to you.

      IANAL, but a good lawyer could probably successfully argue you have no way of knowing what's being stored on your computer as it is part of an anonymous network.

      True, but that only works as long as you aren't involved with any other simultaneous coincidences. What if someone happens to use your email address on a child porn site which turns out to be a sting? Now they get a supoena to look into your computer, and find cached copies of child porn. Even if you do eventually win in court (get the wrong jury and maybe you won't), you'll still be arrested and spend at least a few hours in jail.

      But I guess you can only afford a good lawyer if you've got lots of money. I'm pretty sure Pete Townsend won't do any jail time for his having viewed and/or possessed child pornography.

      Not all of us have as much access to bail money as Pete Townsend, though. Those few hours could turn into a few months.

    4. Re:too risky for me by an_mo · · Score: 1

      correct me if I am wrong but I don't think freenet stores entires files on one computer. As far as I understand, only small portions of a file will be stored, so even if your pc is searched, they'll find a list of unintelligible binaries.

    5. Re:too risky for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. When I have a chance to reimpliment the software from scratch then I'll be willing to run it. Of course at that point I'll also set up my system to refuse to share files (download only mode).

    6. Re:too risky for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I have too much to lose.

      You mean like the FBI ceasing your 200 gigs of legit pr0n? ;)

    7. Re:too risky for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops "seizing" is more like it, I think :/

    8. Re:too risky for me by kramer · · Score: 4, Informative

      They can't find out who initially contributed what, but it's quite easy to find out who is hosting what. Just look at the IP address of whoever is connecting to you.

      Not true. For any particular freenet request you cannot be sure if the node contacting you is requesting the file, or is just passing along a request from a previous node.

      The reverse is also true. For any particular file you're requesting, you can't tell if the file you're getting is from the node you're contacting or if it's passing on your request to another node.

      It's a double blind. You MAY be getting the files from that node, then again by the very nature of freenet, and the large amount of information in it it is extremely unlikely that the information you recieved was actually on the node you requested it from.

      Further, if the goverment finds something unsavory, and manages to somehow prove (don't ask me how) it was on your computer the caching nature of Freenet allows you to say "There's a damn good chance that file wasn't on my computer until the government requested it". At that point you have the dual defenses of reasonable doubt and entrapment.

    9. Re:too risky for me by oyenstikker · · Score: 1

      It would be like a bank being held liable for criminals stashing money from the drug trade in it.

      It would be more like the bank being held liable for criminals stashing drugs in deposit boxes and handing out copies of the keys. Is the bank liable for this?

      --
      The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    10. Re:too risky for me by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Not true. For any particular freenet request you cannot be sure if the node contacting you is requesting the file, or is just passing along a request from a previous node.

      It doesn't matter. The person passing along a request is still guilty.

      The reverse is also true. For any particular file you're requesting, you can't tell if the file you're getting is from the node you're contacting or if it's passing on your request to another node.

      Even if it does matter, I'm not very certain that this is implimented correctly. I mean, what if you isolate all nodes except the one you want to search. Then wouldn't you be certain that any file you receive is received from that computer?

      It's a double blind. You MAY be getting the files from that node, then again by the very nature of freenet, and the large amount of information in it it is extremely unlikely that the information you recieved was actually on the node you requested it from.

      With 100% certainty you ARE getting files from that node. They might be forwarded from another node, but as we saw in the napster case, that doesn't really matter.

      Further, if the goverment finds something unsavory, and manages to somehow prove (don't ask me how) it was on your computer the caching nature of Freenet allows you to say "There's a damn good chance that file wasn't on my computer until the government requested it". At that point you have the dual defenses of reasonable doubt and entrapment.

      The entrapment defense is a good one. Maybe that one would hold up.

    11. Re:too risky for me by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      The only thing you will have cached on your computer is encrypted data. You or anyone else will never know what it is unless you know _EXCACTLY_ what's there.

      So what's the point of having it there, if no one can access it? Surely someone must have the key?

    12. Re:too risky for me by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      " I'd like to use freenet, but I can't. I can't risk the possibility, however remote, of having child porn cached on my computer."

      Chances are, if there were any child porn or other materials considered illegal in your locality, they wouldn't be whole files. From what I understand with Freenet, you're only hosting bits and pieces of files. Therefore, it's not as though you could browse through your data store and see pictures and movies you find offensive. Chances are, you would see little more than garbled 'junk' completely unidentifiable. It's part of how Freenet works.

      The idea is that the only way to see anything on Freenet is to look through the Freenet interface itself. You're not supposed to know what you're storing, who's asking for it, who you're sending it to (as in final destination), and you're not supposed to know where you're getting stuff from. Basically, the idea is that no one knows where anything else is actually coming from or going to because every data request looks like another hand-off.

      If I understand it correctly (and I may be wrong, please correct me if this is the case), when you're downloading a freesite on Freenet, and one of the items on this site is a picture, the picture is stored in pieces. Your node checks its data store to see if any parts of the picture are stored there (to save time and bandwidth), and if it can't find it, sends out a request for the pieces it doesn't have. The trick is, the request it sends spreads a bit like a virus. Node A, you, sends out a request for data to nodes B and C. B and C don't have it in their data store, so they send out a request identical to the one you sent them to nodes D, E, F, and G. This continues up to a certain number of nodes deep, with the number of nodes deep depends on how each node is set up. If node E has the data in its data store, it sends it to node B, which then sends it to node A. Node A doesn't know where the data originated, node B doesn't know that node A is the final destination, nor does it know that the data came from E's data store, and node E doesn't know where the data ended up. That's the beauty of the blinded system, a compromised host doesn't know much of anything. Compromising half the network means you might manage to track the flow of half the network's traffic, but you still couldn't say with any certainty which node, or computer, is storing what data. Just because node B can respond to the request doesn't mean it has the data stored locally. And just because B asked E for the data, doesn't mean that the guy operating B is looking for that data, nor does it mean that data is necessarily stored on his computer.

      If that makes any sense, I hope it helps. If I'm misunderstanding how the network operates, please correct me.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    13. Re:too risky for me by automandc · · Score: 3, Informative
      Bloodshot's comments, while obviously well intentioned, are dead wrong.

      good lawyer could probably successfully argue you have no way of knowing what's being stored on your computer as it is part of an anonymous network.

      Actually, you can be held liable for it regardless of whether you "know" it is there or not. For instance, if you are driving a car, and your passenger puts their crack cocaine under the seat, you can be held liable for it even if you had no idea since you are in control of the car. Ignorance is not an excuse to allowing others to use your property to commit a crime.

      It would be like a bank being held liable for criminals stashing money from the drug trade in it.

      This is precisely why there are long and complex laws pertaining to money laundering. All financial institutions are required to implement strong procedural safeguards to prevent abuse. Failure to do so can result in prosecution of the bank for culpability in the depositor's crime. Another area this is becoming "hot" is in the market for expensive consumer and industrial goods. The latest scheme used by narcotics traffikers is to take their drug money in South America, and use it to purchase expensive goods (like appliences) from compaines like GE. GE recently sponsored a DOJ initiative to combat this, and many of the computer manufacturers (like Dell) were included. The anonymous nature of web commerce makes this method possible.

      In short, you are lible for what's on your computer, so make sure you know what people are sticking in there!

      --
      I'm a lawyer with excellent karma. Something's gotta be wrong.
    14. Re:too risky for me by radish · · Score: 1

      Not all of us have as much access to bail money as Pete Townsend, though. Those few hours could turn into a few months.


      Pete was arrested and then released on police bail to return at a later date. There is no (cash) bond with police bail. In fact, cash bonds are (IIRC) quite uncommon over here even when bail is granted by the courts rather than the police. Usually they just take things like passports, make you sign in every so often etc.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    15. Re:too risky for me by warrax_666 · · Score: 1
      It doesn't matter. The person passing along a request is still guilty.


      They have been unwittingly (and randomly because of the way the network works) been made accomplices in the crime. Nobody knows if the node you connected to contained the illegal material before you connected, or if it now contains the illegal material because of your request for it. If the police is doing the requesting, then this is called entrapment, ie. the police enticed (forced, really but I digress...) you to commit a crime which you were never originally going to commit! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
      --
      HAND.
    16. Re:too risky for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bet that just breaks their hearts.

    17. Re:too risky for me by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      They have been unwittingly (and randomly because of the way the network works) been made accomplices in the crime.

      Anyone who has read the fact knows full well that this is likely to happen. So I wouldn't call it "unwittingly." That's like saying that a firing squad isn't responsible for killing someone because only one of the guns is randomly selected to hold the bullet.

    18. Re:too risky for me by kramer · · Score: 1

      Anyone who has read the fact knows full well that this is likely to happen. So I wouldn't call it "unwittingly." That's like saying that a firing squad isn't responsible for killing someone because only one of the guns is randomly selected to hold the bullet.

      Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but typical firing squad procedure involves all the guns except one to have live bullets.Wouldn't want one person's sloppy aim to ruin the whole execution.

      The one blank is to give the shooter the possibility that he didn't do it -- not liklihood.

    19. Re:too risky for me by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but typical firing squad procedure involves all the guns except one to have live bullets.Wouldn't want one person's sloppy aim to ruin the whole execution.

      OK, well maybe that wasn't the perfect analogy, especially since a firing squad is generally a legal killing. But, in this analogy we only have one bullet, 9 empty guns, and the state has not sponsored the killing. At least in this case, the law is clear. All 10 shooters are guilty of murder.
    20. Re:too risky for me by gimpster · · Score: 1

      I believe Freenet works by storing whole files at several hosts at the same time. Each such file is associated with a key which is what you use when you try and download it.

      Large files are broken up into many smaller files that can all be retrieved and used to reconstruct the big "splitfile" which has it's own key.

      The data in the datastore on a node is encrypted, and it can only be decrypted by using the right key --- this is the key you use when downloading it. So if you just take a look at a datastore, then you wont be able to make anything out of it, but if you're looking for a particular file (and therefore know the key you're looking for) then it's possible to determine if the file is present in the datastore.

      So nobody can do a general search on your computer for illegal material, they have to search for a particular piece of illegal material, which is much harder, as they have to search for the exact same file you store, or else they wont find anything. (The keys change with the content of the files, so if you add a newline to a document, you'll end up with a new key.)

      That's how I've figured out things work, please correct me if I'm wrong :-)

      --
      Martin Geisler --- Visit http://www.gimpster.com/
    21. Re:too risky for me by gimpster · · Score: 1

      Yes, if everything was encrypted and nobody could access it, then there wouldn't be much fun with Freenet :-)

      I believe this key is part of the key you use when requesting a file on Freenet. Each file on Freenet is associated with a CHK, a Content Hash Key, which uniquely determines the file and which is also used to decode it. This key contains two parts, one of which is used to find the encrypted file, and the other part is used as key to decrypt the file.

      So you cannot just decrypt your entire datastore, you need to know the keys of the files stored there before you can decrypt the files. I guess this means that one could "simply" collect a huge number of CHK's from Freenet and then use these to decode the files... please correct me if I'm wrong.

      --
      Martin Geisler --- Visit http://www.gimpster.com/
    22. Re:too risky for me by Bob+Loblaw · · Score: 1

      Additionally, there is the supposition that Freenet can be classified as a "Common Carrier" and therefore immune to the legality of its content.

      Otherwise the government would be charging every phone company and ISP out there whenever an illegal conversation/communication was intercepted that was being relayed by their equipment.

      There are legitimate, legal uses for Freenet and if those are popular then that content will be more accessible. If child porn is popular then the world is packed with a pile of sick people. The only thing that one can do is join the network and request things that are legal/legitimate in their eyes and maybe make an Anti-child-porn website to give their views on the subject. This will drown out the requests for illegal/illegitimate content. The only thing that people are doing by shunning Freenet is ensuring that things that they do not agree with are accessible longer.

    23. Re:too risky for me by Alsee · · Score: 1

      At that point you have the dual defenses of reasonable doubt and entrapment.

      Reasonable doubt and entrapment defenses have been deemed to aid terrorists. They have been ruled un-PATRIOTIC and eliminated.

      Have a patriotic day :)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  37. Re:Support America First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    When did attacking sovereign countries that have not attacked us become the American way?

    When did war of aggression, completely unsanctioned by the international community, become the American way?

    When did political arm-twisting and bribing other countries into joining your war become the American way?

    Is this patriotism? If it is, I don't want to have anything to do with this perverse version of patriotism of yours. And no, I will not move abroad. I love my country too much to leave it in the hands of armchair generals and jingoists like you, GWB and his henchmen. No, I will stay here just to see the worst government the USA has ever had is coming down in the next elections.

  38. Re:Okay, but... by Synic · · Score: 1

    Gnutella has a crappy music selection compared to say, Kazaa (using Kazaa Lite of course).

  39. Re:Speed by sfe_software · · Score: 1

    The faster p2p application I know was probably Audiogalaxy, where you could not cap the speed, and if you wanted to be able to download 10 tracks simultaneously, you had to allow 10 simultaneous uploads as well. Also, it would try and connect you with the user who you could get the fastest download from.

    I really liked AudioGalaxy. I ran the client on my headless Linux box (file server), but used the web site on my Windows box, or whatever machine I wanted to. They were all behind the same NAT, so the outside sees it as the same machine. Worked rather well, until suddenly they stopped carrying any real content.

    I hated Napster (poorly written interface), but it did the job. Then I discovered Scour Exchange, which was a lot nicer, but then it was shut down. AudioGalaxy was the best, and of course that is no longer. Limewire (Gnutella?) didn't seem to have any files I was looking for last time I tried it. Now it's binary newsgroups and Kazaalite...

    I'll have to give Freenet a try today... unless the record labels want to give me a way to try stuff out before I buy it...

    --
    NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
  40. Dont you mean boycott America by thornfield · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    One of the reasons most people hate Americans so much is their assumption that everyone else on the internet / who speaks english, is American. Well, sonny, Slashdot is a global community, and in case you hadn't noticed, the US is pretty much the only country where anything like a majority backs attacking Iraq now. Who sold Saddam the anthrax in the first place? Who funded, armed and trained Bin Laden? and Noriega,....

    --
    > Indicators, they are your friends! >
    1. Re:Dont you mean boycott America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who funded armed and trained iraq during a conflict with iran???

      that doesn't mean it isn't time to make them into a glass parking lot.

    2. Re:Dont you mean boycott America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "most people" don't use the internet / speak english.

  41. Re:Why can't our politicians be this elegant? by thornfield · · Score: 1

    "our" being whose? Why do you assume that everyone reading Slashdot is American? They aren't. It's just this sort of mindset that makes people resent the US

    --
    > Indicators, they are your friends! >
  42. The problem now is, it needs sites like slashdot. by HanzoSan · · Score: 5, Insightful



    Freenet is finally becoming mature and stable, this is very very good news.

    Now its time for people like us to go to freenet and put linux sites, slashdot type sites, and maybe some hacker/geek culture to freenet.

    Freenet shouldnt be just about porn and warez because it will be very easy to outlaw it, what we need to do is fill freenet up with useful content for the masses, maybe put WikiPedia type stuff in freenet.

    Its time to make some sites, specifically its time to bring back the hacker/geek culture that was lost, I'd like to see some hacker sites return, some chatrooms, etc etc

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  43. Re:Why can't our politicians be this elegant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, but they're the only important ones.

  44. *Must* be able to store illegal files by smalltalker · · Score: 2

    "that somehow restricts the content shared to legitimate project material" - that is precisely what freenet is set up *against*. It is a necessary condition of its usefulness that it be able to store information that is illegal in at least some jurisdictions. Critiques of repressive governments and child pornography are both illegal in some areas of the world and legal in others. It would be good if I could decide which of those I host on my machine - here in the US, possession of child porn is a crime, and a host could theoretically be prosecuted even if the content was unknown to the host.

    --
    Steve Cline http://www.clines.org, http://www.objectbap.com
    1. Re:*Must* be able to store illegal files by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Sure, but that doesn't mean each client needs to support access to illicit materials (or, for that matter, material not signed by one central provider). The network is a big place, and folks use clients for different purposes; as long as unrestricted clients are still available, the network can still serve its original purpose of protecting free political speech.

    2. Re:*Must* be able to store illegal files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will probably get ultra flamed for this, but why is child pornography a crime? I mean really, say you had some 8-10 year old kid that just liked to pose nude. Many adults enjoy that sort of thing, why would it seem obtuse that kids might like to as well. I'm not talking about the ramifications of "forced" child pornogaphy. I think forcing anyone to do anything is a crime, but what if some kids were just into that sort of thing? What about the whole naturalists culture where whole families prefer the nude lifestyle?

      This argument would be anologous to classifying drugs as illegal. Say someone wanted to smoke crack? Why is it illegal? It's just the guilty by association of drugs could lead to crime just like pornography could lead to abuse. I guess you could argue that nipping it in the bud by making pornography and drugs illegal would stop crime and abuse, but I'm not so sure that plan works too well.

      I think people should just let others do what they want. You want to get high? Go ahead and cut your life short...it's your life. If your kids want to be an exhibitionist for the net and you're ok with that, go crazy. No *real* crime comes from a nude picture. Instead of cracking down on drug users and free spirits, law enforcement should spend more time cracking down on actual crimes and abuse.

      By the way, I'm not into drug use (occasional beer) nor do I care for child porn (like the older developed women), but in a free spirit sort of way I guss I can see that such pratices *are* innocent. It's only the chance of associated abuse is what's the problem...and I think what I'm against is that law enforcement of guilty by association.

      Remember, like me, if you're not into child porn...you don't have to look at it. Hell, I think things like fisting and bondage are pretty messed up. I just excerise my right to not look at it.

    3. Re:*Must* be able to store illegal files by JourneymanMereel · · Score: 1
      here in the US, possession of child porn is a crime, and a host could theoretically be prosecuted even if the content was unknown to the host.

      Being an average slashdot user, I'm no legal expert, but there's a clause in the DMCA (section 512) that excuses service providers from prosecution under copyright law for information they transmit or store on the behalf of other users. There are requirements for having policies in place to terminate those users from the system and such, but I would hope that either a similar clause would appear in laws pertaining to pornography in an environment such as freenet or that this one would be useful.

      --
      Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
    4. Re:*Must* be able to store illegal files by DancingSword · · Score: 1

      pseudo-reasoning, ignoring ACTUAL results .. isn't good-enough.

      It's been seen, objectively, that when someone has their 'someone-space' boundary infringed/violated, in some way that undermined their forming of their own space/boundary, that that LIFE is .. weakened/infringed/illness-damaged.

      A friend of mine was molested by Christian Priests/Brothers, and every time he escaped, the Children's Aid Society ( and the police ) caught him, and put him back. EVERY single someone who was molested by them was life-fucked, for life:
      incapable of possessing their own life, incapable of healthy relationship, oft drug-addicted, drastically higher suicide, almost-always trashed credit-rating, drastically-high street-person percentage etc.

      This sort of effect has been seen countless times.

      What has this got to do with *child porn*?

      WE. ARE. CONTEXTUAL. BEINGS.

      IF we exist in a context that suggests obliteration of real worth ( for Authority's sake ) is Acceptable and Proper, we're MUCH more probably to be accepting and doing it, our selves.

      Remember The Stanford Experiment?

      Remember the experiment where Some White-LabCoated Person Suggested That This Is OK ( the electrocution of some anonymous someone )??

      Most went-along with it, because .. "The Context Says It's OK to do it..."

      Context forms us, so wholely, that if we don't control our context, then we embrace whatever-it-is we didn't exclude.

      It's the same for body-health: if we don't exclude Ebola, we embrace/be it ( onto others! ).

      If we accept kiddy-intimacy, then we don't block/oppose adult/child intimacy, and when the objective, correct, fact is that the results of such, in our world, undermine that someone's ENTIRE LIFE-CAPABILITY, then that isn't acceptable.

      Scientific-method doesn't consider believing, or make-believing, or naiveness-as-a-right, to be correct ( let-alone valid! ).

      If you've never fought against the unwholesome undermining of it, yourself, never fought for decades to MAKE oneself whole, after having one's being molested, .. don't accommodate it onto others' lives .. just because you don't want to know how total the difference really is.

      If you've never fought unwholessome undermining yourself, then .. give a few months of volunteering to someone whose life is wreckaged by it, and see/feel the destruction done by such 'nice' intimacy ( deforming someone's MIND, their entire ability-to-reason, their entire awareness .. is not a mere circumstance! )

      Accepting kiddy-porn is like accepting wife-abuse-porn:
      The "they like it, or they wouldn't be doing it" argument does NOT wash.
      Its REAL function is to move-the-boundaries so that the determination that the stuff suggests we embrace becomes more entirely 'normal'.

      I'm ALL for creating 1/e-freenet clients that share only what one considers OK
      ( or for systematically dropping, from one's own node, anything one considers sickness, with the choice between standard-mode or one of the two I suggest being the CLIENT's choice: it'd mean a 3-D freenet, with one dimension being like the free. usenet, one dimension being like alt. usenet and one dimension being like a moderated usenet, all using the same protocol to share, is that not-possible?!?? ),
      but failing that I'm sticking to gnutella-net, for when I make my meditation-'tapes', which I could not *possibly* afford to host via http.

      Embracing sickness, particularly embracing sickness into others who aren't developed-enough to be able to oppose it on their own is a determination I want...

      gone.

      Stuff between consenting adults is different-in-nature, simply because they are equally ( relatively ) able to own their own selves, and therefore equally able to choose/non-choose.

      Children aren't

      --
      Messages to/for me ( in me journal )
  45. Actually what about people in our country? by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Its not about porn or music, I want to see hacker sites return. Remember all the hacking sites which people tried to ban, I want to see them come back, I want to see culture return to the internet besides corperate culture.

    We need to take advantage of freenet to make lots and lots of websites, we have unlimited storage space, if it becomes fast enough speed wont be a problem, we can put chatrooms in freenet too, this can really work.

    We just need to make sites, and not just porn and warez sites, but all kinds of sites, political sites, geek sites, gaming sites, etc.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  46. Oh no, Outlaw the gun! by HanzoSan · · Score: 3, Insightful



    The gun can be used for bad things too, whats your point? The internet is here, deal with it.

    As long as we build alot of useful good sites into freenet, freenet will do fine, when we let the warez and mp3 guys make all the popular sites freenet might be attacked.

    So what you have to do is build sites which people want to see besides mp3, porn and warez.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Oh no, Outlaw the gun! by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      Actually outlawing or placing serious restrictions on owning handguns would be a good idea, it would finally bring the US up to speed with the rest of the world in the area.

    2. Re:Oh no, Outlaw the gun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The gun can be used for bad things too, whats your point? The internet is here, deal with it.

      My take on it: So can the Internet. And, for instance, China HAS dealt with it, by closing it off. The Internet is only as viral as culture and government allows. The idea that it is an unstoppable force of free speech is a myth. Anything can be stopped with enough effort, and oppression.

    3. Re:Oh no, Outlaw the gun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rest of the world, such as France maybe? Or perhaps maybe you mean Iraq, where the people aren't allowed to have guns because they pose a danger to the government. Or how about Hitler-era Germany? Hitler took away the Jews' guns, and look how that turned out for them.

      Here in America, things generally are done as the people want them done. Since most people like the idea of being able to defend themselves against theives, killers, rapists, and/or anyone else, we're going to always have guns here (except for NYC, California, or soon to be Illinois, where people are totally at the mercy of the criminals and depend wholly on the police to protect them).

    4. Re:Oh no, Outlaw the gun! by cc_pirate · · Score: 1

      "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      - 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

      --

      "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur

    5. Re:Oh no, Outlaw the gun! by paganizer · · Score: 1

      LoL! trying to convince people that that's a law! Next you'll be saying we have freedom of speech, or something else obviously ridiculous.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
  47. because people can compile the source code. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    You cant really block it, anyone with a java compiler can compile the code.

    Look I'n not even caring about China, I care about USA, what about our freedom of speech? who gives a fuck about China, This protects our freedom of speech just as much.

    Its debateable but sharing music, porn, or warez is a form of speech because you are sharing 1s and 0s.

    Its debateable or questionable censored speech but its speech, talking about DCESS or whatever, and releasing exploits to the masses is speech, but you go to jail for that.

    So we dont have true freedom of speech. Freenet gives us true freedom of speech. Censorship becomes difficult and eventually impossible if enouggh people use freenet.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:because people can compile the source code. by praedor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It has NEVER EVER been the case, nor the INTENDED case with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights that ALL speech be protected. Freedom of Speech comes from the start with restrictions. It has never been, nor ever will, nor ever should be OK to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie house, etc. Child porn is NOT protected speech nor should it EVER be, under no banner about Rights is it legitimate. Advocating murder is not protected speech, inciting riots with "speech" is also not protected (nor has it ever been).


      Me thinks what you want is anarchy, which cannot work and doesn't work. It is a state that people as a whole will not tolerate for long. Free speech is great until you get into black areas (advocating murder, inciting riots/violence, inducing panic vis a vis "Fire!" in a movie theater, etc). Then it is rightly punishable and not protected in any way, shape, or form. Never has been, never will be.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    2. Re:because people can compile the source code. by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Advocating massive change in government is political speech... right? What if that change involves revolution? Is it suddenly advocating murder or terrorism? Would the actions of those undertaking the American Revolution have fallen into those "black areas" by your definition?

      I'm by no means advocating violent revolution against the present US government or supporting those that do (most of whom I consider downright nuts)... but what speech should be protected and what shouldn't is not so black and white.

    3. Re:because people can compile the source code. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Its debateable but sharing music, porn, or warez is a form of speech because you are sharing 1s and 0s.

      Clearly copyright law was not meant to be banned by the First Amendment. The Copyright Clause is proof of that.

      Freenet gives us true freedom of speech.

      And that's why freenet will be deemed illegal.

    4. Re:because people can compile the source code. by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      These are all good examples of speech that might be considered harmful. Now let's talk about speech that is in serious danger from your government.

      Strong encryption: people were able to be arrested as terrorists for publishing encryption algorithms or moving through customs with one printed on their t-shirts. Fucking terrorists - how dare they comprehend mathmatics!

      Apple computers - weapons because their CPUs are too fast.

      CSS - don't put that on your site or even link to a site with it on - those seven lines of Perl come direct from Satan

      Adobe e-books - don't even think about talking to your neighboor about how weak the encryption is because you are in serious danger of revealing the algorithm to him without even thinking about it. Prison for you - you evil terrorist!

      Reverse Engineering - DMCA says you can't talk about it, can't do it, can't even buy the results of it. Certainly don't try and do anything to that Playstation you *bought* because it's not your machine. Prison for you.

      Slander - don't even think of calling the US president a stupid rascist monkey faced war mongering butcher or you might be getting a visit from lawyers or the FBI.

      You had freedom over there once, and even still have a reasonable amount compared to some countries, but watch out, it's all moving away from the common man and into the hands of your government and big business. Be vigilant - your freedom is disappearing a thread at a time.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    5. Re:because people can compile the source code. by praedor · · Score: 1

      I CAN say that GW Bush is an IDIOT. A freakin' moron who nearly flunked out of college but got by exclusively on his daddy's money and connections. Oh and he's a low-rate criminal in the sense that he went AWOL from the Guard.


      I assure you that there will be no FBI at my door at any time for saying these facts. So THAT example of restricted speech is a nonstarter. The other items in your litany are a little better - the Apple thing made a stupid sense during the Cold War when we were legitimately trying to keep the Soviets from catching up technologically for "free", so to speak, even though it was ultimately doomed to failure since PCs were becoming too ubuquitous to control. CSS? I've downloaded it several times (still can without problem) both before and AFTER the court debacle. I didn't need/don't need freenet to get it. The encryption thing is similar to the Apple computer/PC thing. "Good intentioned" but doomed and silly to implement. The DMCA nonsense is still being blown through the courts and will be fixed sooner or later. Reverse engineering is explicitly allowed by other laws/rules in any case and it is still going on. Freenet isn't really denting this, certainly not at this point. I want to play dvds in linux? I download xine or mplayer rather than dicking with CSS (which I have nonetheless...just in case).


      E-books, what a STUPID concept. In any case, you can get around that nonsense too without freenet. Every little bit helps but lets not overblow the importance or freenet. I guess if I was stupid enough to buy an e-book then I would find a means, even without freenet, to read MY book...and I wouldn't end up in jail.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    6. Re:because people can compile the source code. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Well, no; the 1790 Copyright Act is proof of that. The First Amendment came after the copyright clause. It _could_ have, coming later in time, overridden the clause. It just hasn't been interpreted to do so.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    7. Re:because people can compile the source code. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Well, no; the 1790 Copyright Act is proof of that.

      1790 was before the First Amendment was ratified.

      It _could_ have, coming later in time, overridden the clause.

      OK, granted that could have happened if space and time had existed differently, but you aren't arguing that it did, are you?

    8. Re:because people can compile the source code. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'It has never been, nor ever will, nor ever should be OK to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie house'



      Not true.

      You're perfectly entitled to yell "fire" if indeed the movie-house is on fire.

      Context matters.

    9. Re:because people can compile the source code. by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 1

      the 1790 Copyright Act is proof of that. The First Amendment came after the copyright clause.

      If the copyright act came before the first amendment, then that might suggest something about the legislative priorities of the time.

      Geez, I didn't even know the RIAA existed in 1790.

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    10. Re:because people can compile the source code. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      You're right -- I'd forgotten about how long it took Virginia and Vermont to get around to upholding the promise to ratify the Bill of Rights.

      At any rate, I'm saying that at or near the time of its passage, the First Amendment could have been interpreted to void the copyright clause. But it's pretty much too late for that argument to hold any water now.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    11. Re:because people can compile the source code. by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      It has never been, nor ever will, nor ever should be OK to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie house, etc.

      Except of course if the movie house really is on fire.

      Or are you expected to just sneak out quietly and let everyone else figure it out on their own or burn?

      Yeah, I know. Just being a PITA, but think about the analogy.

    12. Re:because people can compile the source code. by medscaper · · Score: 1
      Free speech is great until you get into black areas

      There you go, using your outdoor voice again....

      --
      Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
    13. Re:because people can compile the source code. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "Congress shall make no law" do you not understand? It does not say "Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speach or of the press....except for certain things we don't like, when we later decide that we don't like it". The Bill of Rights and the Constitution place absolute restrictions on what the Federal government can do; they are not documents intended to give the government power to decide for itself what powers it has and what powers it can take away from the people or the states.

    14. Re:because people can compile the source code. by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Precisely what the hell are you going to do about it? Freenet works the way it works, and there's not a goddamned thing you can do to stop it, other than to whine or try to get it outlawed.

      We've already seen how effective that is, what with all the assinine U.S. laws passed that are virtually unenforceable where the internet is concerned. With Freenet there's the problem of even locating who's using it in the first place, unless of course King George get's his wish and we all have surveillance cameras installed in our homes....

      You may find that personally offensive because, perhaps, you won't be able to interfere with and monitor your neighbors personal affairs, but as your neighbor I say "to hell with you. mind your own damned business, you yahoo." And with Freenet, I can thumb my nose at you and make it stick.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    15. Re:because people can compile the source code. by eniu!uine · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it's not always possible to protect things that should be protected without protecting things that shouldn't be. In my opinion it's hardly ever the case that speech should be censored. The first thing people spout off about when they talk about a free network is child pornography.. the second is terrorism. I suggest to you that if you first find out your child is a pornographic terrorist on the net then you have problems that go beyond rampant file sharing.

    16. Re:because people can compile the source code. by danila · · Score: 1

      Well, there was a case when a girl had a questionable political poster (I think something about the president) on the wall in her apartment. Someone saw it (through the window?) and reported to the police. The girl was paid a visit by a police officer (not an FBI agent, IIRC). I don't remember what happened next, I think she didn't let him in, but let him see it through the door. He said the poster is fine, sorry, that's my job and the girl was left alone. I think that story was posted on Plastic.com some time ago.

      This is quite similar to the issue of calling Bush an idiot. And remember when students were threatened by police for turning their backs to Bush during his visit to the university. And many other similar incidents. So, don't be so positive about the situation, for it isn't good. For me even the idea that police has the right to check what posters you hang in your room is outrageous. Apparently some people think it is ok. Good that I don't live in the US.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  48. DON'T IMAGINE IT DO IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not many replies to this article and i've already seen some good ideas for expanding freenet's usability. if anyone is truly interested in freenet DO SOMETHING FOR IT RIGHT NOW. any non-porn content is good content.

  49. Our freedom of speech is limited in USA by HanzoSan · · Score: 2, Interesting



    Try posting the source code to microsoft windows on the regular internet, see what happens. Hell just post an exploit for Microsoft windows and see what happens.

    News? our news is limited, we cant talk about certain questionable subjects without being labaled communist, socialist, liberal, or something, you cant talk about hacking anymore, when I was growing up on the net, I remember hacker sites were everywhere, we had chatrooms and everything, a whole culture, and now its gone.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Our freedom of speech is limited in USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      erm, you do know that most of those "hacking" sites were just CJ sites which people used to create massive traffic to convert on adult sponsers, correct? Or do you mean the "hackers" from aol with their VB modules that allowed you to "hack" people?

  50. Re:Support America First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Osama "misunderstood freedom fighter" bin Laden fanboys crack me up

    Man, you must have had a funny old 80's then, what with the CIA funding, training and suplying Osama and his friends!

  51. Not yet anyway by HanzoSan · · Score: 4, Insightful



    Freenet search engines do exist, Freenet is like the early world wide web and it might someday replace the world wide web, if our gov censors the web to death.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Not yet anyway by curril · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree that Freenet has the potential to replace the web. Just imagine if Google started pointing to Freenet documents, and spidered Freenet documents as well as regular web pages. Freenet would would become the new web with load balancing and built-in traffic encryption.

  52. Re:Why can't our politicians be this elegant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the system in the UK and Commonwealth countries
    the P.M. has to handle question period every day in the house of commons. He/she has to think on their feet and know what's going on. Do you think Bush could hand that for second!?

  53. Re:Support America First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And pray tell me where is the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

    The US and UK dossiers that allegedly showed the connection (and secured support for the critical UN Resolution 1441!) were mostly based on forged documents and, in one case, student reports.

    But go ahead, keep watching DoD propaganda on CNN if it makes you happy.

  54. WW 0 : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The French didn't give a shit about some damn colonist rabble, human rights, sovereignty, or Democracy.
    They were just looking for a way to stick it to England.

    Allthough the French women did spread it far and wide for the GIs that liberated Paris.

  55. Why bother to look? by HanzoSan · · Score: 4, Insightful



    Theres always going to be child porn on freenet, at least the people arent profiting from it, you cant stop child porn being shared the only thing you can do is remove incentive to make the porn.

    Porn thats on freenet is porn thats not sold, which means the porn industry loses money and has less incentive to make it.

    I dont see how freenet is doing any harm, child porn was on the web making pedophiles and molestors millions of dollars, and now its on kazaa and freenet, they wont make a dime.

    By removing it from freenet and kazaa what you are doing is saving the child porn industry, this allows more kids to get hurt and abused for profit.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Why bother to look? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the second time you've floated this argument, and just in case someone should buy it, I'll take a shot at strenuous disagreement.

      1. What if child pornographers don't work on an commercial model, but rather on a 'share and share alike' one? In which case, the means of sharing without impunity (freenet, and your node in it) would be a facilitating factor, leading to more kids getting abused on more film for more peoples' pleasure.

      2. What if vendors of internet child pornography use freenet as a free and secure sampling channel, or worse, for advertising? In which case, you wouldn't be scamming them, you'd be providing them with disk space.

      I consider both of the above more likely than your scenario, which seems so simple-minded that I have to believe it is an attempt to justify your actions so you can download dumb_and_dumber_II.avi

    2. Re:Why bother to look? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be a valid argument if porn was not addictive and did not encourage abuse.

      Thankfully I don't know a huge amount about child pornography, but I do know that soft porn is mildly addictive for some people. The soft-porn industry is bigger than ever, even with huge amounts of free porn available online. Even more worryingly, I suspect that once people are hooked they need ever more extreme images to satisfy them.

      I don't believe violent films or computer games significantly encourage violence, but I do suspect that child pornography can probably encourage a very small number of people to abuse children. It seems quite likely that child pornography makes child abuse seem more acceptable to people who are already prone to such behaviour. I know that some people make a huge amount of money out of the child-porn industry, and I know that restricting it increasing the profits to be made. However, most abuse is committed within families and by people in a position of trust, and not for profit.

      Finally, there is a practical reason for restricting the spread of such material. Child pornography is evidence of a crime, and the police try to trace the origin of the images to protect children from further abuse. If the supply of child porn is restricted as tightly as possible, it must be easier to trace the image back to the abuser.

    3. Re:Why bother to look? by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      " This would be a valid argument if porn was not addictive and did not encourage abuse."

      How many people have you raped? I'm sure we all look at porn here, but only a small percentage of us are rapists. Porn is addictive, but it doesnt lead to rape and abuse.

      Just like playing quake doesnt lead to shooting up your school.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    4. Re:Why bother to look? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If a school had to be shot up every time Id released a new version of Quake, how would you feel about buying it?


      For child pornography to be produced, harm has to be done. I believe it is that to which the parent objects.

    5. Re:Why bother to look? by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

      annonymous you can blame quake for all school shootings, or you can blame the shooters.

      You can blame the images for the rapes, or you can blame the rapists.

      I dont believe some game, or some image can remote control you and make you do something thats not in your nature.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  56. Personally, I LOVE ALL OUR FORMER CIA ASSETS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Let's all give it up for the CIA allstar team!

    • Castro! - because he's a anti-communist baseball fan! (WHOOPS!)
    • Manuel Noriega! - because he's anti-communist!
    • Augusto Pinochet! - because he's anti-communist!
    • The SHAW of Iran! - because he's anti-communist!
    • Saddam Hussein! - Because he's the anti-ayatolla!
    • Ferdinand Marcos! - because's he's anti-communist!
    • Osama bin Laden and the Taliban! - because they're anti-communist!
    YAY! Interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations has worked out so well for the U.S and the world! Let's keep doing what works!
  57. Freedom of speech by HanzoSan · · Score: 0


    Even if Nambla is hosting a forum on your PC, why should you be raided? they have the right to host a forum, as long as they dont do anything illegal they can talk about molesting kids and so on.

    Speech is speech, you cannot arrest people for that. I dont agree with their speech, I also dont agree with the KKK, the Nazis, and Al Qaeda, but if we are supposed to be all about freedom it has to be freedom for everyone, not just freedom for "good" people.

    Its all or nothing, we either support freedom, or we support censorship, theres no in between.

    Illegal pornography is against freedom of speech, its censorship, I'm not a fan of kiddie porn, but kiddie porn itself is not a crime, the crime is in the act of creating that porn, and the act of buying that porn.

    When you buy it you support its creation, when you make it you abuse a kid, so yes its fair to outlaw buying and selling kiddie porn.

    Viewing it however should not be a crime, what right does anyone have to say that you cant view something? No money is being made, no ones being harmed, in fact the guy who created the porn who harmed the child is not making a penny so you have the moral arguement on your side in saying freenet robs the kiddie porn industry just like it robs the RIAA and music industries.

    People who may have purchased kiddie porn from their usual sources for insane amounts of money now have no reason to buy it, and theres no incentive to keep producing it, or at least thats the arguement the RIAA makes.

    This wont stop kiddie porn, just like not buying music from record companies wont stop music from being created, but what it will do is it will kill the industry, anyone who wants to sell kiddie porn will have to sell direct and they will get caught immediately.

    Musicians will still be able to sell music, they will just have to sell direct to their fans.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Freedom of speech by lamp77 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dude, your an idiot,
      " kiddie porn itself is not a crime"

      So it's illegal to make, sell, buy and have, but you want to maintain some argument that it itself is not illegal?

      "Viewing it however should not be a crime, what right does anyone have to say that you cant view something?"

      I believe it's commonly referred to as the 'social contract' which means that we all agree not to kill and maim each other.

      "No money is being made, no ones being harmed,"
      Nobody is being harmed in the making of kiddie porn?

      I'm going to stop now, take you as an ignorant troll and move on. whoever modded you up is an idiot.

    2. Re:Freedom of speech by slux · · Score: 1

      don't you think that the molested person may not be entirely happy if the photo material that documents their abuse is widely available and every child abuser is watching it? Also, downloading the image on freenet will distribute it even more. With that said, there was a discussion when freenet rc1 came out on kuro5hin. Someone there pointed out that while on freenet it is guaranteed to be impossible to censor child porn, you will never be able to remove it entirely from the internet either, because in many cases the content is in countries that don't care anyway. So the internet is just as bad. Maybe even worse, since child porn will gradually fade away on freenet if it isn't accessed frequently. I would think that it won't be easy to get when the network grows enough.

  58. Anyone have a freenet link by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

    for Ad-free slashdot?

  59. Free speech for everyone or no one. by HanzoSan · · Score: 3, Insightful



    Choose. If you want to censor the KKK you dont support free speech.

    I cant stand the KKK, and I cant stand kiddie porn, but they do have the right to talk about hate and kiddie porn.

    As long as this never turns into action, its just a bunch of 1s and 0s, speech.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Free speech for everyone or no one. by plugger · · Score: 1

      Censoring hate speech and peodophile discussions is one thing. Stopping crime by busting those who produce, host and transmit images of child abuse is a different thing. If it was somehow possible to restrict Freenet to hosting ASCII files, I'd be happy to run a node.

    2. Re:Free speech for everyone or no one. by Zigg · · Score: 1

      If it was somehow possible to restrict Freenet to hosting ASCII files, I'd be happy to run a node.

      So modify your client to do so.

      Which works until people start using uuencode, base64, et al...

    3. Re:Free speech for everyone or no one. by driptray · · Score: 1

      As long as this never turns into action, its just a bunch of 1s and 0s, speech.

      Except that pictures of kiddie porn are a type of "action". Real live kiddies were used in the production of those pictures you know.

    4. Re:Free speech for everyone or no one. by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Except that pictures of kiddie porn are a type of "action". Real live kiddies were used in the production of those pictures you know.

      By that logic photos of the World trade center wreakage are a type of "action" as well. Real live people were killed in the production of those pictures you know.

      I think it rather ironic that outlawing certian pieces of data actually makes it harder to discover, catch, and convict child abusers. The police couldn't ask for a better peice of evidence than photos of a crime in progress. If you are going to commit a crime - any crime - please make it easier for the police to catch you by taking pictures and posting them on the internet.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:Free speech for everyone or no one. by plugger · · Score: 1

      Hmm, you're right. yenc flamewars on freenet, anyone?

    6. Re:Free speech for everyone or no one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doh, I just reread my original post and remembered my point there. That'll teach me to be flippant :)

      The point is, I don't believe it is possible to prevent the storage of arbitrary binaries on Freenet without defeating the goal of plausible deniability, so I made the personal decision not to run a node.

    7. Re:Free speech for everyone or no one. by driptray · · Score: 1

      By that logic photos of the World trade center wreakage are a type of "action" as well. Real live people were killed in the production of those pictures you know.

      Only if the people who crashed the planes into the WTC did so for the express purpose of taking pictures afterwards.

    8. Re:Free speech for everyone or no one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if the people who crashed the planes into the WTC did so for the express purpose of taking pictures afterwards.

      Wasn't it obvious by the delay between the first and second planes that media coverage was desired...or were you just being subtle there?

    9. Re:Free speech for everyone or no one. by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Only if the people who crashed the planes into the WTC did so for the express purpose of taking pictures afterwards.

      LOL. Do you realize that you just argued that the photos should be legal as long as "someone else" took the picture?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  60. It is faster by CaptainAx · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm getting 40 Mbit/sec to someone at 127.0.0.1...

    1. Re:It is faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe, the sucker hasn't secured his box either. Let's take him d

    2. Re:It is faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      127.0.0.1 is warez.blank.org

      has nothing at all though...

  61. Re:Why can't our politicians be this elegant? by tree_frog · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Do you have a link to Dominique de Villepin's recent speeches at the UN?

    regards, treefrog

  62. Mens rea by yerricde · · Score: 1

    There are certainly legal consequences.

    Under English common law (the foundation of the legal system of the UK, the Commonwealth, and the USA), a conviction for almost any crime requires proof of "mens rea", or intent. That's why legal codes follow the formula "a person who knowingly $DOESTHIS commits $CRIME". There exist "strict liability" crimes that do not require intent, but none of those can result in imprisonment.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Mens rea by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Under English common law (the foundation of the legal system of the UK, the Commonwealth, and the USA), a conviction for almost any crime requires proof of "mens rea", or intent.

      Q: I don't want my node to be used to harbor child porn, offensive content or terrorism. What can I do?
      A: The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find disgusting. If this is not acceptable to you, you should not run a Freenet node.

      Sounds like intent to me.

      That's why legal codes follow the formula "a person who knowingly $DOESTHIS commits $CRIME".

      Very few crimes have that requirement. All crimes require mens rea, but not all crimes require that they be committed "knowingly" (which is generally interpreted as knowledge that what you're doing is a crime - it's how Elcomsoft got off.

    2. Re:Mens rea by JourneymanMereel · · Score: 1

      I believe that mens rea is generally used for "high crimes." Take, for instance, the difference between murder and manslaughter: it is intent. As mentioned in other replies to this posts, there are many laws like manslaughter that do not require the proof of intent.

      --
      Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
  63. Obligatory... by merlin_jim · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In Soviet Russia, net frees YOU!

    --
    I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
  64. Re:Speed by Teancom · · Score: 1

    You've probably heard of this, but you didn't mention it. Definetly try out edonkey2k. mldonkey on your linux box, and the windows client to control it (I presume some of the windows clients are decent, don't have a machine to test them), and sharereactor.com to get the list of stuff to download. It seems to be an excellent way to get almost anything, from episodes of 24 or buffy that I missed, to beos software (that I paid for! but lost my original copy), to live dave matthews band.

  65. Re:What Freenet is by Cheeze · · Score: 1

    That's a pretty one-sided statement. How do you think freedom of speech stays free? I'll tell you, by speaking your mind.

    good things about freenet:
    1. it allows people in other countries access to data that their government would not normally allow them access. a good example is china. China citizens would not necessarily be disallowed from viewing articles on freenet, even though their internet is firewalled.
    2. anonymous posting in countries where displaying your opinion could get you executed. Any of the mideast countries disallow public dissent.
    3. peer-to-peer file transfer without tracking ability. While this could foster illegal activity, it also allows creativity uninhibited by laws.

    there are many other good things about freenet that i don't really wish to go into right now. From your statements, you are one of the "save the children" cronies that want everything in the world dumbed down so we don't allow our adult population make their own decisions.

    --
    Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
  66. Yelling fire can cause people to get hurt by HanzoSan · · Score: 1, Flamebait



    Its not freedom of speech when someone gets hurt.

    No one gets hurt when you share child porn, because no ones buying or selling the child porn, no ones making money off of it, no ones being hurt, what you have here are a bunch of people who view censored materials which are censored for what reason? To keep the demand for child porn nice and high so the pedophiles can continue to make money selling it? Its like the drug trade,

    When you make something hard to find you end up making it far more valueable, people kill for it, spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on it, and guys who create it now have incentive to create it, making child porn can make you a millionsare!

    This is not what we want, why should we allow them to make money?

    Inciting riots and advocating murder are one thing, viewing child porn is not advocating it, buying it is advocating it.

    So would you rather they but it and support the industry, or view it and kill the industry?

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Yelling fire can cause people to get hurt by praedor · · Score: 1

      Depends doesn't it, on the nature of the porn? If it involves pictures, then money or not, the CHILD was hurt in the making of the pictures or film. Money is NOT the delimiter of whether harm was done. The CHILD is hurt and that is all that matters.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    2. Re:Yelling fire can cause people to get hurt by Ummagumma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Time to burn some karma.

      You, sir, are a sick fuck. You said "No one gets hurt when you share child porn" ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? What about the child? Have you considered that? So, because no-one 'bought' the child-porn, no money is lost, so noone is harmed? I call BULLSHIT. Oh, its just a picture you say? What about the childs emotions - or what about more graphic child porn? That child is scarred FOREVER, but no harm done, as no money was made?

      You need to get your head checked. I sincerely hope you are sterile.

      --
      "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson
    3. Re:Yelling fire can cause people to get hurt by Houdini91 · · Score: 1

      Actually, whether or not the picture gets posted/downloaded by people does not hurt the child, it's the actual act of what they did to the child that hurts him/her.

      You can watch your favorite cop show and see movies of people doing illegal things, but taping it isn't illegal.

    4. Re:Yelling fire can cause people to get hurt by praedor · · Score: 1

      In some places, fortunately, it would be illegal in an oblique way, to film certain illegal activity and nothing more. If you don't report it you could be in legal trouble. If you don't try to help the victim to stop the perp in some way, you could be in trouble. If you film someone doing something disgusting with a child, you are NOT a passive and innocent bystander, you are implicated in the crime and get to do time. You shouldn't just be there filming the child porn event, you should be taking steps to STOP it and save the child. Anything less makes you equally culpable and as guilty as the perv actually DOING the act.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    5. Re:Yelling fire can cause people to get hurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, two times you've said something quite insightful in this story. And two times people see the words child porn and immediately think you're advocating child pornography, instead of actually reading your post. The irony to me is that I think this shows why something like freenet is so needed. Most people are so driven by their emotions that the second they see anything distasteful, they stop thinking and start with a kneejerk reaction.

    6. Re:Yelling fire can cause people to get hurt by Houdini91 · · Score: 1

      I'm inclined to agree with you to a point. However, once could also say the same thing about a bank robbery, yet nobody is held accountable for standing there and letting the criminals hold up the bank.

      As long as there is no immediate danger in trying to stop the illegal act, then yes, the person could/should be held accountable for not helping, but I don't think they would be "as guilty as the person actually doing the crime".

      Still, I have a hard time understanding why the footage itself is considered illegal. Don't get me wrong, I think anybody who posseses child porn is sick. Then again, I think anybody who rents Faces of Death is sick too. But why is one illegal and not the other?

    7. Re:Yelling fire can cause people to get hurt by HanzoSan · · Score: 0



      The child was already hurt before the Child porn was on the internet, whats your point? How does viewing it hurt the child?

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    8. Re:Yelling fire can cause people to get hurt by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      The reason you are wrong is completely different from the reason all the "You sicko" types are suggesting.

      Illegalizing the ownership of kiddie porn, unlike the illegalization of drugs, really does seem to discourage the creation of kiddie porn.

      The people that create kiddie porn now are the kinds of dangerous psychos that would do it under absolutely any circumstance. They don't necessarily make any money at all. Kiddie porn can be acquired for free, right now. If the trade of kiddie porn were legalized, it would open more venues for the sick fucks to make money, and the price of kiddie porn would not decrease (since it can be had for free right now).

      Sure, if someone downloads kiddie porn, they aren't actively harming the child. However, legalizing the trade of kiddie porn would increase the amount of harmed children.

      Please, show me wrong.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    9. Re:Yelling fire can cause people to get hurt by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      It can be had for free? No it doesnt work that way, sure you might find small amounts of it for free on Kazaa or something but on the web you'll never find free kiddie porn.

      Most kiddie porn is european porn where in their country its legal. The free stuff you talk about is REALLY hard to find.

      "The people that create kiddie porn now are the kinds of dangerous psychos that would do it under absolutely any circumstance. They don't necessarily make any money at all. Kiddie porn can be acquired for free, right now. If the trade of kiddie porn were legalized, it would open more venues for the sick fucks to make money, and the price of kiddie porn would not decrease (since it can be had for free right now)."

      Yes but its not easy to find it for free thats why most people buy it from european websites.

      You make the point that more kiddie porn will be produced if more free kiddie porn is found in one sentence but wait you said
      "The people that create kiddie porn now are the kinds of dangerous psychos that would do it under absolutely any circumstance. "

      So if they will do it anyway what difference does it make if the masses can see it or not?

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    10. Re:Yelling fire can cause people to get hurt by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      You make the point that more kiddie porn will be produced if more free kiddie porn is found in one sentence but wait you said
      "The people that create kiddie porn now are the kinds of dangerous psychos that would do it under absolutely any circumstance. "

      So if they will do it anyway what difference does it make if the masses can see it or not?


      The difference is, if it were legal to access, then there would be an increased amount of money (imho) involved, and the field would be attractive to other dangerous psychos that would only do it for money.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    11. Re:Yelling fire can cause people to get hurt by Mant · · Score: 1

      Viewing isn't an event that happens in isolation of the rest of the world.

      One person viewing one peice of child porn doesn't hurt that one child anymore.

      Legalising its distrubtion though would lead to much more being produced, and many more children being harmed.

      Indeed anything thay increases its distrubtion is likey to lead to more being created, and more children being harmed.

      Mant

    12. Re:Yelling fire can cause people to get hurt by HanzoSan · · Score: 1


      Legal to view does not mean legal to sell. When you sell it the police should run and arrest you.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    13. Re:Yelling fire can cause people to get hurt by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      Oh really? So we should distribute Microsoft Windows, Warez, Music, and Movies because it will lead so much more to be created!!

      Where the hell do you get your logic? Its against all economic theory! Back up your statement with valid facts or theory at least.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    14. Re:Yelling fire can cause people to get hurt by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Should it be illegal for me to put banner ads on my kiddie porn webpages?

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    15. Re:Yelling fire can cause people to get hurt by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

      no, it should be illegal for banner ad companies to form a business contract with you.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  67. So what you're really saying here by reverendG · · Score: 1

    Is JUST THINK OF THE CHILDREN! If we don't stop this program, they'll all end up in CHILD PR0N and BE SOLD AS SEX SLAVES!

    oh, and some big corporations will lose a bunch of money.

    BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

    --

    Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
  68. There is a GNU Klone of Freenet by nutznboltz · · Score: 3, Informative

    called GNUnet

    1. Re:There is a GNU Klone of Freenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, this is interesting! Hopefully the default distribution does not include links to pedoporn like Freenet appears to do.

    2. Re:There is a GNU Klone of Freenet by karlm · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The Freenet web client contains a link to The Freedom Engine, which puts up links to anything submitted to be linked to without judgement.

      "We support free speach." sounds a lot better than "We support free speach, except when it comes to pedophiles. Oh, and Neo-Nazis. No mp3s either, since most of those are illegally posted. Oh, and we also don't put up links to sites that think women should be allowed outside without their faces hidden because that might also offend some people in certain cultures." If you only support free speach on your own terms, you don't support free speach. Stop kidding yourself.

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    3. Re:There is a GNU Klone of Freenet by karlm · · Score: 1
      For the record, I think anyone that molests, exploits, or otherwise harms children should be locked up for a very very long time in addition to mandatory extnsive mental health treatment. I think the FBI should also increase efforts to hunt down producers of kiddie porn.

      I also believe racial discrimination is wrong.

      Would I post links to kiddie porn or neonazi sites? No. Do I believe it's wrong to post links to such sites? No.

      There's a lot of sick stuff out there. Save your strength for getting at the root of the problems. To me, it seems that posting kiddie porn is disgusting, but it's more of a record of a past crime. I certainly feel that its production is far worse than its distribution. If you wipe out production, the existing stuff doesn't go away, but the crime of distribution is a lesser crime. The argument could be made that distributing kiddie porn is a thought crime.

      What about 17-year-olds in porn produced in countries where 17, not 18 is the legal limit? What about showing penetration in countries where it's illegal to show penetration? (Someone told me that in Japan they can't show penetration but 17-year-olds in porn is legal. That would mean that Japan and the US can each legally produce porn that's illegal in the other country.) What about 18-year old girls pretending to be underage in porn? It's all a big mess. Take budgets away from futile internet censorship attepts and use the money to more effectively go after child exploiters/molesters/pornographers. If busting distribution rings helps you go after the producers, then more power to you. However, don't think that erasing sicko's hard drive is helping some poor kid get out of an exploitive situation.

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    4. Re:There is a GNU Klone of Freenet by Peter+Eckersley · · Score: 1

      If sharing music is piracy, then violating the Sherman Antitust Act is thermonuclear terrorism.

      This is the best sig I've seen in ages, but it has a spelling mistake in it :)

    5. Re:There is a GNU Klone of Freenet by karlm · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip and the complement. I've tweaked the sig a bit now.

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    6. Re:There is a GNU Klone of Freenet by GileadGreene · · Score: 1

      I believe you mean compliment ;-)

    7. Re:There is a GNU Klone of Freenet by AmbyVoc · · Score: 0

      So freely translated it means Freenet supports free speech and GNUnet doesn't?

      So which one should one really consider using?

      - Voice of Ambience -

      --
      - Voice of Ambience -
    8. Re:There is a GNU Klone of Freenet by karlm · · Score: 1
      They both support free speech. I was just responding to someone that was disgusted that supposedly there is kiddy porn (which I don't doubt) two degrees of seperation away from the official Freenet client start page. I was just saying that some days I consider the Freedom Engine admirable. Most days I wouldn't link without judgement to stuff I disagree with just for the sake of free speech. It takes a lot of character to believe in free speech that strongly, and some guy was really cutting down the Freedom Engine for it. He then refused to use the official Freenet client becuase it linked to the Freedom Engine.

      I'm not sure which directories GNUnet links to directly. GNUnet certainly doesn't censor any content, so you can get the same stuff through that client. My point was simply that anyone claiming to support free speech shouldn't throw out the entire official freenet client because the directory they link to links to everything under the sun, including kiddie porn. You could probably Google for kiddie porn and find some, but very few people boycot Mozilla becuase it uses Google as its default search engine.

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
  69. Complexity by JoshRoss · · Score: 1

    This is my before thought:

    From what I remember... Freenet was too complicated for it to reach significant mass. Im not sure how many nodes are out there, but i would not think that there where more than ~1000 nodes before this last build. Maybe, I'll take a look at this one...

    After thought comming soon!

  70. Re:Support America First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Indeed.

    I have a lot more respect for France now than I had a few weeks ago. On the other hand my country, Finland, is doing what it did so well during the Cold War: groveling before a superpower. Only this it towards west, not east. This week it was announced that Iraqi diplomats are expelled because US wishes so.

  71. Re:Why can't our politicians be this elegant? by borgdows · · Score: 1

    here it is :

    http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=88853 (in french)

    http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/actu/articletxt. gb .asp?ART=33025 (english translation)

  72. Exactly by HanzoSan · · Score: 1, Flamebait



    Laws should be created to PROTECT people from each other.

    Censoring Kiddie Porn from freenet will actually harm more kids than it will help. The more porn people can get for free the less porn they will pay for, no one really feels good about buying porn, no ones going to be like "hey this porn is good, let me go pay the creator of this" no, people take porn and only pay for it when they are desperate.

    It makes plenty of since to go after porn sites on the web because they SELL kiddie porn, someones earning money to abuse kids and then selling the photos and movies, this SHOULD be illegal because someone is being harmed for cash.

    Now, if these pictures are stolen from the site and placed on freenet and all over the P2Ps and people download and view it without payinng a dime, who is this hurting? The producer of the porn is the one losing money here, so why should we attack people who share porn for free? So the guy who makes the porn can continue to force people to buy it?

    I dont get it.

    If someone distributes music, record companies can say artists arent making money blah blah blah, they at least have some kinda arguement, artists do deserve to be paid.

    But when its kiddie porn you cannot use that same arguement, if people are on kazaa sharing it, SOME guy who created that porn is making less money than they would have made,

    This doesnt just go for kiddie porn but the whole porn industry, the more people who share porn for free, the less money made on it, the more the industry suffers, and then less porn is created.

    The more you restrict porn, the more demand you create, and the more expensive it gets, and with this price being high, it causes whoevers making it to make more money.

    So as far as the porn industry goes, you arent going to somehow rid the world of pedophiles, these people will always exist, the best you can do is remove their ability to make money off of it.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Exactly by invenustus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The more porn people can get for free the less porn they will pay for,

      If you'd said this on a thread debating the morality of mp3 trading, you would have been modded down.

      --
      grep -ri 'should work' /usr/src/linux | wc -l
    2. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The effectiveness of that policy depends on what kind of KP you're talking about.

      For example: 99.9% of PTHC videos that can be found in current p2p apps are amateur -- NOT commercially motivated. The same goes for a substantial portion of pics traded in Usenet.

      Yes, there are many, many commercial providers of SC photosets (seems like they are getting more HC every day) and SC teaser vids that could possibly be affected by your saturation strategy. In that case, one must feel a twinge of guilt for the models, who are perhaps being exploited not once, but twice.

    3. Re:Exactly by klokwise · · Score: 1

      i think you're making a good point, but i would have to disagree with you on the whole porn thing. i have no problem paying for porn... actually i feel pretty good about it. also, there are plenty of "actresses" in the porn industry (gosh, isn't aria giovanni talented.) who deserve to be paid, far more than say, britney spears or any of the other commercialised pop music "artists" out there.

    4. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like you've done some research ;)

    5. Re:Exactly by Elvisisdead · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dude, **ITS KIDDIE PORN**. It's **ILLEGAL**. Poeple are routinely tracked down and prosecuted for posessing it. You're required by Federal law to report it if you find it on any system you administer.

      That means if I host a freenet node that contains said content and don't report it because it's freedom of speech, **I GO TO JAIL**. I'm all for free speech until speech that isn't mine lands me in the Federal penitentiary and gets me labeled forever as a pedophile.

      I can totally see how mw going to jail will help stop it getting out there and cease being a financially viable venture.

      --

      "Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." - My Dad
    6. Re:Exactly by Selanit · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Quote #1:
      It makes plenty of since to go after porn sites on the web because they SELL kiddie porn, someones earning money to abuse kids and then selling the photos and movies, this SHOULD be illegal because someone is being harmed for cash.


      Quote #2:

      Now, if these pictures are stolen from the site and placed on freenet and all over the P2Ps and people download and view it without payinng a dime, who is this hurting?


      It's hurting the children, you fool!

      Honestly, your argument seems to be that it's okay to hurt people as long as you're not making money. You are saying that it's acceptable to abduct or illegally buy children, beat them, rape them, photograph/film it, and distribute it to other sick pervs as long as you're not doing it for cash.

      What is this, some kind of inverted public service? Is economic damage truly the only sort of harm you recognize? That's reprehensible! Congratulations buddy, you're the first one on my Slashdot "enemies" list.
    7. Re:Exactly by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Well, as I understand it...you don't know...and have no way of knowing what is on your HD if you are a freenet node...it is all encypted, etc. So, would it not be like the ISP arguments..that you are just a passthrough for the network, and are not responsible for what goes through...or is stored on your 'server' by others on the network?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What harm can have child if his photo is viewed on Internet after he have been abused?
      Or you think that children might be abused as long as their photo are not on Internet?
      I think publicly available photos will help to catch those who abuse children.

    9. Re:Exactly by HanzoSan · · Score: 1


      The porn you look at is high class legal porn, I really doubt anyone can feel good about buying kiddie porn.

      No ones going to be like "hey I just purchased a lifetime membership to the kiddie porn club for $2000!"

      The more embarrassing the fetish, the more abnormal the sex, the less likely someone is to pay for it, no ones going to brag about subscribing to the scat piss porn site, no one would want anyone to know they even look at it, its not the kinda thing people want everyone to know, its not the kinda thing normal people would pay money to see without thinking "ok, if I'm going to pay for this, I better use a fake name and make sure it they dont send anything back in the mail about this"

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    10. Re:Exactly by Barraketh · · Score: 1

      I don't think what you're saying is what the original poster meant. His argument (badly articulated ) goes like this: no-one would go throught the trouble of making child porn if he didn't intend to get payed for it. Stealing the child porn and putting it on freenet harms the creator since he isn't getting payed. Thus, in theory, it HELPS the children by economically harming the porn making bastard.

    11. Re:Exactly by Selanit · · Score: 1
      I don't think what you're saying is what the original poster meant. His argument (badly articulated ) goes like this: no-one would go throught the trouble of making child porn if he didn't intend to get payed for it. Stealing the child porn and putting it on freenet harms the creator since he isn't getting payed. Thus, in theory, it HELPS the children by economically harming the porn making bastard.


      Even if that is what he was arguing, it doesn't hold up.

      Most people who make child porn don't expect to get paid for it. They make it firstly because they like it, but also because they can trade it for more child pornography from other people like them. Not only does this ensure a steady supply of child porn for them, it also acts as a way to gain status within the child pornography community. Thus, stealing it is NOT hurting its creator, even economically, and the children are still getting hurt in its creation.

    12. Re:Exactly by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      Thats exactly what I was saying!

      Its equal to posting Microsofts source code all over the internet, what would happen then? Well Microsoft wouldnt be able to sell Windows anymore for $200-300 I can promise you that.

      The only reason the price is that high is because they have a monopoly, and everyone has to get it from them.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    13. Re:Exactly by Elvisisdead · · Score: 1

      Excellent point. However, the traffic between nodes is not encrypted. Once one of the files in question was identified (by a law enforcement official finding it on freenet), they could do a little network traffic analysis to find out where the node is and monitor who's requesting that file. Then, the ISP gets served a warrant, etc.

      Granted, it's an overly simplistic "what if" analysis I'm conducting and it's entirely unproven. Chances are, that if it could be done and they tracked it to your node, that they wouldn't put you in jail. However, I wouldn't want to be the one they make an example of.

      --

      "Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." - My Dad
    14. Re:Exactly by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      you make a good point Anonymous, however while there is Amatuer porn theres nothing you can do to stop that. You can only stop the professional stuff, if the person isnt making any money off of it what can you do? Not much, its like trying to stop gnutella, no one makes money off of it so theres no easy way to attack it, but why should you sue the people for using gnutella?

      I'm just against censorship. I dont think theres an easy way to stop rapists and murderers, theres snuff films on the internet as well, theres no way to stop that stuff, snuff films are even worse than kiddie porn, but if some serial killer is crazy and murders people and puts it on the net, theres nothing anyone could ever do to stop it.

      Censoring it wont stop it. The crime would still happen, it just wouldnt be noticed, it wouldnt be on the net.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    15. Re:Exactly by Selanit · · Score: 1
      What harm can have child if his photo is viewed on Internet after he have been abused?


      The very availability of the picture compounds the child's injury. Its use for titillation reduces the victim to an object again, denying the victim basic humanity. Its distribution over the Internet makes it available to a much larger audience, so that this may happen not just a few times but potentially millions of times. Not only that, but it whets the appetite of the viewer for more child porn, thereby contributing to the ongoing exploitation of children for sex.

      Or you think that children might be abused as long as their photo are not on Internet? I think publicly available photos will help to catch those who abuse children.


      Child pornography pre-dates the Internet by thousands of years. It would continue even if the Internet vanished tomorrow. But the easy availability of this material inspires the creation of yet more child pornography, meaning that the practice will expand.

      The photos may occasionally help track down a child pornographer. Certainly it's easier for the activity to come to the attention of the authorities if that is so.

      That is, until you put it into Freenet, where it is essentially impossible to track where the material is coming from over the Net. The details in the photos may help narrow down the location, but only if the pornographer is stupid enough to let unique features show up in the distributed versions. One basement looks pretty much like any other basement.
    16. Re:Exactly by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Well on their site it says: Communications by Freenet nodes are encrypted and are "routed-through" other nodes to make it more difficult to determine who is requesting the information and what its content is. From this, it appears that from node to node, it is still encrypted... Are you saying between your browser/client and node it is not encrypted? I'd like some clarification if I could..I was under the impression that all transactions were encrypted...till your browser got it off your node...?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    17. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also serves the purpose of containing and discouraging a socially unacceptable practice. We as a society have expressed the view that even viewing child pornography is wrong. If you disagree then either you will cease this behavior, remove yourself from our society, or you will face the consequences and be removed by force from our society.

      It is not a matter of having an appetite or not having it. Appetites can be suppressed. The ability to suppress base appetites is what separates us from the animals.

      The more people out there who create a demand for this socially unacceptable content, the more people there will be who are willing to produce it or who will consider the production of it. The people who create this demand are, surprisingly enough, pedophiles!

      Pedophiles are the ones who make pedophilia. Pedophiles are the ones who create the motivation for other pedophiles to create this socially unacceptable content.

      It is our goal to either cause those who have such appetites, to suppress them, or in the case that they fail to do so to remove them from our society.

      You have been warned.

    18. Re:Exactly by Galvatron · · Score: 1
      First of all, HanzoSan is a troll, don't pay him too much mind. He's been on my enemies list for months.

      Second, the one grain of truth I would pick out from what he said is that one has to ask the following: is it the creation of the child pornography that harms the child, or the subsequent distribution? I think most of us would agree that it is the former. The latter may cause some harm (just as people who acted in porn in their adult youth find it is hard to be taken seriously in society), but it's really mainly just the creation of child porn that we need to target, I think.

      Since p2p distribution of child porn does not allow for compensation of the original pornographer/child rapist, p2p distribution is not going to encourage the creation of more child porn. Make no mistake, I think that the viewing of child pornography is very bad, and such people should be punished, but I'd rather have a truly anonymous and secret p2p system than try to make it just a little bit harder for some sicko to view child pornography that has already been filmed (and hence, almost all of the damage has already been done). You may disagree, and that's a reasonable position, but recognize that freenet is not raping children; at worst, it is making it a little easier for others to watch people rape children.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    19. Re:Exactly by Elvisisdead · · Score: 1

      "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.

      On Freenet, whatever you do, your identity is still revealed to the first Freenet Node you talk to, and even if you limit yourself to talk only to trusted nodes (a feature that will be implemented in the future), they will have to talk to the rest of the network at some time or another. The anonymity that Freenet offers is really just obscurity in the fact that it is hard to prove that your node wasn't proxying the request for or insert of data on behalf of somebody else (who might also just have been proxying it).

      The problem is that the only way that you can offer true anonymity is if the client can directly control the routing of data, and thus encrypt it with a series of keys of the nodes it will pass through (a la Mixmaster). Freenet's dynamic routing cannot offer that, so to attain true anonymity you have to send the message through an external network of anonymous remailers first (a future SMTP- >Freenet bridge would make this possible).

      It is our intention that Freenet's node-to-node communications should be encrypted, but that has not been implemented either (with the current state of the network we are more interested in testing if the theoretical ideas regarding the routing carry over into reality; you have to have a house before you can lock the door)."


      From http://freenet.sourceforge.net/tiki-index.php?page =FAQ#attack

      --

      "Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." - My Dad
    20. Re:Exactly by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      "Most people who make child porn don't expect to get paid for it. They make it firstly because they like it, but also because they can trade it for more child pornography from other people like them."

      And you know this how?

      Most child porn is filmed in Europe where its completely legal to make it, then websites are put on the internet, where hundreds of kids pictures are sold all at once to a subscriber.

      Your method is so inefficient that only the really hardcore inner circle would trade porn that way. The AVERAGE joe who just has a fetish has nothing to trade, they want to see kiddie porn for free but dont make porn of their own, so their solution is to buy it, whatever they buy other people already have, those hardcore guys most likely already have it so the average joe cannot get into their inner circle.

      The average person viewing child porn is not a rapist, they are just an average person with an unusual fetish. The people who make the porn make it because they are fucked up in the head, and they record it for themselves, not to distribute it, they record it so they can watch it, and they share it with their friends and eventually it gets on the internet.

      Like RKelly and his videos, he recorded it for himself, his friendd go ahold of it, and somehow it leaked onto the internet.

      The whole trade system you talk about is so unreliable because it would be too easy to set up a sting, using fake child porn to catch everyone in the inner circle.

      So if you were right, and all porn were coming from there our police would have no problem stopping it, the problem is the porn is coming from places where its actually legal to make it.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    21. Re:Exactly by Barraketh · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting theory, but i doubt that this is how the child-porn industry works. You say they make it because they 1) like it - doubtful. People WATCH porn because they like it, to make it though is too much financial and legal trouble to just do it for fun. This also applies for most industries (ie, many drug dealers don't actually do drugs). 2) trade it for more child porn - i don't see why the would go back to the bartering system, when they could just use money. And anyways, if it's freely shared, then there is no need for people to trade for it, so the economic argument works in this case too.

    22. Re:Exactly by Selanit · · Score: 1
      Profit is not the primary motivation behind the creation of child pornography. They don't care about compensation. They produce it 1) because they like it, and 2) because they can trade it to other child pornographers for more child porn.


      . . . is it the creation of the child pornography that harms the child, or the subsequent distribution?


      Both. The initial production harms the child greatly; subsequent distribution and viewing re-enacts that, potentially millions of times.

      Not only that, widespread distribution makes it easier for pedophiles to get hold of it. They use it to support their fantasies, and to convince themselves that sexual contact between adults and children is "normal" because lots of other people do it too. Once they have convinced themselves that it's normal, they become free to act on their fantasies, thereby injuring yet more children.

      I agree with you that Freenet is not responsible for any of this. Freenet is a tool; like any tool, it can be used for good purposes or bad, and lots of in between. I also don't think that we should squash Freenet. It has some genuinely good purposes, like helping enable political speech under repressive regimes like China. Anyway, I don't think we could squash it if we wanted. It's designed to be basically impossible to dismantle once it's up and running.
    23. Re:Exactly by Selanit · · Score: 1
      ...to make it though is too much financial and legal trouble to just do it for fun.


      Making porn isn't especially expensive. Anybody with a digital camera and a computer with Internet access can make it. Legality is not likely to be a major concern to somebody who would sexually abuse a child.

      I don't see why the would go back to the bartering system, when they could just use money.


      Money is much more easily traceable, especially credit cards and whatnot (though cash, of course, is not easily traceable). Barter leaves no records about who got what from whom or when. Just because they don't care that it's illegal doesn't mean they want to get caught.

      . . . if it's freely shared [eg over Freenet], then there is no need for people to trade for it, so the economic argument works in this case too.


      Hmm. Possibly.
    24. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Most child porn is filmed in Europe where its completely legal to make it."

      Heuh? Certain European regulations may be a little more lenient when it comes to photographing minors nude, but from there to saying that kiddie porn is legal (i.e. sexual acts involving children), I think that you've missed some details.

    25. Re:Exactly by MANNITOL · · Score: 1
      It's hurting the children, you fool!

      I don't think he's saying that it's ok to hurt people. These people have already been hurt and trading these photos is not necessarily going to hurt them anymore. If these photos are available for free at least the people who created it aren't getting paid. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not a fan of child pornography, but the whole point of freenet is to prevent the possibilty of censorship. If someone has the ability to censor one type of information they would have the ability to censor other types.

      He that would give up even one freedom for security, deserves neither freedom nor security.

    26. Re:Exactly by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      You act like its sooo hard to trace back through the barter system but thats even easier!!!!

      I mean if you trade porn you have to give to recieve and anyone you give to might just be a cop! considering you created the porn, any porn you give no only is traced back to you, but the crime is recorded and can be used in court.

      Who would be that stupid? I think the average person with a kiddie porn fetish would just go to a european porn site and pay for a membership,why? because its legal to view that stuff in europe and the chance of them getting caught is alot lower.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    27. Re:Exactly by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Honestly I don't think many people would be interested in an illegal copy of MS's source code. As a proof you don't find anything like this on P2P networks. ISO's of the latest games, yes.

      What would you do with it? compile it to see how long it takes? make your own Windows distro? fix Microsoft bugs for them?

      Look at the source code itself for brilliant insights or proof of anti-competitive practices? Waste of time all of this...

    28. Re:Exactly by danila · · Score: 1

      It seems from your post's score that rational approach to kiddie porn is not welcome in present society... I think you are completely right. If we can't eliminate child porn completely (and we can't, there being 6 billions people on this planets and stuff), it would make a lot of sense to minimize the number of children involved. If we can distribute the child porn more efficiently, it would take a smaller quantity of child porn to saturate the demand. If someone can take all existing child porn, digitally restore it, categorize, put in neat 650Mb rar files and make available of Freenet, nobody will need to create new child porn anymore. Those who enjoy jerking off looking at nekkid kids will be able to do so. Child pornographers will find new jobs and become respectable members of the society. Poor little kids will get back to pickpocketing and begging (well, hopefully not). Everyone happy. Viva la Freenet!

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    29. Re:Exactly by danila · · Score: 1

      You, my frend, are an idiot!

      For that child the fact that his image is available on the Internet is the least concern. Much more important are the facts that he is hungry, poor and homeless.

      And it would make much more sense to address these problems, not prosecuting people for viewing images on their PC.

      P.S. I guess you are also a voodoo practitioner if you think watching a picture can injure a kid... I guess you also don't have a driving license, since you probably refuse to have pictures taken of you...

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    30. Re:Exactly by danila · · Score: 1

      Child porn is currently illegal in Europe. It was legal, though, a few decades ago, when such magazines as Little Lolitas were freely available. Mainstream (more or less) films like Maladolescenca were made with 13 year olds having sex a lot (although that's not a porn flick - it's a drama about teenage love, and stuff).

      Today child porn is essentially outlawed everywhere because of pressure from fundamentlist countries such as US.

      A lot of child porn is made in countries where law enforcement is lax, such as Russia. But the idea that child porn is somehow made "for fun" is just ludicruos. It is made for $$$ and make no mistake about this.

      Another thing to consider is that not porn is created equal. There is a big difference between a video of a man raping 6 year old and a video of 13 year old girl masturbating. And everyone who doesn't see the difference is hypocritic idiot. :) Their whole chain of logic goes like this:
      1. Child porn = rape.
      2. Viewing child porn = creating it.
      3. Touching child porn, even unknowingly = viewing child porn.
      4. Running Freenet node = distributing child porn.
      => If you have a Freenet node, you are a rapist.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    31. Re:Exactly by MANNITOL · · Score: 1
      Most people who make child porn don't expect to get paid for it.

      How do you so much about people who make child porn?

    32. Re:Exactly by The+Smith · · Score: 1
      I think the average person with a kiddie porn fetish would just go to a european porn site and pay for a membership,why? because its legal to view that stuff in europe and the chance of them getting caught is alot lower.

      I don't know where the hell people are getting these ideas from. The age limits for porn subjects may be 16 or even slightly lower in some countries, but that isn't "child porn" in the way most people understand it. Actual child porn is just as illegal as it is in the US, and very aggressively prosecuted.

  73. Re:Why can't our politicians be this elegant? by borgdows · · Score: 1

    here it is :

    http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=88853 (in french)

    http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/actu/articletxt. gb .asp?ART=33025 (english translation)

    (sorry for the repost, but I think you will need the notification feature for this ;) )

  74. Is It Better Now? by Euphonious+Coward · · Score: 1
    Every time I have tried Freenet, before, it either crashed, or (more usually) got stuck in an infinite loop and/or consumed all of memory and crashed my login session. I have tended to blame JVMs, and Java. I certainly don't run any other daemons that behave that way.

    What are the chances of a C or C++ implementation? I mean, how complicated could this thing be?

  75. Mens rea? by yerricde · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And regardless of if you know or not, you're still responsible, legally and/or criminally.

    Really? I thought crimes required mens rea.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Mens rea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I thought crimes required mens rea.

      If you decide to drive blindfolded and happen to run someone over, this is a crime. The key is that you can be required to have reasonable knowledge of what your responsibilities are and you can be required to follow them.

      Granted, you do have a point, but it really is not so clear cut as you may think. I personally doubt that freenet will catch on, but if it does then the courts will have some tough decisions to make.

    2. Re:Mens rea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's called 'wilful negligence'.

  76. Winny by nstrom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The most popular P2P application in Japan is called Winny and is built around Freenet. There's some english information about it here, as well as a translated client. The last time I tried, though, the translated client was an older version and I couldn't get it to connect, but the latest Japanese binary worked for me.

    1. Re:Winny by Psx29 · · Score: 1

      I have actually been using this for awhile, I love this thing ;) It is not exactly like Freenet though. All information on the network is encrypted and when being transferred is run through a third party so it goes from point A to point B through Point C (A->C->B) you can find out more (if you read Japanese) at winny.info

  77. Blocked Ports, end of 'free' speech.. by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whlie the concept is great, and the true reasons behind freenet is good, its future is susepct.

    Its really easy just to block its usage by isps..

    IE: dont rely on it as your only outlet for speech.. use it to supplement only.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Blocked Ports, end of 'free' speech.. by ModemShark · · Score: 1

      I don't think that it is easy for an ISP to block a freenet port since freenet chooses a random port for every new installation. Your port number is distributed through freenet. Therefore establishing your node on freenet is a slow process.

      And if your port is ever blocket you might move to another port. So, its definitely _not_ easy for an IPS to block freenet and you have a public IP.

  78. correction... by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 2, Redundant

    "Reliable downloading of files as large as 700MB from Freenet at average download rates as high as 100k/sec on a broadband internet connection are sighted[...]"

    The verb should be IS because it is referring to 'downloading.' You wouldn't say "Reliable downloading are..."

    And also, the term is "cited".

    End result:

    "Reliable downloading ... is cited ..."

    1. Re:correction... by dpete4552 · · Score: 1

      What's more boring; Watching paint dry or grammar lessons on slashdot?

      --
      http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
    2. Re:correction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What's more boring; Watching paint dry or grammar lessons on slashdot?"

      I would go with paint drying.

      Only people who revel in their ignorance are bored by a chance at learning. I hope that class doesn't include you.

  79. Examples from Indiana Code by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Very few crimes have that requirement [i.e. "knowingly" language]

    Then what is this in the Indiana Code?

    Another example of "knowingly or intentionally" in Indiana law: the law banning Pokemon .

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Examples from Indiana Code by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Very few crimes have that requirement [i.e. "knowingly" language]

      Then what is this in the Indiana Code [in.gov]?

      Another example of "knowingly or intentionally" in Indiana law: the law banning Pokemon [in.gov].

      Because those are some of the very few crimes which has that requirement.

      Rather then argue about what constitutes "very few" I'll change my statement. Not every crime has the "knowingly" language.

  80. Re:The problem now is, it needs sites like slashdo by buswolley · · Score: 1

    mod parent up.
    But how would you put sites up and retain consistency

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  81. Re:What Freenet is by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    > Since there isn't political oppression in most
    > nations with unencumbered internet access,

    There is political oppression _everywhere_.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  82. Re:What Freenet is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've obviously not recently taken a look at what's on Freent. Why not inform yourself?

  83. Going after ISP's by cgenman · · Score: 1

    If the ISP's port filter Kazaa, you can easily change the port. If they filter heavy use, they will be filtering many legitamate users. If you content-filter, you filter out all of the legal content. You can filter out all inbound ports, but there are legitamate services that end-users setup (such as AIM).

    ISP's can and do cut off users who use excessive bandwidth, or have thousands of open connections at once, but only when the health of the network is at stake. People run businesses out of their homes, upload / download collections of family photographs or MPEG's of home movies, businesses send 50 meg PDF spec sheets... Volume alone is not a sign of illegal activity. Perhaps their 2600 webserver was slashdotted.

    Leaning on the ISP's is not a good solution. There is no current technical filter that isn't overly broad or trivial to get around.

  84. Grammar error by prnd_ndrd · · Score: 2, Informative

    "...rates as high as 100k/sec on a broadband internet connection are sighted..."

    Cited, not sighted. Think "Works Cited" versus "we sighted a boat off our stern".

    --
    Want to talk? ashaver AT pdx DOT edu
    1. Re:Grammar error by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I'm not sure I entirely agree. It's clumsy, no doubt, but I'm not sure it's actually wrong. Consider an alternative way of saying this: "Users have seen speeds as fast as 100k/sec on a broadband internet connection." That interpretation of the sentence would use the word "sighted," rather than "cited."

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  85. Reality Check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freenet is not immune to traffic analyis if enough nodes are being observed. For this reason, a large percentage of Freenet nodes are probably being operated by organizations like the CIA and NSA. They can't see what's being sent but they can see who is sending data to whom. If it became too popular, then the CIA might be have trouble watching it because the percentage of nodes they run would be too low, but this is a long way from happening.

  86. in america by sirshannon · · Score: 1

    In the USA, ignorance, although rampant, is not a viable excuse for a crime. It is unfortunate, but true. You don't have to know the speed limit nor how fast you were going in order to get a speeding ticket.

  87. Re:Why can't our politicians be this elegant? by tree_frog · · Score: 1
    Merci beaucoup :-)

    vous avez me donner deux differents textes: L'une (en francais) c'est l'intervention du 14 Fevrier, l'autre (en anglais) est l'intervention du 7 Mars. La vraie addresse pour l'intervention du 14 Fevrier (en anglais) est ici.

    Pardon ma francais. Je n'y a pas une dictionaire francais ici a mon informateur :-(

    (and in English....) Thanks. The links you gave refer to 2 different speeches, the English link is to a speech on the 7th March, the French to one on 14th Feb. The English translation of the 14th Feb speech can be found here.

    treefrog

  88. Hope they add ability to deal w firewall by sacrilicious · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It looks like freenet is coming along very nicely. One of the items high on my wishlist is the ability to run a node that is behind a firewall. Various p2p packages do this (e.g. kazaa, winmx). Perhaps the implementation of such would require the participation of a non-firewalled freenet node to route sessions, but that doesn't strike me as so bad. Having the ability to run from behind a firewall could dramatically increase the number of participating nodes.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    1. Re:Hope they add ability to deal w firewall by hughk · · Score: 1
      Freenet works behind a firewall, but like edonkey, you need to open up an inbound port to direct to your node. You can't then have another node on the inner-side of the firewall because at the moment because freenet assumes full IP connectivity between the nodes.

      I assume that better tunneling will appear at a later time.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  89. Slashdotted by bsharitt · · Score: 1

    Earlier Freenet was working fine, but now it has grindedto a halt. Has Freenet been Slashdotted?

    1. Re:Slashdotted by andfarm · · Score: 2, Informative
      Freenet actually had problems much like this the last time Slashdot posted a story about it. The problem is actually that too many new nodes are being added to the network, none of which contain much data. All these "empty" nodes are creating a large network which contains little data. Hence, new users will start having problems with not finding any data near them -- their requests are only reaching the new, empty nodes.

      Slashdotting? Not quite. But something similar, perhaps.

      --

      TANSTAAFI: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free iPod.

  90. Re:What Freenet is by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

    I'm not a "save the children" lunatic -- I'm just someone who can see through your transparent rationalization.

    Guess what -- places like China and the Mideast will firewall and/or investigate Freenet users. It's pretty trivial for the local Secret Police to detect gobs of encrypted traffic from a particular person.

    In the civilized world, if you are unwilling to have your speech attributed to you, you're not worth listening to.

    There is zero advantage for anyone doing something legal to use freenet. You have no control of how long your files remain availble, no reliable way of searching for it and a small user community.

    There are plenty of advantages for small niche communities like kiddie porn purveyors, organized crime/terrorists and software/music/video pirates.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  91. Only criminals use encryption, too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    The only people with a real need to use an anonymous medium for communication are criminals and political dissidents. Since there isn't political oppression in most nations with unencumbered internet access, freenet will never be a repository of literature and information.


    Replace references to "anonymous medium" with "encryption" and "PGP" (or "GPG") and you'll see how stupid that statement really is.
  92. Re:Support America First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many more skyscrapers would you like to see fall?
    What kind of morons think Osama has anything to do with Saddam? Saddam's an infidel, and runs the most secular country in that part of the world.

  93. Re:What Freenet is by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

    If there was widespread political oppression in the United States, Europe, Japan and Oceania, open forums like Slashdot or the internet would not exist period.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  94. Re:Why can't our politicians be this elegant? by borgdows · · Score: 1

    oops, sorry for the mistake ;) I love the end of his Match 7th speech (in response to Rumsfeld's "old europe") "This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows everything it owes to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. And yet has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. It believes in our ability to build together a better world."

  95. You misunderstand the point by lazyl · · Score: 1

    Most people seem to misunderstand the point of Freenet. I think that is Freenet's biggest problem.

    It is not intended to be a p2p file-sharing app. It is not intended to be an alternative to kazaa or gnutella or any of those apps. It is intended to be a replacement for the web. It is intended to be navigated by using a browser (like a web browser) that displays documents which contain links (hyperlinks) to other documents. That's why searching isn't a big deal. Searching is secondary; it's not the point of the network. Searching would ideally be implemented the same way it is on the real web: with a search engine like google that indexes everything and is itself just a Freenet document.

    Nobody seems to understand this and that's where I think Freenet's biggest problem lies. Once people understand this they start to see the possibilites. Freenet content can't be shut down the way web sites can be. People can run "web sites" on Freenet without having to buy server space from anyone. There a lots of advantages over the conventional web. Ofcourse, there are problems too, but the possibilities definetly make it worthwhile to give it a shot and to try and make it work.

    --
    Aw crap, ninjas!
  96. Break a few eggs by niom · · Score: 1

    Freedom of speech is a boon to hatemongers but you have to break a few eggs eh?

    Due process is a boon to terrorists but you have to break a few eggs eh?

    Democracy is a boon to corrupt populist politicians but you have to break a few eggs eh?

    Why are there so many people who say "freedom is a boon for criminals" lately?

    --
    -- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
    1. Re:Break a few eggs by praedor · · Score: 1

      I don't go with the "freedom is a boon for criminals" line. I am simply not impressed with the overblown self-importance of the "freenet". To me, its partisans are like the French and Germans with regard to their stands on Iraq at the UN. They are NOT actually arguing from a moral standpoint for not going against Saddam (it is not moral to take the stand that they would not support military action under "any" circumstances...ANY?! NOT ANY!? - but I digress). They are using the convenient fiction that their stand is principled on solid morals when in fact what they are so stridently against is the US and other (few) "coalition" partners finding the evidence that both countries have been violating UN sanctions against Iraq from the beginning, that Chirac and Saddam are practically buddies, that Germany and France have made a financial killing in selling items to Iraq that are NOT for peaceful and legal purposes. Just so you know, by the way, I have not been supportive of Bush in this whole debacle either but the French and German hippocrits make me wanna puke every bit as much as Bush's fumbling.


      I see Freenet partisans as speaking of the greatness of free speech, etc, while conveniently ignoring what it is LIKELY to be used the most for (not a minority of the use, the MAJORITY of the use): illegal (not grey area illegal, REAL illegal - kiddie porn and terrorist communication). They brush that off as minor when it is in fact major, overblowing the great use it will have for those under restrictive regimes.


      I would LOVE to see a full and honest breakdown of the actual content of freenet. Not blurry reference to great, articulate, useful supporters of legitimate liberty, but actual, hard data to show what freenet is REALLY being used for. A nice truly legitimate, statistically sound random sampling of the full content of freenet. I'd bet my left nut that the vast majority of it is not high-minded freedom's spirit. I'd bet it is loaded with 90% inane, blatently and unambiguously illegal, crap.


      I am a wet blanket in this regard. Freenet could have some good intent, and perhaps the developers REALLY buy their arguments, but the reality is not their idealistic utopian fantasy. the reality is likely quite inane and ugly. It is just reality and I insist that they be forced to face reality to some extent rather than just their dream world of free butterflies doing good all over.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    2. Re:Break a few eggs by niom · · Score: 1

      I don't go with the "freedom is a boon for criminals" line.

      Well, to me it quite looks like you do.

      They are NOT actually arguing from a moral standpoint for not going against Saddam

      Policitians misrepresent their motivations, news at 11. Also, Bush's allusions to morality seem quite more strident and pervasive to me (God this, evil that, you know what I mean). At least Chirac's and Schroeder's stance is against war, children being killed by American weapons and all that.

      [...] while conveniently ignoring what it is LIKELY to be used the most for (not a minority of the use, the MAJORITY of the use): illegal (not grey area illegal, REAL illegal - kiddie porn and terrorist communication).

      You don't get freedom. Most freedoms are quite likely to be used mainly for illegal use. If you think of it, most people could live quite happily under a dictatorship. Freedom of speech? Legal crypto? Due process? Most people aren't really interested in political speech, can pass without saying anything against the government and won't ever get convicted. Still, those freedoms are deemed worthy, albeit by an ever decreasing number of people it seems. I'd hate to sound patronising, but maybe we all should think about it.

      --
      -- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
    3. Re:Break a few eggs by praedor · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. Freedom is NOT mostly used by criminals for crime. It is exploited, sure, but on the whole, our society (US, Britain, choose your democracy) isn't MOSTLY criminals taking advantage of freedom. MOST free people are not criminals and are not interested in crime. They do not commit crimes. I am free and have no desire or urge to be a criminal, thank you. I assume the same is true of you though your statement could suggest otherwise.


      I defy you to prove me wrong about my gut feeling about freenet. PROVE that it is actually MOSTLY used legitimately (by this I mean for things OTHER than what MOST people in any democracy would agree is criminal or immoral at the very best). I really want hard data to show that the actual benefit of freenet outweighs the cost (50:50 mix is pathetic but at this early stage perhaps excusable. A MAJORITY of use for illegal/immoral pursuits argues that it is merely a tool for criminals and pervs by and large and of no real substantive value). One free speech hero in a background of hundreds or thousands of murderous terrorists and pedophiles and true swindlers does NOT argue for freenet being a good thing.


      Free speech is not primarily abused by criminals. Most gun ownership is also aboveboard and legal (though of questionable real value). Most freedom of association is not primarily the domain of criminals. Most freedoms are in fact practiced by fully legit, upright, good people. They far and away outnumber the few criminals. I would bet the same could NOT be said for freenet no matter what hyperbole or sloganeering you use. If tool X is vastly and overwhelmingly used by criminals for criminal purposes, then it is not a truly defensible tool for joe and jane blow to possess. Sure, they may be the lone individual in the vast wilderness that use tool x for fully legal or good purposes, but it doesn't outweigh the vast numbers who use it for ill ends. This fact makes tool x illegitimate and arguably subject to restriction. I am not saying this fits freenet, but I am putting forth the argument that just because, in theory, freenet could be use for good ends by good people, that doesn't outweigh the ill ends by bad people if the latter is an overwhelming majority. Freenet is not in and of itself a good thing just because of what it could do. It is only legitimately judged based upon what it ACTUALLY does (is used for). Present an objective, random sample, statistically relevant, of the content of the freenet. I bet such a publication of stats would be screamed about by any and all freenet advocates simply because it would likely present a realistic picture of what their pet project is REALLy being used for...NOT the betterment of the world, not even the betterment of a nasty regime (on the whole). It is likely being used to further nefarious ends by nefarious, ammoral individuals (on the whole). It is irrelevant whether or not this characterizes YOU. YOU could be pure as driven snow, but the "company you keep" is of great importance in judging the value of freenet.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    4. Re:Break a few eggs by niom · · Score: 1

      You know your demands for hard data and PROVING (uppercase and all) are just hot air. I haven't run a study of freenet usage nor I plan to do so.

      What I'm concerned with is this "prove you need your freedoms" attitude of which your posts are good examples.

      So let me turn the tables. PROVE that most of the people who benefit from due process are not criminals. And if you can't, be coherent and say you'll support the abolition of due process. I'm impatient.

      --
      -- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
    5. Re:Break a few eggs by praedor · · Score: 1

      Freenet cheerleaders like to espouse how great their toy is. How it enhances the good of freedom. They downplay the bad and highlight the supposed good above all else. Such claims are crap without data to back it up. The claim is hollow without data to back it up. If the freenet is so great, then it wouldn't be a problem to show how great by providing a cross-section of the actual content, the actual real-life use of the net. No, names/IDs are not important, the content is. Let's see the real, unvarnished content of the freenet so we can all glory in how great and freedom-saving it is. Let's see examples of the produce of all the great minds fighting for liberty on the freenet.


      Make a claim about how great freenet is, how it is "good" because it protects freedom...well, let's SEE how good it is, how protective of freedom, how valuable an asset it can be.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    6. Re:Break a few eggs by malthusan · · Score: 1

      You failed to answer Niom's challenge:

      "So let me turn the tables. PROVE that most of the people who benefit from due process are not criminals. And if you can't, be coherent and say you'll support the abolition of due process. I'm impatient."

      You're demanding the proponents of freenet prove it is not being used primarily for illegal activities. Niom's challenge to you is to prove it is not. This speaks to the very heart (ideally speaking, of course) of the US justice system which espouses the notion of "innocent until proven guilty"; conversely, you are stating users of freenet are guilty of illegal activities and demanding PROOF that they are, in fact, innocent because your "gut feeling" tells you the majority of activity on freenet is the trading of child pornography and terrorist plans.

      What does your "gut feeling" tell you about your neighbor? Is he a terrorist? Is he a child pornographer? He must be because your gut tells you so, so lock him up and throw away the key until he can PROVE he is neither.

      This is the worst sort of tyranny. Read up on the Salem witch trials or the Inquisition -- folks were put to death on the basis of accusations which, more often than not, were based on petty personal grievances cloaked in the self-righteous "defense of the innocent". How long before you begin screaming for the heads of anyone who uses freenet or any other encrypted communications because they *might* be using it for illegal activities? More frightening still: How long before the government listens to your screams and grants your wish?

    7. Re:Break a few eggs by praedor · · Score: 1

      You don't prove negatives. Surely you realise this? Surely you can see the interesting aspect of seeing what freenet is ACTUALLY being used for vs what its intended/claimed use is for? Is this such a threatening idea? What do you fear? You must fear something to be vehemently against such a study.


      As for due process, it is clear that it serves well for the nonguilty. How many have been turned off death row lately because they were proven innocent? Not everyone accused of a crime committed said crime. In any case, the situation is different. No one is seeking to punish/imprison people simply because they use freenet. All I am interested in, what I'd wager MANY people would be interested in is a sampling of the content of freenet just to see what it is actually being used for. This isn't talking about getting people, it is about an objective look at activity/use. Such studies are conducted all the time. Recall the study a couple years ago focused on gnutella? All it did was show how gnutella was actually used vs what its creators hoped. Most people were leeching off gnutella and few were contributing. Period. It didn't indict any people, it didn't shut down (or even attempt to shut down) gnutella. It merely described the objective use of gnutella and highlighted the undeniable problem that such a system suffers.


      Gnutella is still here, still used, still even useful, but its problems are not magically gone nor transformed, they just are. Why is freenet fearful about a similar look? It has nothing to do with who put what on, since that is presumably not available anyway. The actual detailed content of the files isn't critical either, just a description (accurate) of what is there. A simple descriptive name for the files is all that is of interest. This is evil and threatening? Since when is general knowledge threatening?

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    8. Re:Break a few eggs by malthusan · · Score: 1

      "You don't prove negatives."
      You're absolutely correct. So, why, pray tell, are you so insistent the advocates of freenet prove it is NOT being used for illegal activities? If you're framing your objection in the context of a simple study of what it is actually being used for, then, I agee: such a study might be academically interesting. However, I don't get the sense this is the intent of such a study. Rather, you claim it is being used primarily to distribute child pornography and host discussions on how to be a terrorist, therefore, based on your claim, the entire system should be transparent so these activities can be monitored and punished accordingly.

      I'm speaking more from the standpoint of defending privacy rather than advocating freenet per se. If privacy is an important value, then it must be defended. Defending the right to privacy requires *everyones'* right to privacy be defended, no matter what they are doing in private. If evidence comes to light that illegal activities are taking place, then those activities should be investigated. In the absence of evidence, however, forcing an exposure of all activity, and thereby removing the element of privacy from communication on freenet (and not just for the users but also for the content), assumes guilt first, and demands its advocates prove their innocence; again, prove they are NOT doing what your gut feeling is telling you they are doing.

      My question is: If the goal is not to punish/imprison the users of freenet, then why is it so important to know exactly what kind of activity is taking place? Again, while knowing this may be academically interesting, that, in itself, is not a compelling reason to remove the privacy which encryption seeks to protect.

      "Since when is general knowledge threatening?"
      Put this question in this context: Since when is general knowledge of what I have in my bedroom threatening? Unless I have something to hide, why should I feel threatened? I mean, as long as I'm not doing anything wrong, I shouldn't have any objection to anyone and their dog going through my bedroom, should I? Wrong -- my bedroom is private. I choose who has access to my bedroom, and I choose what is in there for them to see. And just because I don't grant everyone access to my bedroom doesn't necessarily mean I have illegal substances or items or am performing illegal activities.

      I'm less concerned about freenet and what it's being used for than I am about the idea that privacy is not important enough to protect. Personally, I'm not will to give up my right to privacy -- whether in real life or on the 'net (when I have a reasonable expectation of privacy) -- to foster a false sense of security.

  97. Everything is signed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember that every document on Freenet is signed. So it is possible to get 'trust' on freenet and it can't be faked.
    Osama Bin Laden, DO already have an freenet account. And he has published a few pages. I can't really remember it right now, I will post it when I find it again.

  98. What about Instant Messaging w/no Central Control? by Shwag · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Freenet, a system for free exchange of information without centralized control, is great. But isn't it time someone did this for Instant Messaging?

    This is important. Mod this up.

  99. Re:Why can't our politicians be this elegant? by m1a1 · · Score: 1

    "our" being whose? Why do you assume that everyone reading Slashdot is American? They aren't. It's just this sort of mindset that makes people resent the US

    You are just being a whiner. Slashdot (the server) is in the United States. It is fair enough to say our and be referring to the U.S. when posting on a site that uses U.S. English, is in the United States, and probably the plurality of hits are from people in the U.S.

    That said, if you want to resent, resent away. The nice thing about being the U.S. is... we don't care what you think.

  100. They have thought of that already by Sanity · · Score: 1
    That's funny. So why can't China or Your-favorite-regime simply block/ban downloading freenet itself?
    They can, in fact, they already have - this is the reason for Freenet's new "distribution node" functionality - from the release notes:

    One fundamental problem with distributing Freenet from a website is that it creates a central point of failure. In the event that this website was shut-down it would seriously inhibit the deployment of the Freenet software. To address this issue, Freenet now includes the ability to self-propogate! Using Freenet's new "distribution node" functionality, you can send people a URL (through out-of-band means such as in your email signature) which will allow them to download and install Freenet directly from your node. Their version of Freenet will inherit your node's network knowledge eliminating any reliance on a centralized "bootstrapping" service.

  101. Re:What Freenet is by harmless_mammal · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you think we don't need an anonymous publishing methods then, clearly, you haven't tried driving across Texas with a "I support gun control and gay rights" bumper sticker on your car. Publicly advocating unpopular ideas, even if you're right, can get you killed.

  102. And the software is idiot proof? by dark-br · · Score: 2, Funny

    Make an idiot proof software and they will make a better idiot.

  103. way off topic... by warpSpeed · · Score: 1
    Central Control may have killed napster.
    But they'll never get moose and squirrel!

    Moose: "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabit outta my hat."
    Squirrel: "That trick never works!"
    Lion: "Roar!"
    Moose: "Ooohg, Don't know my own strenth."
    Squirrel: "And now here's something you'll really like."

  104. Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will just take you 5 days to download one, but those no good IP Cops will never find me!

  105. Re:The problem now is, it needs sites like slashdo by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Freenet shouldnt be just about porn and warez because it will be very easy to outlaw it, what we need to do is fill freenet up with useful content for the masses....

    Yeah. Not just for warez and porn. Freenet needs mp3's!

    --

    Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
  106. Anonymous? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    If it was truly anonymous, how would files get transferred? TCP/IP hasn't changed has it?

  107. its simple really by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Any port that exhibits any large amount of OUTGOING data ( all 'servers' are banned so only metered incoming is allowed ) is blocked, or service is simply cutoff, pending explanation by the customer.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:its simple really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shucks.
      there goes my port 22.

  108. I donwloaded it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I couldn't find shit on it. I search for common games and music files and it gave me some cryptic error. sucks.

  109. Re:Exactly...perhaps by thewils · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Er, unless by propagating the stuff for free then you actually give people a method of developing their appetite. Then once they run out of, or just don't feel like searching for, the free stuff they turn to PPV.

    Bad analogy I know, but would handing out free drugs make people buy less and put the pushers out of business? It's a thought I had myself some time ago, but in the long run I don't think so. there's just be more addicts out there.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
  110. What I would like to know... by AmbyVoc · · Score: 0

    ...is if Freenet can be operated from behind a firewall, since if not, it is not of use for me, or atleast I will not be able to use it. Anyway It'd be nice if it had some sort of proxy capabilities.

    - Voice of Ambience -

    --
    - Voice of Ambience -
  111. Marvellous by AmbyVoc · · Score: 0

    This one's better, no klunky Java.. My 400MHz super duper speedy machine might even run it :)

    I might have to call my isp about the fw stuff though...

    - Voice of Ambience -

    --
    - Voice of Ambience -
  112. Please qualify statements carefully by jridley · · Score: 1

    no one really feels good about buying porn, no ones going to be like "hey this porn is good, let me go pay the creator of this"

    Um, wrong. I have no problem paying for porn. I have more respect for the adult industry than I have for a lot of "legitimate" industries.

    However, if you're talking strictly about kiddie porn here, you're still wrong. I don't think there's any place for kiddie porn anywhere. It shouldn't be condoned in any manner, whether it's being produced or consumed. People who are getting kiddie porn maybe shouldn't be prosecuted the same way as those creating it, but neither should they be totally ignored. If anything, someone who specifically needs kiddie porn instead of adult porn probably needs professional help.

    1. Re:Please qualify statements carefully by HanzoSan · · Score: 0



      Creating kiddie porn should be illegal, we agree on that.

      But why the hell should you punish a person for viewing something? thats ridiculous!

      Thats as stupid as mc donalds consumers sueing mc donalds for making them fat, you dont take it out on mc donalds.

      Look if people have fantasies of having sex with kids, not having pictures wont change this, people will jerk off to text, art they draw themselves, and fake kiddie porn, virtual porn, whatever

      Its pointless to try to outlaw their fantasies, it just makes them more innovative and innovation is not what we want.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    2. Re:Please qualify statements carefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thats as stupid as mc donalds consumers sueing mc donalds for making them fat, you dont take it out on mc donalds.

      You compare overeating at McDonalds with the sale and distribution of children porn?

      *Mind boggles*

  113. Child Pornography by 0x0d0a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it hard to believe that "the true test" of Freedom of Speech means tolerating child porn.

    I think it's pretty reasonable. They take an absolute position of freedom of speech, including allowing things like libel to be placed on Freenet.

    And it's technically silly to even care. The point of Freenet is that it treats all data the same, and only cares about popularity. Is chunk of data id # af325a15b7791fc13b really popular? Then regardless of the content, it's going to spread around. Freenet tries to reduce network load, and ignores artifical attempts to prevent it from doing so.

    In essence, it enforces the much-talked-about common carrier status on everyone. No one knows what's passing through their computer, because it just doesn't matter. It's data, someone wants it, and caching it gets it to them more efficiently.

    I find it vaguely odd that you, a network engineer, are unable to isolate the transmission of data from attempts to censor it. Do you believe that the networks you build aren't used for things that you would consider immoral?

    Freenet, by virtue of some features of it and its popularity, provide some services that are unavailable elsewhere. There are few other places that you can get really truly anonymous email that you can *trust* to be anonymous.

    Actually, I find Freenet a good example of the simple impracticality of attempting to censor data today, with the ease of transmission and storage available. I'll be amazed if any broad class of data can be censored.

    Finally, a comment on your morality complaint. You find child pornography distasteful, and want to choose not to serve it. That's fine. However, the common condemnation of child pornography is based more upon attempts to prevent violation of a particular social code than out of interest for children's welfare (contrast this with actual sex with children, which certainly does have potentially severe negative physical effects). There are some tribes in New Zealand and Africa that do not wear clothing (well, aside from some ornamentation). If a photographer went there and took pictures (ignoring for a moment whether the tribals would have any issues with the picture-taking itself), these people wouldn't really think anything of being seen in the nude. The photographer may well have been producing material designed to "incite lust", which would make said material pornography. However, to argue that there is any form of damage being caused to the subject is ludicrous. Now, in the United States and much of the world, Victorian ethics have had an enormous impact. There's a general nudity taboo, and the concept of child pornography is generally unaccepted. However, that is very much a product of the society, an artifact of religious and social pressures, not an obviously beneficial thing.

    Actually, while I'm complaining about common views of child pornography, how well do your views on it approximate the actual, legally enforced definition used in the United States? People very frequently claim that they find child pornography utterly repulsive. And yet, legally, "child pornography" includes people that most would hardly consider children. Would a nude seventeen year old be repulsive, whereas suddenly an eighteen year old not be?

    I really shouldn't have to put this disclaimer here, but child pornography is so commonly disliked that it's necessary to be taken seriously. I don't find child pornography appealing, though I don't have this ridiculously overblown hatred of it and the people involved in its production that many people culture. There's also a not unreasonable chance that I'd find a nude seventeen-year-old to be attractive, so I'd enjoy some of the material that the US has made illegal.

    Essentially, I'd say that someone taking nude pictures of an American child is doing about the same thing as feeding beef to a Hindu child or pork to a Jewish child. They're violating social norms, and probably piss off some people, but I don't see a

    1. Re:Child Pornography by Blue+Stone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think your argument has many merits, but your definition of what constitutes "child pornography" is flawed.

      As far as I'm aware, and I speak as merely a member of the human race here, and not a lawyer (are the two mutually exclusive?... I don't know) a photograph of a naked child is not "child pornography," "kiddie porn" or whatever.
      If that were true, then there would be parents who've taken photographs of their children in the bath, naked on the beach or running around in the garden who were by that definition child pronographers.

      H&M, an old (now defunct?) naturist magazine regularly showed pictures of persons under the age of 18 in a state of undress, and was on sale, legally, in British newsagents up and down the country, for many years.
      If this was seen by the law as KP (as I believe it is sometimes quaintly known) then you can bet there would have been dawn raids on every newspaper shop in the UK. This didn't happen.

      Also artists such as Balthus, would have found themselves in court, for creating works that could perhaps, at least, be called "child erotica" (there is no actual sexual activity in his paintings, but frequently "suggestive" poses, and allusions to sexuality.)

      Child Pornography involves children engaging in sexual activity with other children or adults, which is then recorded. It's not just a 3 year old runing up the garden, naked as the day he was born, to his mother's camera, grinning like a maniac, on a summer's day.

      Real Child pornography is not about a social norm being transgressed, although some hard-liners like the people in Kidscape, I believe, define child abuse as having sex with someone under the age of 16, here in the UK; a declaration that certain countries and cultures on the continent and elsewhere throughout the world, are populated by child abusers because of their lower ages of consent.
      Of course such a position is somewhat fanatical and isn't worth much of a second thought.

      Real child abuse involves events that are traumatic and have an immense impact on people's lives. It always involves the abuse of power, the taking advantage of and manipulation of someone who is less informed, and less able to understand that they are not acting in their own interests.
      These people are called children.
      This is why there are laws concerning the age of consent, both in sexual activity, and appearing in pornography: to protect the vulnerable.

      That in The Netherlands, a 16 year old can be shown involved in a gangband with a dozen men, and the same is illegal in the US, is not the issue.

      That a four year old is shown being raped in it's anus, is. I do not believe that this is a cultural issue; it is a humanitarian one.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    2. Re:Child Pornography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a very smart and well written post. I could not have done better:)

    3. Re:Child Pornography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm...I used to think that what you say is true. But It seems some authorities have decided otherwise. Because why is virtual child porn being forbidden?
      Perhaps in these times, this magazine you speak about would be considered illegal...

    4. Re:Child Pornography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There are some tribes in New Zealand and Africa that do not wear clothing

      Perhaps this is off topic but I think it should be pointed out.

      New Zealand = Primarily white, liberal western democracy with laws against public nudity. The indigenous people, the Maori, usually wore quite a bit of clothing. Probably due to the cool climate I imagine.

      I've lived in New Zealand my entire life and haven't noticed any naked tribesmen wandering around. The people of Maori descent, who I work with every day, wear suits and ties like the rest of us.

      Hansel Dunlop
      interpretthis.org

    5. Re:Child Pornography by somekindofuniguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are some tribes in New Zealand...

      Look,

      I know this isn't central to your argument, but I feel the need to point out that you don't know what you're talking about. New Zealand is a developed, western nation with a top-20 spot on the OECD and quite clear laws regarding public nudity.

      The "tribes" you refer to are known here as "iwi", and are also technologically advanced and largely western in lifestyle. The Maori (native New Zealand) people do not live in mud huts and run around in grass skirts - they live in brick-and-tile townhouses, and run around in jeans and t-shirt (or a 3-piece suit, depending who you meet).

      It might be a small point, but I see these cultural stereotypes all the time on /. and it's just idiocy.

    6. Re:Child Pornography by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      I think your argument has many merits, but your definition of what constitutes "child pornography" is flawed.

      I was using the US legal definition. It's pornography if the material is intended to "incite lust", and child pornography if a subject is under eighteen years of age.

      a photograph of a naked child is not "child pornography," "kiddie porn" or whatever.

      Not necessarily. But if the resultant work is intended to "incite lust" then it is pornography.

      If that were true, then there would be parents who've taken photographs of their children in the bath, naked on the beach or running around in the garden who were by that definition child pronographers.

      I mentioned nudity to give an example of the only thing that directly affects the child, not with the intent to define the legal boundaries of the crime.

      That a four year old is shown being raped in it's anus, is. I do not believe that this is a cultural issue; it is a humanitarian one.

      But in this case, my point about physical harm caused by the actual rape stands.

    7. Re:Child Pornography by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      The "tribes" you refer to are known here as "iwi", and are also technologically advanced and largely western in lifestyle.

      Fair enough. I read about them in a 1986 edition of World Book some years back, so I certainly suppose that the article could be out of date. The article did not say that the information was current, either.

      My point, I think, still stands, though you might have to use a different people or move a few years back to get a really good example.

    8. Re:Child Pornography by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      Okay, fair enough. As I posted below, I was going on an article in a 1986 edition of World Book that I read some years ago. It didn't state what date the tribal environment was still in place -- but if you move a few years back, you have people doing the same thing.

      Unfortunately, it's getting rather hard to find a society that *isn't* deeply influenced by the Victorian ethics that I mentioned. Well, move a few years back to when they *were* running around, and you have an example of a society that didn't have a problem with nudity. My point -- that the nudity/child pornography ban is more a byproduct of a (widespread) meme than an actual, carefully considered beneficial decision -- should still stand.

    9. Re:Child Pornography by jes5199 · · Score: 1

      actually, on rare occations parents have been arrested, here in the united states, who've taken photographs of their children in the bath, naked on the beach or running around in the garden who were by that definition child pronographers.

      it's true, i saw it on television.

      --
      monkeys.
    10. Re:Child Pornography by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      I have to say I think it's insane to call a photograph of a 17 year old engaged in sexual activity, child pornography and both undermines the meaning of what should be considered child pornography and of course criminalises people who are not paedophiles, or abusing anyone.
      I know you didn't write the law, and you certainly don't have to defend it, but I think this sort of heavy-handed puritanical law is quite unjust.
      I was just reading about a child who had an image of his face placed on that of a female body having sex with a male.
      It was placed on a website, and the victim informed.
      While it certainly caused some distress and embarassment, those that perpetrated the act, instead of being slapped on the wrist (or punished by the school for bullying) for their childhood prank, were convicted with Pandering Obscenity of a Minor (2nd degree felony).

      The law seems quite ridiculous, and unjust; the potential for unduely severe consequences on a person for just having a photo of a 16 year old having a shag, being tarnished with the label of paedophile (if you accept the logic that "child porn" posession = paedophile, which I think a lot of people do) and all the horrific stigma that such a label would bring upon a person, seems to transgress both fairness and proportionality

      I guess it's both funny and astounding that you can legally have photographs of 14 year olds in a gangbang in Germany, while still being considered a normal, tax-paying, member of society , but in both the UK and US, you'd be branded an evil satanical paedophile, and driven out of your neighbourhood by angry locals with pitchforks, quicker than you can say kiddyfiddling.

      Most people I think, think of the term "child pornography" as being more than an abstract legal definition. I mean, how many 17 year old girls have you met in the last decade that were anything remotely like a child?

      Maybe they should rename such material depicting persons between the age of 15 and 18, "teen porn?"
      But then I suppose that wouldn't have quite the same disapproval vale as "child porn."

      "M'lud, the defendant is charged with the posession of teen porn."

      Why society, as we now know it, would collapse! :)

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    11. Re:Child Pornography by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      It's worse here in the UK, Head teachers have banned parents from videoing the school play, in case the tape falls into the hands of a paedophile!

      All reason seems to have been abandoned.
      And all this while on my tv, a mum kisses her baby on it's clean, peach-like bot, in a Pampers commercial.

      Fucking paedophile filth! :o/

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    12. Re:Child Pornography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One day, I am going to get around to factchecking your ass on this. Count on it.

    13. Re:Child Pornography by BandoMcHando · · Score: 1

      Quote:
      "As far as I'm aware, and I speak as merely a member of the human race here, and not a lawyer (are the two mutually exclusive?... I don't know) a photograph of a naked child is not "child pornography," "kiddie porn" or whatever. If that were true, then there would be parents who've taken photographs of their children in the bath, naked on the beach or running around in the garden who were by that definition child pronographers."

      hmmmmm. See this incident in the UK several years ago.

  114. Wrong. by Zone-MR · · Score: 1

    So what you are saying is that in fact there should be no such thing as annonymous free speech?

    Of course power to convey ideas, thoughts, or images annonymously and freely can be abused. There is no questioning that.

    The only way to combat it would be not to support any project or means of communication which doesnt engage in censorship - which you seem to have chosen.

    You either agree with 100% free speech - and accept its inherent scope for abuse and problems, or you believe human communication should be censored. The "I agree with free speech as long as it doesnt involve..." approach is *NOT* freedom - simply because it indicates some entity or organisation must proccess and control what is said.

  115. Why do they FORCE junkava on US ? USE XBASIC by zymano · · Score: 0
    Python ? I am really sick of Java and it's memory hogging.

    Isn't there a GNU compiler for java? Why doesn't the developers of java programs mention this ?

    If you want to see real speed in a interperated compiled language try xbasic

    We shouldn't need to buy a new computer just to run a computer language.

  116. You are wrong - the value is the topology by argoff · · Score: 1

    The biggest value of freenet is that if 10 million people want to download a 50MB mpeg video I made from off my cable modem at the same time .... They can do it!

    If 20 million in the USA want to /. a low speed internet site in europe - they can do it!! and they can do it without downloading the same file across the atlantic 20 million times. Thank You!

    No longer do you need a server room with OC48 connections and hundreds of servers running in parallel to serve up urestricted ammounts of content. No longer is the local artist limited by not being able to have a disney-world sized data center.

    Freenet not only provides a nice side effect of enhancing privacy, but it is great for providing a smooth transition to the next generation of internet which most people now agree is moving toward a wireless mesh topology. If each one of these meshes also has a reasonable size data cache, the usefullness will be incredible.

    1. Re:You are wrong - the value is the topology by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      You are touting the P2P aspects of Freenet. P2P is the future of network communications for sure.

      The anonymity of freenet is where the problem lies.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  117. Rubbish by geeklawyer · · Score: 2, Informative

    That was a clueless answer, I sincerely hope you're only pretending to be a lawyer. I dont know what the full position is under the medieval criminal laws of the US but under most other common law jurisdiction mens rea remains pivotal, mercifully.

    The reason for criminal intent being introduced in criminal jurisprudence is precisely to avoid the horrifying consequences people have mentioned in this thread. At one time men rea was not a legal requirement - in the middle ages appropriately. It was introduced when people started getting hung for eating venison they had unwittingly bought from others who had poached it from the king. It was said there needed to be a moral failure also: a guilty intention as well as a guilty act (the actus reus).

    Because it makes criminal convictions harder to obtain it is a principle that is the subject of erosion where there are countervailing issues of moral panic such as, well, KP drugs (and soon terrorism no doubt). At the other extreme where the consequences of a conviction are not serious - such as safe food handling in restaurants - there is also a trend to reduce the need for mens reas and create so called strict liability offences since these become easier to prosecute without making convictions offensive.

    In most parts of the World, including the US I suspect, you would need to demonstrate a knowing sharing of KP . Unwitting participation in sharing KP merely by running a freenet node not would not make one guilty.

    --
    -he who laughs last, is a bit slow.
    journal
    1. Re:Rubbish by automandc · · Score: 1
      geeklawyer wrote:

      under the medieval criminal laws of the US

      That is exactly the problem. Since the advent of the "war on drugs" in the U.S., the government has passed all sorts of laws eliminating the Mens Rea requirement. Not all crimes require intent - some are strict liabilty. Also, in many situations knowledge is presumed, and it is the responsibility of the defendant to prove their ignorance (an impossible task). Hence the "drugs under the seat" example, which is an all-to-common occurance in the U.S.

      Inferences about knowledge are drawn all the time in criminal cases. If you have a picture of a small child being forced to perform a sex act, it is no defense to say "I don't really know her/his age." You are presumed to know that the person in the picture is a child, a presumption that a jury of your peers will decide the reasonableness of. (E.g. whether they think it is obvious).

      Yes, I really am a lawyer. Criminal isn't my field of practice, but I am familiar enough with it to know what I am talking about. Please don't take on the criminal defense of anyone in the U.S. until you read up on the law here. :)

      --
      I'm a lawyer with excellent karma. Something's gotta be wrong.
    2. Re:Rubbish by Peter+Eckersley · · Score: 1
      Inferences about knowledge are drawn all the time in criminal cases. If you have a picture of a small child being forced to perform a sex act, it is no defense to say "I don't really know her/his age." You are presumed to know that the person in the picture is a child, a presumption that a jury of your peers will decide the reasonableness of. (E.g. whether they think it is obvious).

      This seems to me to be a complete dis-analogy.

      What do you think the odds of a US jury convicting a freenet user of trafficking KP are, if the defence provides convincing evidence that it was virtually for the defendant to have known what was passing through their node?

      (ie, they didn't have the choice about whether to offer a drug user/dealer a ride, and they didn't have the option of looking under the seat to find the drugs)

      Note: this isn't a rhetorical question.

    3. Re:Rubbish by automandc · · Score: 1
      What do you think the odds of a US jury convicting a freenet user of trafficking KP are, if the defence provides convincing evidence that it was virtually for the defendant to have known what was passing through their node?

      It is a valid question, and without examining the specific statute that the crime was charged under, I cannot say for sure. You are correct that it is somewhat of a dis-analogy. The question of scienter (knowledge) may not even be a question for the jury. For instance, in the drugs in the car example, the jury would be asked to decide (1) was defendant in control of the car; (2) was the substance found in the car; (3) is the substance drugs. There is no issue of whether the defendant knew that the substance was drugs and was in the car. Yes, you really can be guilty for things you don't know about. If I drink two beers and drive my car under the assumption that I am sober, I can still be found guilty if it turns out that my blood alcohol level was .09 (slightly over the legal limit). I may not have known that I was legally impaired, but I should have known that I might be, and acted accordingly.

      To connect that to the freenet issue, if I make a large hard drive space available for file transfer by anonymous parties to a certain degree the law might expect me to know that people might abuse that. I don't know if the statute has such a standard or not, but given today's legal climate (what, with the "Patriot Act" and all), that isn't a risk I would want to take.

      geeklawyer made a big issue about Mens Rea, but there are many crimes that are judged on a negligence standard. If you negligently provide the opportunity to others to commit a crime, society may hold you criminally responsible (it is a policy question. In certain instances there is criminal liability (e.g. drunk driving), while in others there is only civil liability). The individual who sold guns to the Columbine High School killers was charged with a crime, not because he knew they would kill, but because the state (and a jury) thought he should have known.

      This is not a big mystery, or even all that new. If I ran an anonymous FTP server, and let anyone in the world log in and download copyrighted works, I could be held liable for facilitating their theft.

      Thanks for the lively discussion! --automandc

      --
      I'm a lawyer with excellent karma. Something's gotta be wrong.
  118. ARGH!!! by K8Fan · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "Sighted"?!?

    The word here is "cited". Not "sighted" not "sited" either.

    cite
    tr.v. cited, citing, cites
    1: To quote as an authority or example.
    2: To mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof: cited several instances of insubordinate behavior.
    3:
    a: To commend officially for meritorious action in military service.
    b: To honor formally.
    4: To summon before a court of law.

    I know spelling flames are considered rude in Slashdot culture, but this is not just misspelled, it is the wrong word.

    --
    "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    1. Re:ARGH!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sighted, ie to be seen. Ie, they *saw* this somewhere. :) It's personal experience, not a citation.

  119. he was talking about KByte, moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A 200MB file takes more than an half hour to download at 100KByte/s

    And my cable provider gives me 10Mbit/10Mbit download/upload

  120. We don't believe the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the canonical slashdot stance against the RIAA that it DOESN'T harm music sales but encourages them?

    So think again what the effect of photos of actual abducted children being abused will when made available to paedophiles?

    Perhaps it will increase sales?

  121. Re:Why can't our politicians be this elegant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot "It believes in the urgent need to hide the fact that we're arming Saddam, and the desire to continue to be the biggest exporter to Iraq in the world."

    Hope this helps.

  122. Java? So is Limewire, Kazaa, they run fine... by aquarian · · Score: 1

    Limewire and Kazaaa are both Java apps too, and they run fine on an old, slow box -- as long as you have enough RAM. If you're stuck with 128MB RAM and you're running Linux, just switch to a lightweight window manager like Ice and have at it.

  123. Here is another nice feature of the freenet system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The node distribution facility

    http://194.236.28.174:8891/RK4fFpIZzx4/

    I have put up 100 nodes for download there ;)

  124. KIDDIE PORN KIDDIE PORN KIDDIE PORN by Darth_brooks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I figured I may as well use that as the subject line, since that's all that's really being discussed.

    Freenet, according to their website, works somewhat like this. I want file XYZ. I search for file XYZ. Freenet brings all 68 parts of X from node 1, 13 parts of Y from node two, the other 13 parts of Y from node three, and the rest of the file comes from node four, five, six, seven, and twelve.

    The guilty party is the person that's got file XYZ. The guilty party is the person who *requested* file XYZ. You may or may not have had part of file Z, You don't know, the people up and down stream from you don't know, and the person requesting the file doesn't know.

    Child Pornongraphy is reprehensable. Duh. But using it as an argument against freenet is like using the "it's for the children" to ban guns and remove them from every house that owns one.

    Anonymity comes with a cost. So does freedom. The price of being able to write a letter to the editor about the 2000 election is seeing that the letter next to yours is from the Grand Wizard of the KKK. The price of seeing the Rodney King video on a cheesy fox special is the knowledge that someone, somewhere is being exploited and it's on video tape.

    1984 isn't worth fearing in this society. Farenheit 451 is.

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
  125. Coping fine now by Sanity · · Score: 1

    Freenet is coping admirably with the slashdotting, my node is only 31% loaded, and that is while downloading a 150MB file from Freenet (which I am getting at 50k/sec!).

  126. Mp3 and Porn are seperate. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    People dont feel good about buying Porn, they feel embarrassed.

    People feel good about owning a CD and would brag about how much music they buy.

    Its not the same, Just like its not cool to buy cheap sneakers, you have to get the name brands, its the same thing.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Mp3 and Porn are seperate. by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Ah, bullshit. I like porn. Porn is good. More porn, please!

      And I couldn't tell you the brand of my sneakers if my life depended on it. Who gives a shit about sneakers when you can spend the money on porn?

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  127. Re:Exactly...perhaps by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    "developing their appetite"

    appetites arent developed, you have it when you look for it in the first place. You want to see kiddie porn meaning you already have that fetish, its not something you someday just discover after seeing a picture of a naked kid.

    So the whole develop their appetite garbage is just that. Just like its garbage to think if I play shitty music in your ear enough that I can be developing your appetite, you like it or you dont. People who like kiddie porn, will imagine it in their heads if they cant find it, they might draw pictures of it, read stories (stories about it are perfectly legal so why not images?)

    You cannot make thought a crime, and you cannot control thought by restricting images or by showing them, you cannot develop a pervert.

    I've seen some sick scat porn, and theres no way in hell I'd even imagine something like that, in fact it grosses me out, someone else might see it and be turned on, thats just them, you dont blame the porn.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  128. Illegal? America was illegal when founded. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Thought crimes? You agree with that? Fuck the law,this is about morality, not law.

    You are right it is illegal, but stuff like freenet would not have to be built if the thought police werent takingg the censorship idea overboard to the point of saying you cannot even LOOK at something.

    Thats overboard. By the way, no one knows who owns the speech because no one knows who originally published it, the speech could be considered yours however if you dont know its yours they cannot put you in prison.

    You have to willingly distirbute kiddie porn to go to jail, you have to actually know you have it.

    If not, well then I can put anyone I want in jail by putting some drugs in their pocket and calling the cops.

    I can just wait for you to leave your jacket, plant some drugs or some other illegal material in it, and then call the police.

    no, its not as simple as planting something on someone, it has to be proven that its you who owned it, if evidence says someone planted it, well thats the same way OJ got away with murder, because police were stupid and planted some gloves there.

    You see, when you cannot trace the evidence back how do you have a case? Theres a jury who has to look at this. Theres a judge, its not just some law saying you go to jail, no, you are innocent until proven guilty and if not, I'm leavinng USA.

    IF they can start a witch hunt with Mp3s and Kiddie porn why stay here? Anyone can say you have some illegal stuff on your computer and put you in jail? bullshit, hell I could hack into someones computer and put it there just so I can put them in prison! Hey thats a new way of hacking, I can really fuck my enemies up when I get them arrested and put in prison for 10 years for something they didnt even do.

    What if someone wrote a virus which plants kiddie porn on random computers? or a worm? You just dont get it, you cannot arrest a person for that. The best the gov could do is label freenet a virus.

    Should the people whos computers were used to take out other computers in those internet attacks be locked up in jail as if they did it? No the investigators try to trace back to the people who created it, so expect ian clarke to go to jail before you do.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Illegal? America was illegal when founded. by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone who's never been arrested for possesion.

      What kind of evidence could you have to prove that someone planted something on you?

      You do realize the posession is 9/10 of the law thing works both ways, right?

      You do realize that a cop *expects* you to say "This isn't mine!" as he's putting the cuffs on you? In front of a jury (which you probably won't ever be in front of, you'll have a single judge decide your fate) it's your word against the arresting officer.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:Illegal? America was illegal when founded. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      If you were right, OJ would be in jail.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    3. Re:Illegal? America was illegal when founded. by Elvisisdead · · Score: 1

      I never said anything about thought crimes. That's your perception of what I said, not my words.

      Whether you like it or not, it is illegal to posess both kiddie porn and drugs. It doesn't matter who made either of them. If you posess them (no matter how you got them in the first place), you're in violation of the law. Posession is in itself a crime. Intent to distribute is a seperate crime that doesen't have to exist to make the posession illegal.

      Last time I checked, the "Gee officer, that can't possibly be my porn/drugs because they're not mine" defense was a real case winner.

      There is indeed a jury or a judge. They're both presented with the facts that you were stopped and found to be in posession of illegal substances. There will be evidence to both support and/or refute your guilt that will be presented to the Jury/Judge.

      I dare you to find out how lenient a judge/jury will be when they are presented with evidence that shows you are in posession of drugs/kiddie porn. With a defense like "Um, that's not mine and I didn't know it was there", you may have a lot of time to think about how your unfortunate incarceration could have been avoided.

      For the record, you can be arrested/questioned for posession of illegal substances (no matter what they are). You may not be held/booked/or prosecuted, but you sure as hell can be arrested. But, as we all know, if you're simply arrested for kiddie porn or drugs, but not prosecuted and all charges are dropped, then there's no lasting effect on your reputation/credibility, right? You keep telling everyone you're innocent until proven guilty and see who keeps your company then.

      --

      "Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." - My Dad
    4. Re:Illegal? America was illegal when founded. by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      What kind of evidence could you have to prove that someone planted something on you?

      This sentence really rubs me the wrong way. Nothing personal toward anyone (I'm going to rant at the world in general here), but This sentence should be "What kind of evidence could the prosecution have that someone didn't plant something on you?". The idea is that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. "Your word against the arresting officer" should result in a tie, which will then let you get off. It is better to let a few criminals go unpunished than to punish a few innocent people. False positives are bad.

      And any court that will punish someone when they don't have good evidence (better than a police officer's say-so) is a BUNCH OF STUPID ASSHATS!

      </rant>

    5. Re:Illegal? America was illegal when founded. by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Man, can't you just understand that a crime scene is very different than what you have in your possesion at the time of the arrest. It's not right, but it's how the scenario would play out in the real world.

      This isn't about cops planting "evidence" this is about what they'd find on you if someone else planted it on you (or in your car). They aren't going to dust it for prints or get DNA samples from it, it was in *your* jacket.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    6. Re:Illegal? America was illegal when founded. by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Let's take this all the way to the extreme.

      If I killed someone and told the prosecution that God took control of my body & made me waste them they'd have to let me off because the prosecution couldn't prove that I was in control of my faculties?

      The thing about your evidence rant is as far as the authorities are concerened, the bag of weed/crack/smack they found on you is evidence enough to put you in jail. It's not going to get thrown out of court. I didn't know isn't an excuse. I really do agree with you man, it's just not the way it'd go down. Don't blame me, blame the "War on Drugs"

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    7. Re:Illegal? America was illegal when founded. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

      yeah so i could just create the kiddie porn virus and then everyone will be pedophiles? Thats such bullshit.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    8. Re:Illegal? America was illegal when founded. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      Thats called the insanity defense.

      Theres laws on this. Look if I hack into thousands of computers and I make them all ping one computer, who goes to jail? Do all these thousands of people get blamed?

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    9. Re:Illegal? America was illegal when founded. by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is, if it wasn't detected as a virus (not likely) that would work.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    10. Re:Illegal? America was illegal when founded. by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Then you have a crime scene & an investigation. It doesn't get treated the same as having something on your person.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
  129. How is it hurting the children? by HanzoSan · · Score: 0



    Theres less children being abused because kiddie porn is no longer as profitable, so how would this hurt the children? Are you telling me in countries where kiddie porn is legal to make and they pay kids to make this porn, that by pirating their work and keeping them from being paid that its hurting them?

    Thats like saying "Buy from prostitutes, they have families to support"

    You are really that stupid that you dont understand the economics behind this arguement??/

    " You are saying that it's acceptable to abduct or illegally buy children, beat them, rape them, photograph/film it, and distribute it to other sick pervs as long as you're not doing it for cash."

    Wrong, I'm not saying its ok to CREATE KIDDIE PORN you dumbass, I'm saying its ok to distribute it if someone else already created it.

    Its not harming anyone to VIEW it. It harms people to buy it and create an economy for it, and it harms people to actually publish it, but if its already on the internet, if someone already published it, why should innocent people be put in jail just for viewing it, as if they raped the kid?

    Its like blaming mc donalds for being fat, you blame the people who create the kiddie porn, lock up the rapists.

    But why kill freedom of speech on the internet as if thats somehow going to stop kids from being raped? It will cause more kids to be raped, the more you restrict kiddie porn, the more people are willing to pay for it, and the more kids are abused to produce it.

    Its a business, just like drug dealing is a business, do you think people sell drugs for fun? People sell drugs for money, if all drugs were free and there were endless supply, well there would be no people being killed over it, and no one would be harmed, people who want to get high will get high if its legal or illegal, same with kiddie porn, you cannot outlaw thoughts only actions, I'm worried about actions and if you look at what I said, by killing all economic benefits it reduces actions, it doesnt change peoples thoughts because thats impossible and censorship does not change thought, it just makes people hide them.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:How is it hurting the children? by Selanit · · Score: 1
      I understand your economic reasoning perfectly. I just think you're wrong.

      You're assuming that child pornography is profitable. Mostly it isn't. There are some child pornographers who sell the stuff, but most of them just trade it to other child pornographers for -- guess what? -- more child porn! It's a method not only of ensuring a steady supply of child porn, but also gaining status in the child porn community.

      The bulk of child pornographers don't make it for profit, they make it because the like it, and can use it to get even more of it in trade.

      Wrong, I'm not saying its ok to CREATE KIDDIE PORN you dumbass, I'm saying its ok to distribute it if someone else already created it.


      Distributing it is just as bad as creating it yourself. If you distribute child porn, you are helping pedophiles indulge in their sick fantasies, which have a nasty way of becoming a horrible reality once they work themselves up to act on the fantasy. If you distribute it, you are contributing to the future suffering of yet more children.

      Its not harming anyone to VIEW it.


      Yes it is. It hurts the child by turning him or her into a sex object yet again. If you view child pornography, you are stripping away that child's humanity; the child is no longer a person, but a thing whose sole purpose in existence is your own sexual gratification.

      Arguably, viewing child porn also hurts you, by making it easier for you to see other people as things. When you see people as things, it becomes much easier for you to treat them as things. And when you treat others as things, you are reducing not only their humanity, but your own as well.

      The only legitimate reason to view child porn is to use it to look for clues as to where it was made so you can find the criminal who made it and stop him (or her, for that matter). Anything else -- distributing it, viewing it -- makes you complicit in the acts that were done to create it.
    2. Re:How is it hurting the children? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're disgusting. The only thing that comforts me is that you're also an idiot. You can't do much harm other than to fuck up your own life, I suspect.

  130. I agree by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Theres a select amount of people who want child porn and they will get it, Its not worth us sacraficing our freedom of speech.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  131. So why are upskirt pictures legal? by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Its legal to put upskirt pictures of women on the net.

    "But the easy availability of this material inspires the creation of yet more child pornography, meaning that the practice will expand."

    Please back this up with facts. Theres snuff films availble on the net too, why arent there more serial killers?

    "The photos may occasionally help track down a child pornographer. Certainly it's easier for the activity to come to the attention of the authorities if that is so.

    That is, until you put it into Freenet, where it is essentially impossible to track where the material is coming from over the Net. The details in the photos may help narrow down the location, but only if the pornographer is stupid enough to let unique features show up in the distributed versions. One basement looks pretty much like any other basement."

    Its not about tracking the pictures, its about stopping the pictures from being produced.

    You can never trade back child porn if its done in Europe and even if you do trace back its legal to make it in Europe, so why should Europeans be profiting on Child porn?

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:So why are upskirt pictures legal? by Selanit · · Score: 1

      What this argument boils down to is this: you condone the distribution and viewing of child porn. I do not. I am not going to be able to convince you that I'm right, and you sure as hell aren't going to convince me that you're right.

      There is therefore no point in carrying the discussion any further. I am going to stop responding to your posts. Just as a parting salvo, here are a few relevant links to resources on this issue. That last link is part of the US government's site concerning the Child Online Protection Act, a poorly written piece of legislation with its heart in the right place. Still, they've got links there to LOTS of useful materials on all aspects of the debate and representing all positions (Lawrence Lessig and PeaceFire.org appear, for example).

      Approximately every fifteen seconds, a child somewhere in the world is sexually abused. Tonight you can go to sleep safe in the knowledge that you have done your part to help perpetuate this state of affairs.

      Good bye, and better riddance.

    2. Re:So why are upskirt pictures legal? by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



      Yeah so somehow its my fault some child somewhere in the world got raped? Yeah ok. That kid would be raped if I use freenet or not.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    3. Re:So why are upskirt pictures legal? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      And why don't you provide some scientific, empirical studies published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal establishing a causal link between viewing porn and violence?

      Go ahead, give it a shot. You won't find one because such a link has never been established. Asshole.

      Oh, and what exactly is kiddie porn anyway? In Holland "Seventeen" magazine does great business because - get this - seventeen-year-olds are consenting adults. I suppose that we should apply the U.S. standard and arrest all those Dutch 'child pornographers'?

      In Sweden the age of consent is 15. Gods forbid! Time to nuke all those nasty Swedes! Think of all the child-rape that's going on in that country!

      Self-righteous little twits like you throw me off my feed. Thank the gods there's Freenet, a system which moralistic morons like yourself won't be able to touch no matter what sort of 'objectionable' material passes through the system.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  132. Note: IANAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    however this is not true, US child pr0n laws are quite nasty... It is illegal if a technician after 300 hrs uncovers child porn on a long over written area of the hard drive (the equivalant of piecing together trash you've set on fire, but not spread at 15 different parts of the world)

    It is illegal even if you didn't know it was there, (if that pop up is kiddie porn and it saved in your cache there is a good chance someone someday might be able to get it back and use it against you)

    Haven't you learned now a days its "your guilty until proven innocent" ?

  133. Can you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ramdisk?

  134. Very badly worded actually... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    " I don't want my node to be used to harbor kiddie porn, offensive content or terrorism. What can I do?
    The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find disgusting. If this is not acceptable to you, you should not run a Freenet node."


    The basis of freenet is that you do not *know* what is in your freenet share. The same way my ISP would not know what is placed on my homepage.

    Clearly, if you discover kiddie porn in your freenet share, or my ISP discovers what is in my PGP file, steps will be taken to remove it. But not before. And as such, freenet can not *gurantee* that any node won't be used for such things.

    Basicly, you are becoming a "common carrier". Probably not in a legal sense, but still true. You do not control the content any more than the phone company listens to your call or your ISP listen to your internet traffic or monitor monitor my homepage.

    In fact, since it is encrypted even less than that. You're more like an ISP seeing a ssh connection to another host, and a PGP file on the users homepage. Sure that ssh connection and pgp file can be used to transfer kiddie porn or plan the latest terrorist action, but you don't *know*.

    In fact, it has nothing to do with tolarating it. But you must tolerate not to know what you are relaying.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Very badly worded actually... by peterjhill2002 · · Score: 1

      Have they figured out how to anonymize the transfer of a file from a freenet server? If someone does a search for illegal material that freenet has decided to serve in my encrypted share and downloads it, they can see my ip address, can't they?

      Maybe common carrier status applies, but I don't want to be the test case.

  135. "Knowingly" in US federal porn law by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Very few crimes have that requirement

    Search federal kiddie porn law for "know".

    Not every crime has the "knowingly" language.

    Ahh, that's better. Some crimes have "knowingly"; others have "negligently". Now the question at hand was whether or not the crime of possession or trafficking in child pornography requires knowledge of possession or trafficking. Turns out, I see "knowingly" all over 18 USC 2252 and 2252A.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:"Knowingly" in US federal porn law by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      That (maybe) covers child porn. But child porn isn't the only thing you can transfer illegally over the internet.

    2. Re:"Knowingly" in US federal porn law by yerricde · · Score: 1

      But child porn isn't the only thing you can transfer illegally over the internet.

      Criminal copyright infringement requires "willfully" as well.

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
  136. Definition of negligence by yerricde · · Score: 1

    there are many laws like manslaughter that do not require the proof of intent.

    But if the standard is not intent, it is usually negligence, defined as "failure to exercise reasonable care". Because the Freenet share and all Freenet transactions are encrypted, no amount of "reasonable care" will lead anybody to believe that child pornography is flowing through your computer.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  137. Forward Error Correction Correction by Jim+McCoy · · Score: 1

    It should also be noted that the FEC libraries that are being passed around now (including the Java library from Swarmcast) are all based upon the Vandermonde FEC library provided by Luigi Rizzo. This seed has sprouted the Java library previously mentioned as well as Python bindings that will appear soon coming from the MNet and HiveCache efforts.

  138. The alledged "kiddie porn industry"... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    ...it should almost be considered an urban legend.

    Check out number of kp production charges from your police. Divide by number of child molestation charges.

    Fact: Very few cases are actually recorded on video or in pictures.

    Likewise check out the same numbers for commercial production compared to home production.

    Fact: Very few videos are actually made for profit, but rather as home videos.

    Movie for movie trading is common, but usually one side has stuff, one side wants stuff. The whole "industry" is based more like a pyramid game, because of the difficulty of finding contacts. If I can buy a video for X$, then sell it to 3 contacts for X$/2, I earn money. Which means that the more exclusive, the higher the price. Now why would anyone put it on KaZaA, losing any "resale" value unless they were at the very bottom of this chain already? I'm sorry, but it wouldn't solve the problem even assuming that all were in it for the money... Unless you're assuming there's some altruistic persons willing to share for free, in which case your model falls
    flat on its nose anyway...

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  139. Serious typo by Peter+Eckersley · · Score: 1

    Oops, missing a slight important word: that should be virtually impossible :)

  140. YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    W4rz3 wants to be free!!!111!!

  141. Let me explain the logic to you. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    According to you, the more a person indulges in a fantasy, the more likely they are to act it out.

    This is not proven, sociologists who study people have never come to the conclusion that say, Violent games such as quake directly cause murder, or that porn causes rape.

    If you can directly link this with pure statistics not only will you have an arguement for your kiddie porn opinion, but you'll have a strong arguement against freedom of speech and for censorship. Joe Lieberman would agree that its the violent games, the nasty porn, and the rap music that causes people to do crazy shit.

    I say blame the people, not the games, not the porn images, not the rap music. If you indulge in kiddie porn but you never harm anyone, fine, but if you rape someone you should go to jail, period.

    If you play doom, quake or whatever and want to imagine killing your boss, fine, but if you actually kill your boss you should go to jail.

    And if you listen to rap music and you imagine you are shooting and robbing people, fine, but if you actually go and do it, you should go to jail.

    I dont believe people should be arrested for having bad thoughts, thats just wrong, people should be able to indulge in whatever fantasies they want and you or I have no right to call them sick.

    Honestly I think its sick to imagine killing people, but people do that when they play quake, some of these people are my friends, they havent killed anyone, perhaps Quake has the opposite effect and actually calms them down.

    Now if people can play quake when pissed off and they dont kill their boss for real, and if people can safely release anger this way, why cant people who like kiddie porn indulge in whatever sick fantasies they have? As long as they never act it out, its their mind and they should be able to think about what they want.

    I dont agree with the pictures being made, what I'm saying is if the picture is already made and on the net, no one who views it should go to jail just for viewing it or distributing it, The only one who should go to jail for distributing it should be the first person who put it on the net, the publisher, not the people who pass it around because the publisher is the only one who was directly involved, the others are just a bunch of people who saw it and may think about it but the publisher actually did it.

    You should put people in jail for what they do not what they think, next you will outlaw Mc Donalds because it makes people fat, its the Mc Donalds fault not the fat persons fault for being fat.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  142. This isnt about the law, its about right and wrong by HanzoSan · · Score: 1

    "Last time I checked, the "Gee officer, that can't possibly be my porn/drugs because they're not mine" defense was a real case winner."

    OJ Simpson Quote: "The Glove doesnt fit"

    OJ got away with murder because the glove didnt fit, if you can bring reasonable doubt, you can win.

    If you have a good lawyer, you will win.

    But aside from the laws which we both know, the debate is, whats more important, freedom of speech or censorship?

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  143. Most child porn is made in europe. by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    Also, if what you say is true you should work for the FBI, and join these so called kiddie porn rings, trade porn with them, get their IPs and arrest them all..

    It cant be that easy or else we'd hear of more arrests.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  144. uh, ok your arguement applies to all porn by HanzoSan · · Score: 1



    I'm guessing you believe all porn should be outlawed?

    You talk BS lol, I never see people as "things" but to pretend people dont use one another, you must have never had casual sex, never watched a porn movie, never done business with anyone, never went to a bank and spoke to a nameless face, etc.

    The world is not a very personal place.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  145. Yes you are so WRONG! by HanzoSan · · Score: 1


    Not only that, widespread distribution makes it easier for pedophiles to get hold of it. They use it to support their fantasies, and to convince themselves that sexual contact between adults and children is "normal" because lots of other people do it too. Once they have convinced themselves that it's normal, they become free to act on their fantasies, thereby injuring yet more children.

    You must have never played a video game in your life. Do you want to outlaw quake because it encourages people to have sick thoughts? Do you think Quake players might begin to think its normal to kill people because they do it online in Quake?

    "
    I agree with you that Freenet is not responsible for any of this. Freenet is a tool; like any tool, it can be used for good purposes or bad, and lots of in between. I also don't think that we should squash Freenet. It has some genuinely good purposes, like helping enable political speech under repressive regimes like China"


    Ah so its ok for the Chinese to break their laws but not us? They can have their culture destroyed by our Mc donalds (remember its mc donalds that makes people fat) and our horrible rap music (the music which created ghettos), or the rock & roll (the music which caused people to use and sell drugs)

    Look, you can pass blame on to the pictures, the games, the information, the ideas or the thoughts, but if its ok for us to pass all our bad thoughts to the Chinese culture, why then are you all about censorinng people who like kiddie porn?

    You are no better than the Chinese who want to censor us. Have you heard of culture shock? Sociologists know why the Chinese want to censor things, they want to prevent culture shock, they dont want a revolution, they dont want capitalism forced on them, they dont want our way of life forced on them.

    Just like you dont want kiddie porn forced on you. So you censor it so you dont have to see it, and you want to censor it so no one else can see it either. I'm sure the Chinese government is thinking the SAME thing.

    I mean after all they wouldnt want the Chinese people to see our crazy sick ideas, their people would then be remote controlled puppets controlled by our movies, our culture, etc etc, right? It would incite riots, millions of Chinese would die, right?

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  146. Re:Support America First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comment: No Protest In My Name!

    A victim of Saddam's regime puts her case for war.

    By Freshta Raper in London (ICR No. 01, 28-Feb-03)

    Do the anti-war protestors who have been filling the streets and parks of the civilized, comfortable West have any idea what they are protesting about? I watched with dismay this week as Greenpeace supporters chained themselves to fuel pumps. I could not believe the naiveté of the protestors in Hyde Park a few weeks ago. They wouldn't survive a month if dropped into Baghdad and forced to live as Iraqis live. They would be arrested and tortured as soon as they started complaining about the lack of basic rights - among them, free speech.

    What is more moral? Freeing an oppressed, brutalized people from a vicious tyrant or allowing millions to continue suffering indefinitely? Speaking as one of millions of Iraqis who have suffered at the hands of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, I would pay any price to get rid of this monster.

    I have been imprisoned, tortured and gassed. I know life in Saddam's Iraq.

    I was born in Halabja, close to the Iranian border in the northern Kurdish region. I went to school and graduated in Halabja, then became a mathematics teacher. In the mid-1980s, a law was passed decreeing that all teaching must be done in Arabic. No more would we be allowed to teach in Kurdish. There were demonstrations. Courageous students burned books in protest.

    When this happened in Halabja, the ringleaders came to my school to escape from the Iraqi mukhabarat - intelligence officers - who were looking for them. I helped hide them in the physics lab and they remained undetected. But someone must have informed the authorities, for I was arrested the following day and held for three days. During this time I was forced to sit in ice-cold water. I, like so many other Iraqi women, endured many humiliations. All this for hiding two 16-year-old children who had burnt a few books!

    After I was released, men from the mukhabarat followed me everywhere. No-one was allowed to speak to me. I was fired soon after, told not to go anywhere near the school or the children, and re-assigned to the education department of the regional government in the city of Suleimaniyah.

    In 1987, I received a memo from the director calling me to a meeting. I arrived at the appointed time and found the hall packed with friends and colleagues. Mukhabarat surrounded the building and arrested us all. They loaded us onto a lorry and said: "Bring your men folk who are peshmergas [anti-Saddam Kurdish guerrillas] or bring divorce papers!"

    I did neither. I joined the peshmergas and stayed in the mountains living the life of guerrilla - a life of hell, under constant threat of chemical attack.

    In 1988, 21 members of my family - aunts, nephews and nieces - died of suffocation when Saddam attacked Halabja with chemical weapons. In many ways I was lucky: my mother, brothers and sisters were in Suleimaniyah and survived. When the planes came, I was in Kanyto, a small village in the mountains. Again I was lucky: I survived the chemical attack. Badly injured, though, I spent three months in hospital recovering from the chemical burns that covered my body, blistering it from head to foot.

    When Iraq invaded Kuwait I decided to leave my homeland: still suffering from the chemicals, I felt vulnerable - helpless and hopeless. I fled to England and resumed my teaching career in a London boys' school. Today the most dangerous thing I have to deal with is disruptive, swearing teenagers. This is the world the protestors know - not Saddam's world of chemical weapons, of arbitrary terror and rape.

    How many protestors have spoken to an Iraqi woman who has been raped - in front of her father and son - by Saddam's thugs? How many have asked an Iraqi mother how she felt when she was forced to watch her son being executed - and then ordered to pay for the bullet that killed him? How many know that these mothers had to applaud as their sons died - or b

  147. Freenet appeal for donations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those of you who are interested in freenet's continued survival and improvement, see the message Ian Clark recently sent to the announce mailing list:

    Hi All,

    As most of you are probably aware, Matthew Toseland has been working
    full-time on the Freenet project for the past few months, and the
    benefits to the project have been dramatic. From the slaying of the
    crippling "datastore bug", to more recent work, Matthew's contribution
    has been invaluable. Just compare today's Freenet 0.5.1 release with
    the last 0.4 release to get a feel for how much difference he has made.

    Matthew is able to do this while the Freenet project can pay his living
    expenses, which amount to only $1,125/month (this is a fraction of what
    even the least expensive software developer makes in the UK). The
    project has paid this from donations made via Freenet's website.

    Unfortunately, at this time the project's funds are very low, and we are
    approaching the time when we need to renew Matthew's contract - without
    a significant amount of income over the next few days, it is unlikely
    that the project will be able to do this.

    It is for this reason that I am making an appeal to subscribes to our
    announcements mailing list, something we have never done before, and
    which will not be a regular event, I promise.

    If every subscriber to this list donated just $10, we could commit to
    funding Matthew for the next 8 months.

    If you are able to make a contribution, you can do-so by credit card via
    our donations page:
    http://freenetproject.org/tiki-index.php?page=Dona te

    We now also accept "E-Gold" for those who prefer not to use PayPal for
    whatever reason.

    Any contribution you can make would be greatly appreciated,

    Kind regards,

    Ian.

    -- Ian Clarke ian@locut.us Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Founder, Locutus http://locut.us/ Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ian/

  148. quick question by Quino · · Score: 1

    I don't understand how it can benefit "kiddie porn purveyors/organized crime/terrorists" (who also need to not be detected/remain anonymous otherwise they get in trouble) and *not* benefit communities of dissenters in China and Mideast.

    In fact, is the sofware/music/whatever "pirate" community that much tinier than say a group of dissenters in the Mid East? (which seems to me is what you're saying, and what you're basing your conclusions on). I really wouldn't have thought so ... and even if it were, I'm not sure that it proves what you're trying to say here.

    I'm not sure I agree with your argument ... maybe I'm missing the point?

    Basically:

    How can it be good for secretly distributing kiddie porn and not good for secretely distributing your Fliers on a New Democratic and Just Chinese Government (for example)?

    Shouldn't it either be useful for both or useful for neither?

    PS

    I disagree with the 3rd paragraph too (on matter of principle), but as a practical matter are you saying that no book that was ever published under a pen name is worth reading because we don't know the author's real name? I ask you, Mr. Duffbeer703 (your real birth-given name, not a login name at a public discussion forum used to track Karma with no real links to who you are in real life and therefore actually anonymous?)

    1. Re:quick question by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      It is quite easy for repressive governments to repress the use of the internet. While there's a huge community of repressed peoples in China and the Mideast, they do not have ready access to the Web.

      If you go to Saudi Arabia, you'll find a handful of ISPs all owned or controlled by elements of the government and running on State-owned telephone monopolies. It's not very hard to track a user's internet usage, and a constant flow of encrypted traffic will prompt the local secret police for a visit.

      The child pornographer, on the other hand, may choose from thousands of internet providers that are subject to minimal government control. The kiddie porn purveyor or organized criminal has ready access to technology and is protected by a strong tradition of civil rights.

      Comparing a freenet page to a book published under a pen name doesn't hold water either. A freenet page essentially comes out of the ether -- other than an encryption key you have no idea how reliable the publisher is. With a book, there's a paper trail. (pardon the pun) A anonymous book published by Simon & Schuster would generally be held more credible than a book published by Paladin Press or some other less-than-reputable firm.

      And as to me, I'm not really anonymous. I have a long posting history backed by hundreds of comments made over the last five years. My given name is Brian Duffy, if that makes you feel any better.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    2. Re:quick question by Quino · · Score: 1

      Hi

      Well, how locked down are we here in the states? I assumed that anything that evil regimes could do to monitor their citizens could also be done in the states (as long as they're chasing child pornographers or terrorists -- search warrants not even required in some cases now!).

      But, we're comparing child pornographers/terrorists in the US and journalists in locked down countries Terrorists (maybe child pornographers do have some civil liberties, but even that does not protect you from all of the monitoring that the US gov. can muster -- all that means is the extra step of a search warrant) ....

      If the only difference is civil liberties, then I guess I stand by my original point; terrorists don't have any in the US (and civil liberties + search warrant = all the monitoring the US gov. can muster), so I guess I'm still not clear on the distinctions.

      Either freenet will be a secure and anonymous way of transmitting data regardless of what any governement can do or it's not. I don't know how it can help criminals in the states (and therefore the US gov. is helpless in the face of freenet) and not help journalists in evil countries (in which case all and any governments can lock down at ISPs or whatever and freenet is of no use for clandestine operations) ...

      The pen name was not a comparison to freenet, it was just an example of an anonymous opinion that is not necessarily worthless. I was trying to suggest that an anonymous pen name wasn't too different from posting using a username in /. But, your point is well taken; a book published (even if under pen name) is still not quite the same as anonymous flier -- and so a paper circulating in freenet is maybe more like a political slogan painted on a wall (without the public defacement!). So, my analogy isn't too good, though I still think that anonymous voices (i.e. political slogans painted on walls) aren't worthless simply because they are anonymous.

      PS sorry if I seemed "agressive" in tone -- it was actually a pathetic attempt at comedy ... I should know better!

  149. Re:Java? So is Limewire, Kazaa, they run fine... by VAXGeek · · Score: 1

    "Kazaaa" is not a java application

    --
    this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
  150. The answer (Freenet does not lead to US liability) by Peter+Eckersley · · Score: 1

    This is not a big mystery, or even all that new. If I ran an anonymous FTP server, and let anyone in the world log in and download copyrighted works, I could be held liable for facilitating their theft.

    That got me thinking.

    The answer appears to be that, if you take material down when you get a notice-and-takedown letter, the DMCA gives you appropriate protection (17 USC 512 (c) and (d) ). The definition of "service provider" in 512 (k) clearly covers both anonymous FTP and Freenet servers.

    What happens when all Freenet users get inundated with notice-and-takedown letters is much less obvious, of course.

    IANAL, btw, although I am doing a PhD on digital copyright

  151. C(++) by AmbyVoc · · Score: 0

    Sun J2RE runs most java applications quite well, I agree they can be slow on older hardware (like mine) but nevertheless they run quite stable though. If you don't already have it you can find all of them from Sun's pages or at http://www.blackdown.org

    I have not tried Freenet yet, but since LimeWire does work quite nicely on my 400MHz machine I suppose Freenet can't be too slow on it either.

    - Voice of Ambience -

    --
    - Voice of Ambience -
  152. I must be dumb or something... by AmbyVoc · · Score: 0


    I forgot about the C stuff.

    I find it hard to believe that noone would make a client with C/C++, that's probably just a matter of time since Freenet is an Open Source project.

    - Voice of Ambience -

    --
    - Voice of Ambience -
  153. Re:STFU foreign dogs! by AmbyVoc · · Score: 0

    Eh, funny..

    Really...

    - Voice of Ambience -

    --
    - Voice of Ambience -
  154. Our politicians... by AmbyVoc · · Score: 0


    So if Slashdot was located in Uganda for example would "ours" refer to ppl from Uganda? Geesh, there are more nationalities involved here than "you". Just that there is a server somewhere doesn't mean the users of the same server have to be located right next to it.

    But yes, "our politicians" means "our politicians" whether it be italian or bengalese politicians. We all live in the same world. Even Saddam Hussein is "our" politician, or atleast "our" dictator. Like all the others have been... Members of christianity say "Jesus Christ is 'our' saviour" whether they live in Sweden or in USA. That's just how the story goes.

    Of course I didn't read the original post since it was cut off.

    - Voice of Ambience -

    --
    - Voice of Ambience -
  155. Re:Why can't our politicians be this elegant? by tree_frog · · Score: 1
    The thing is, he is right. I spend a lot of time up in the Alpes Maritime. There are memorials up there to American soldiers who died in WWII. There are regularly fresh flowers at the memorials. France, in my experience, has not forgotten the sacrifices of WWII

    I followed the debate in (UK) House of Commons yesterday quite closely. I'm still ambivelent about the whole thing. On the one hand, I know that the Iraqi leadership is a bunch of genocidal murders who have launched at two wars, and deployed weapons of mass destruction against their own and other people. On the other hand, I can't help feeling that the world is being bullied by a US administration that decided on its course of action long before 11th Sept 2001.

    In the end I think I'm just sad. Sad that it has come to this. Sad that the international order has been torn apart. Sad that diplomacy has failed. I'm not sure where the blame lies, but I think that there are a lot of people on both sides of the Atlantic who should be searching their consciences right now.

    Thanks, treefrog

  156. Re:The problem now is, it needs sites like slashdo by fenix+down · · Score: 1

    Freenet is not the Web. It doesn't execute, it doesn't have dynamic content. You can insert a Wiki, but it'll be much more static. It doesn't do chat rooms. It's essentially a library. Once you publish your file, it goes on the shelf, and it stays there until people stop checking it out and then it goes in the trash. If you want to change something, you have to publish a new file.

  157. Re: Speed by gimpster · · Score: 1

    Yes, I know :-) But to be fair, then I've only seen these speeds when downloading Debian packages from nearby servers in Denmark or Sweden.

    Right now, someone is downloading from my Freenet node with an average speed of 50 KB/s, another one is downloading with 30 KB/s. It's great to see, how the amount of queries has picked up after this Slashdot story.

    --
    Martin Geisler --- Visit http://www.gimpster.com/
  158. Just in time to be crushed by IPDroids/congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anarticle talks about the evils of freespeech mechanisms like freenet.

    It's pretty sad that our elected officials are waiting until the tanks roll, in order to debate this, it's also equally sad how silent the media is on this issue. If I were a betting man, i'd say that congress will lose on protecting the status quo.

    If you were making over 1million dollars per year, sitting on your arz, minipulating public opinion, you'd want to do everything, including supporting war to preserve your cash flow. Now that there is a decentralized, encyrpted p2p system that will transform the way information flows, those current IPDroids are running like scared chickens to congress for some "protection".

  159. Re:anonymity vs. availability. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does this have to be a tradeoff? Why couldn't one host files on one's own machine with a (internal) flag that would stop the data from expiring from disuse? The flag need not be accessable to the rest of the freenet, and therefore wouldn't provide a method for others (governments etc) to filter the content. Yet the data would be available as long as you kept it on your machine.

    If I understand the way Freenet works, it would probably have to be stored on the original host in a separate fashion from the anonymous storage that one 'donates' currently. While this may or may not mean the 'hosted' data isn't anonymous, it would not jepordize the anonimity of other data that was 'inserted' and stored per the current method. Any other node would not know whether it was seeing hosted data or inserted data that just happened to be stored on there. As its popularity increases the data wouln't come from the original node anyway.

    OTOH, The freenet FAQ says that the problem would be that there is no guarantee that the requests would route to your 'hosting' node, but to me this seems to be a problem with the Freenet in general, and not to 'hosted' info specifically.

  160. Re:Exactly...perhaps by thewils · · Score: 1

    Can't agree entirely with you on that one. I agree that you have to have the tendency in the first place - that's a given.

    You say you are grossed out by scat porn, but you probably didn't know that until you saw it (you might have had a good idea previously, but you didn't actually know). Now you probably didn't also purchase it the first time you saw it, so the fact that it was free to you meant that you could check it out at no cost and decide if you wanted more. In your case you didn't but in some other case that might not be the case, so to speak.

    I think your sexual appetite can be developed, depending on what you are exposed to, in fact it's almost a certainty that what turned you on last year won't affect you as much next year and in that way your appetite will have developed. Free porn of all types makes it easier for you to veer off in the direction(s) that you want and find your particular comfort level.

    Whether that is a good thing or not isn't for me to comment on.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
  161. Re:Exactly - Hello LEA, welcome to /.!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do I detect a hint of defensiveness in your candor?
    By any chance is the "National War on Terrorism" undermining your job security lately?

    I can't remember where the credit belongs, but the theorem that nations require laws designed to incriminate just about everyone for at least something (or risk an ungovernable citizenry) seems particularly applicable to your division.

    It is not a matter of having an appetite or not having it. Appetites can be suppressed. The ability to suppress base appetites is what separates us from the animals.

    That's an interesting idea...tell you what, I invite you to prove it by suppressing your base appetite for food and water for the next 5 days.

    What?..oh, you meant SEX!

    In other words, that base appetite for the satisfaction of procreation, perfected by evolution. That base appetite that prefers a fresh and firm partner, due to past success in spreading the seed of my ancestors instead of the seed of those who would rather wait a few years.

    Let's assume for a second that you're right after all, and we as a society need to de-evolve human procreation to fit the strange box we've built in the last couple of centuries. Perhaps we should get rid of traditional sex altogether -- should be possible in this age of machines and enlightened society. Heck, why not get rid of men while we're at it, once we decode the genome of course!

    Pedophiles are the ones who make pedophilia. Pedophiles are the ones who create the motivation for other pedophiles to create this socially unacceptable content.

    I don't suppose you've seen that popular video floating around the net with the young woman who repeatedly undresses to trendy dance music and then pleasures herself at a variety of outdoor locations? It's the one titled "Svaasant - Teen Home Movie", about 360MB, and by most accounts contains material for which someone such as yourself would enjoy prosecuting someone else for viewing. Never mind that the "victim" is clearly having a wonderful time and is most likely over the age-of-consent in her homeland. In any case, it would be a good guess to say that the production and distribution of this artifact of internet culture was NOT instigated by pedophiles.

    Well, I'll let you get back to whatever it is you do over there when you're not wacking it to the in-house collection...as for myself, I think I'll watch a little of "Young, Dumb, and Full of Cum!" and ponder the strange circumstances of how relatively recent social changes have both empowered females to enjoy sex (and admit it), and created draconian laws designed to supress the natural, physical desires of most males -- er, ANImales.

    You have been warned.

    Thanks! I'll be sure to set the bit-length on my encrypted file systems appropriately high.

  162. cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where can i get some of those picz?

  163. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 0

    Although we modern persons tend to take our electric lights, radios, mixers,
    etc., for granted, hundreds of years ago people did not have any of these
    things, which is just as well because there was no place to plug them in.
    Then along came the first Electrical Pioneer, Benjamin Franklin, who flew a
    kite in a lighting storm and received a serious electrical shock. This
    proved that lighting was powered by the same force as carpets, but it also
    damaged Franklin's brain so severely that he started speaking only in
    incomprehensible maxims, such as "A penny saved is a penny earned."
    Eventually he had to be given a job running the post office.
    -- Dave Barry, "What is Electricity?"

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...