Freenet 0.5.2 Released

FurbyXL writes "With the RIAA roaring to grab peer-to-peer users by their IP addresses, Freenet - fully anonymized production and consumption of content - is gaining renewed attention. Articles in New Scientist, ZDNet UK, Wired and CNET (and here) set a somewhat typical context for Freenets major release 0.52. Significant performance improvements through NIO-based messaging, probabilistic caching etc. should provide increased rest to Chinese dissidents, but may finally wake-up the RIAA's Matt Oppenheim..." The announcement on the Freenet home page lists several improvements found in the new version: "a new NIO technology that brings improved performance using less CPU and system resources," "Individual nodes are now more efficient," "the speed and routing of the entire network have significantly improved," probabilistic caching, user interface improvements, and more.

Comments

Yay! Piracy here I come

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, I mean... PRIVACY. Yes, PRIVACY here I come!

Re:Yay! Piracy here I come

[tsa]

Good point. This whole freenet thing gives me the creeps. It is created to distribute illegal mp3 files and not getting caught but is presented as a good way to ensure the flow of 'free speech'. Have you read the 'philosophy' section on the web page? Some parts of it make my skin crawl. For instance:

"The core problem with copyright is that enforcement of it requires monitoring of communications, and you cannot be guaranteed free speech if someone is monitoring everything you say."

But if no-one is monitoring everything you say there is no point in saying it is there?

"You cannot guarantee freedom of speech and enforce copyright law"

O yes you can. Copying something someone worked real hard to make is someting entirely different from having ideas of your own.

In my opinion these Freenet guys confuse speech with copying. These two things are NOT the same. In most Western countries the freedom of speech is guaranteed. Everyone is allowed to speak their mind. I think it's very wrong to spread someone elses 'information' (no definition of what they mean by 'information' is given on the Freenet site) against their will or in a way that person is not comfortable with and am therefore opposed to using Freenet and their likes in this way.

Re:Yay! Piracy here I come

[Anonymous Coward]

But if no-one is monitoring everything you say there is no point in saying it is there?

Of course there is. Did you understand what he means ? We're talking about a single entity monitoring everything you say, not about the fact that you usually say something to someone.

Copying something someone worked real hard to make is someting entirely different from having ideas of your own.

The problem is that to actually enforce copyright law, one need to be able to look at your computer, at your emails, and so on. Therefore you cannot have privacy _and_ effective application of the law.

That doesn't mean that copyright law must disappear, but that means that you have to choose between enforcement of that law and privacy.

That's not confusing speech with copying, they are different things. But they are linked together in a way that makes it impossible to control copying without being able to control speech as well.

Re:Yay! Piracy here I come

[Goth Biker Babe]

So what you need is pragmatism and common sense on both sides.

If the music industry accepted some small level of copying and exchange and concentrated on the commercial copiers by they large scale pirates or small scale car boot sellers; and the public realised there is a level at which you are "taking the piss" and to tone down the amount of copying everyone does; then all will be happy. Unfortunately some have pushed it too hard and seen the right to copy as a free speech right and the industry has made a knee jerk reaction due to a falling market.

I can understand that if I buy a copy of an album that buy giving a copy, say to my other half, so that I can listen to one on my commute to work and my partner can listen to one at home, then I am actually denying a potential sale. I'm breaking the spirit of the purchase of an album. Having said that if I buy an album I don't believe I should have to pay for it again on cassette (remember them) or mini-disc or whatever. I want to listen to it when at my PC at home or work (when I mostly listen to music), in my car, even on my PDA or Cellphone MP3 player. That is my copy of the album and I should be able to listen to it how I wish and I object to anyone who stops me from that.

Finally the core principle of US and UK justice is inocent until proven guilty. It seems in many areas to do with both media and information technology the reverse is true. All the assumptions are that you will copy the media, you will try and defraud the companies; and this is backed up by our respective governments. The end result is a heavy handedness which just pisses me off. Since file sharing my media purchases have increased. I buy far more music than I did a couple of years ago. 99% of what I listen to is on, or from, legitimate media. But, if I were to buy a CD and find it wouldn't play on my PC or DVD player well I think I would have to consider some kind of punishment for either the band, or the publisher.

Questions About Freenet

[ruhk]

Not ever having used it, how does it deal with hacked clients, etc?

Re:Questions About Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

What do these hacked clients do exactly? They still only know the IP's they connect to, not where the actual files are.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

For one thing, a hacked client could conceivably exploit a buffer overflow in the freenet server-like-portion to break into the machines that are at "the IP's they connect to."

Freenet can only given true privacy if the code has been audited to guarantee security.

The problem is not insurmountable, but it sure isn't trivial either.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[vadim_t]

What buffer overflows? It's written in Java.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[dasmegabyte]

Uh, no. Freenet wasn't designed to prevent this. Of COURSE Freenet lets you know what machines have connected to you, and what they've requested. Otherwise it couldn't send it to them -- it runs over TCP/IP, not magic! But this information -- the IP of the machine requesting an item from a datastore -- has absolutely no bearing on WHO did the intial request, or who will receive it in the end. Freenet clients make a request for a file, and the clients pass that request on as if it was there own.

So there's no difference between passing on a request, and making one yourself. Requesting a file becomes an anonymous activity, because you don't really have any idea how far this web goes. All you know is the requested "depth" cut off, so requests don't go more than N requests deep. And individual clients can (and do) rewrite this value. SO there's no way to tell if the client you've exploited is the first or a member on a chain of requests.

In fact, the best exploit for freenet would be a "sting," where you control all of the clients except for a handful. Then you know that these clients are doing all the dread. But it'd be really hard to establish this kind of "web of mistrust," considering that most freenet users populate their initial nodes either through the freenet website or through friends of theres. At that point, it's probably easier to get one of those friends to blab on you then it is to get evidence through technical means.

Data insertion works similar. If you have information in your datastore, there's no way to prove that you put it there. In fact, since you can explicitly exclude your own datastore from insertions, it's less likely that you'll have it if you inserted it. So if you have data in your store, it's equally likely that it was "pushed" to you to serve as it is that you downloaded it yourself. In fact, it's probably more likely, as freenet is receiving insert requests (more or less "uploads") all day, but only downloading when you're interacting with it.

Freenet's about PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY, which in a free (as in, bill of rights and supreme court) society should be enough to keep you out of prison. The difficulty of identifying computers is no different from regular peer to peer...the difficulty lies in IDENTIFYING them.

And as for buffer overflows...you don't know much about Java, do you? Individual applications can't become overfull due to automatic checking by the VM. So the unless the VM has bugs, the client is about as invulnerable as you can hope for. Plus, lots of us have looked at the key code for Freenet. I didn't trust it until I built it myself.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[i_am_nitrogen]

In my mind the problem with Freenet is that you have no idea what you're storing. (theoretical situation) What if I just want to put out some sensitive material, like corporate documents detailing the harmful effects of a chemical being released by my employer without public knowledge? I don't want my computer to be used to store somebody's kiddie porn.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[illuvata]

I don't want my computer to be used to store somebody's kiddie porn.

pretty hypocritical, isn't it? i want free speech about issues i dont mind, but not for stuff i find offensive
if you would limit free speech, it wouldn't be very free, would it?

Re:Questions About Freenet

[ReTay]

Or you could just try this
www.earthstation5.com

Free private and starting to catch on.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

> Freenet's about PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY, which in a free (as in, bill of rights and supreme court) society should be enough to keep you out of prison. The difficulty of identifying computers is no different from regular peer to peer...the difficulty lies in IDENTIFYING them.

Freenet's about willfull blindness, not plausible deniability - and willfull blindness isn't plausible to most prosecutors.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[i_am_nitrogen]

Firstly, child pornography is not speech. It is not expression. It is not even worthwhile or helpful. It is proof of exploitation, or in the case of virtual child porn, enticement to commit exploitation. Children probably don't know why they're being forced to do things they don't understand, or if they do, they aren't capable of resisting because they are physically weak.

Just admit it: you're a sick person, and you need help.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[dasmegabyte]

So don't use Freenet!

I don't get this argument. "I like the idea of freedom, but I also like the idea of controlling it." Whoa buddy. You can't CONTROL freedom, by definition. You also can't make somebody ELSE free -- freedom is a choice you make for yourself, a choice to mind your own fucking business and not expect somebody else to mind it for you. If want to be uncontrolled, you have to agree not to control anybody else, either.

My friend (who, ironically, is now in the marines) used to LOVE to tell us how the perfect communism utopia was also perfect anarchy, where people minded their own business because if they didn't, other people would put a stop to it. Freenet's got a slightly different take on this. The data it spreads cannot "hurt" anybody. Only its use can be construed as harmful. So if there's data on your computer, and you're not using it, it's not harming you.

If you're not ready for that, you're not ready to release your "sensitive information." Besides, that kind of information is begging to be controlled, and it's begging to be known. Freenet's anonymity and self-cleaning do not lend themselves to this.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[The Mgt]

It's not a problem, its a feature. You could only censor your node if you knew what was in it. If you could find out what your node contained then you lose deniability, which is kind of the whole point.
If you don't like it, dont run it.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[BitterOak]

Wouldn't it be funny, then, if a child predator stored pictures of your own children having sex on your own computer!

But the whole point is that the information is encrypted, so neither you, nor the "predator" would know that the images were stored on your computer. You might as well say "wouldn't it be ironic if a drunk driver someday used a car I sold to a used car dealer years ago to run my children down?"

Re:Questions About Freenet

[Golias]

Yes, but here is the problem.

If Freenet is at all helpful to those who distribute kiddie porn, then I do not wish to participate in it, because I don't want to help those people. As fun as it would be to be able to swap warez, bootleg music, fansub anime, etc. on an anonymous network, and as much as I would like to help people in places like China use the net for political expression, it's not worth promoting the harmful exploitation of children to do it. I'm sure I am not the only one who will arrive at this conclusion, which is why Freenet will not catch on with a lot of people unless something is done to keep the kiddie porn industry (oh yea, and terrorists) out of the network.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[timeOday]

I don't get this argument. "I like the idea of freedom, but I also like the idea of controlling it." Whoa buddy. You can't CONTROL freedom, by definition.

That is ridiculous. The fact is that there is no freedom without some control. It would be nice if everybody could be completely free at once, but they can't, because most freedoms logically contradict some other freedom, or with the same freedom of another person.

There has always and always will be tension between conflicting freedoms.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[dasmegabyte]

Exactly wrong. If something you do contradicts a "freedom" of somebody else, neither of you were free to do that in the first place. Instead, you were imposing some control over something which infringed on somebody else's ability to control it. If I am able to own property, then somebody else is not free to own it. That's not freedom -- in the strictest sense of the word, that's robbing someone of their freedom to enjoy the bounty of the natural world. Hence the oft quoted line "property is theft."

Yeah, this is anarchy. No, it won't work in the real world because of what I like to call the "asshole factor." Greed stops it. But in the "computer" world, greed doesn't have to be a factor because there's no scarcity. No greed means no need to delegate your freedoms to a third party to insure "equity." No greed means no need for controls at all.

Freenet is an attempt at structured anarchy with the belief that only complete freedom can protect every freedom. There's no need for tension between conflicting freedoms because there's no conflict. Conflict is external to the system -- it's out here, in the world of pundits and attorneys. In there, it's just zeroes and ones.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

Grocery stories feed kiddie porn perps. Apparent buildings house them. They drive on roads built with your tax money. Collect UI, welfare, and old age security based on your tax dollars. You are part of the internet which is used to deliver their porn.

No matter what you do, you are supporting them, so kiddie porn is really a side issue.

The key issue is what can you do to safeguard your children's future? Freedom of speech (even if the government or corporations or popular groups in your area) is essential. Education to ensure that your kids aren't victims is another. (It's a big cruel world out there. If you shelter them too much, they *will* become victims).

And if you want a freenet-specific solution then why not use the freenet itself to define kiddie porn filters? Think outside the box. You can't search the Freenet so you have to rely on well known indexes that are floating around the freenet. Why not write a filter that automatically downloads these indexes and filters keys on you machine to ensure that you don't carry kiddie porn? Let the perps help you fight them, but don't hide your face in the sand and home that it will all go away, because it won't.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

What a strange point of view!

It's like saying: I don't use the highway because a terrorist may use it to deliver a bomb.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[stealthv]

If Freenet is at all helpful to those who distribute kiddie porn, then I do not wish to participate in it.

What about the internet, TCP/IP, image file formats, and computers? Or even cameras and artificial light? These all help the kiddie porn distributers. I'm willing to bet you use these. I'm not sure how else your comment would have gotten here.
Just about anything you do in life, that is of any public use, could be helping out someone you don't like. If you don't want to participate in anything that could remotely benefit a kiddie porn distributer then you better lock yourself up in a room somewhere.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[Golias]

It's like saying: I don't use the highway because a terrorist may use it to deliver a bomb.

No, it's more like saying "I won't deliver a truck full of goods across state lines without knowing what's in it, who sent it, or who's buying it."

Re:Questions About Freenet

[HanzoSan]

I guess you wont be working for the government.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

...it's more like saying "I won't deliver a truck full of goods across state lines without knowing what's in it, who sent it, or who's buying it."

Same problem there. Let's say a truck driver doesn't know exactly what's in all of the boxes, and can't break them all open to look. The truck driver has to take somebody else's word for it that the goods to be delivered are OK.

Most of us are not truck drivers, so I propose yet another analogy, that might be easier for everyone to relate to:

You know your tax money is collected to be used for purposes that you don't even know about. You know that you would probably disagree with some of the uses for it, if you knew what all of them were. You don't. You can't. However, you still contribute your tax money, because overall, the positives seem to outweigh the negatives.

It is even worse than this. Even if you could agree with every last expenditure in every budget, this year's money helps to pay for next year's. Therefore, if you have ever paid taxes, you are implicitly agreeing to pay for any future decisions too, and you know some of them will eventually be wrong!

Re:Questions About Freenet

[Xrikcus]

> Just admit it: you're a sick person, and you need help.

That was unnecessary.

There is an issue here, I agree, however child porn is at the extreme end of the scale, there is no real way to draw the line. If you want to allow anonymity you have to either allow it, or not. Let something else deal with the child pornographers, or alternatively, don't have any anonymity yourself.

Compromise is the only way.

The other problem is of course (child porn is one of those few examples *almost* everyone considers bad) who are you to decide what is ok and what isn't?

Re:Questions About Freenet

[Raw Ostrich]

I do not think there is or ever has been a free society on earth. Bevar C and all but still... There is always some sort of power system and control of individuals. The difference is in the shades of gray, so to speak. In Europe and North America individuals have common rights (human rights, civil rights) that the powersystem (the state) should not restrict. Free speech is usually considered one of these rights, but it too has limitations, for example regarding rasistic expressions and classified information. There are others, right to vote, due process, private property... Some people call this set of rights "freedom", but I would not go that far. It is a status quo between the powersystem and the common man. The chains are pleasant, protective and light to carry. They are even invisible for the majority. However, if you fight the system in a *forbidden* way and disregard the warnings, you will be dealt with force and even violence you have no capasity to defend against. The system can and will, if necessary, take away your most presious rights. The ironic things is that the powersystem consists of ordinary people like you who are subjects to the system just like you. You can even have a saying on who they are. Or would if you just bothered.... nah, you wouldnt, would you? Whining here is just so much more |337.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[Golias]

You know your tax money is collected to be used for purposes that you don't even know about. You know that you would probably disagree with some of the uses for it, if you knew what all of them were. You don't. You can't. However, you still contribute your tax money, because overall, the positives seem to outweigh the negatives.

Actually, I contribute tax money because I would go to prison if I didn't. Also, I'm fairly confident that, in a representative democracy, my taxes are not likely to be used to finance kiddie porn. In the case of freenet, I could be fairly confident that the resources I contribute would be.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[arevos]

Also, I'm fairly confident that, in a representative democracy, my taxes are not likely to be used to finance kiddie porn.

No, but the US government has used taxes to fund terrorism (sorry, 'freedom fighters'), fascist coups, and let's not forget the current outsourcing of torturing suspected terrorists. I suspect the countries that interrogate captured Afganistan prisoners needed paying for their troubles. If anything, the electricity needed to zap through someones genitals must really rack up the quarterly bills. And that's not even mentioning the rather dubious war on Iraq. Tax money sometimes goes to some pretty immoral uses.

In the case of freenet, I could be fairly confident that the resources I contribute would be.

Likewise, it's unlikely that by using Freenet I'll contribute money to bomb people. It's a question of the good outweighing the bad. If everyone got together and banned computers, then kiddie porn would be considerably reduced, at least the availiability of it.

Freenet's designed for freedom of information. You cannot allow worthy people freedom of information (such as supporters of democracy in oppressive regimes) without allowing the less desirable elements. But if you don't consider freedom of information to be a desirable goal, then that's your choice.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[NeoSkandranon]

kiddie porn is not speech, it is exploitation.

Re:Questions About Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

But what about people whose posts have been censored? Their only recourse is to use freenet to exercise their free speech rights on the internet.

BTW, a previous post of mine was censored because I compared freenet use to t-a-x-e-s. Go figure.

Excellent build

[essdodson]

I've been running the 5000 series builds lately and they're considerably faster and more efficient. Hope everyone has a good experience freeneting.

Looking forward to trying it

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been using Freenet for years but except for the very most popular sites the speed and availability of the sites has made it little more than a toy. In theory, though, it is a great application.

Re:Looking forward to trying it

[Anonymous Coward]

With more people that use it, the faster it will go. Improvements are being made weekly, if not daily.

Donate 200 megabytes to the cause of Freedom of Speech, and the fight against the RIAA and its ilk.

Re:Looking forward to trying it

[Anonymous Coward]

2 gigs atleast please :)

Re:Looking forward to trying it

[czion3]

thx to slashdot that might be no more.

Re:Looking forward to trying it

[PhilHibbs]

Donate 200 megabytes to the cause of Freedom of Speech,

I'm all for supporting worthy causes!

and the fight against the RIAA and its ilk

But that isn't one of them! People like you will bring FreeNet down by reputation.

Good idea, bad content

[nsideops]

I love the idea of freenet, but after reading how it works, I have to agree with a few complains I've heard. I'm not really happy about the idea of "anything" being able to be shared on my computer. Kiddie Porn comes to mind as one thing I want nothing to do with, and I have no controll over this being shared on my computer or not.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[RPoet]

Yes, Freenet is not for everybody. If you don't believe in total, indiscriminatory, complete freedom of speech and expression (an information anarchy, as it were), Freenet is not for you. On the other hand, if you believe there can be such a thing as "freedom of speech, but only when I agree," you probably have some thinking to do.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[KillerHamster]

Exactly. I support free speech, but what about my rights? I think it makes sense that if I value freedom, I must have control over what is on my own hard drive. Maybe Freenet should give you an option to exclude certain file types from your shared disk space.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[nsideops]

The stand on kiddie porn for example...the kids are not adults therefore, under law, they can not make adult decisions for themselves. Realistically, they are not mature enough to make those kinds of decisions for themselves. I do not consider that a freedom of speech. It is infringing on the rights of children, hurting children, and should be illegal. As far as freedom of speech, I'm all for it and defend it, but that has nothing to do with the spread of free speech, ideas, or thought. It's simply praying on the defenseless.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[GooberToo]

Doing so would potentially create legal trouble for all other freenet users which allow those types of files. That's the whole point of it.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[guacamolefoo]

Yes, Freenet is not for everybody. If you don't believe in total, indiscriminatory, complete freedom of speech and expression (an information anarchy, as it were), Freenet is not for you. On the other hand, if you believe there can be such a thing as "freedom of speech, but only when I agree," you probably have some thinking to do.

Nice try at framing the debate. Do you have fun at home ruling your army of straw men? I've seen more nuanced opinions in political stump speeches.

GF.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Anonymous Coward]

> On the other hand, if you believe there can be such a thing as "freedom of speech, but only when I agree," you probably have some thinking to do.

When your knee stops jerking, perhaps you should learn to read:

"I love the idea of freenet, but after reading how it works, I have to agree with a few complains I've heard. I'm not really happy about the idea of "anything" being able to be shared on my computer. Kiddie Porn comes to mind as one thing I want nothing to do with, and I have no controll over this being shared on my computer or not."

Where did the poster raise any freedom of speech issues? This post is about local control of one's computer, and being able to say what and what's not allowed to be stored there - ESPECIALLY in cases where the content is illegal *and* repugnant to the owner of the PC.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Anonymous Coward]

please rephrase your argument without an appeal to authority, you deontological madman. The argument of the peeping tom spying without getting caught as an argument against Utilitarianism might be a good place to start, but seriously, if you need to refer to the laws every time you make a moral decision I'm worried for you.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[shatfield]

This is the same scenario as the firing squad -- everyone knows that one gun contains a blank, but noone knows which one it is... therefore each person has a lingering hope that they were the one with the blank.

The fact that someone may have produced kiddie porn and shoved it onto Freenet does not mean that it is sitting on your machine. Since the content on your machine is encrypted, you'll never know for sure anyways.

The problem is not with the storage mechanism, it is with the sick person creating the content. That's where the problem lies, not in the bits and bytes on your hard drive.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[oxygene2k2]

freenet is a routing network..

should ISPs be allowed (or forced) to filter out content they're unhappy with on their routers and not pass it on because a request was made?

first you (not you directly, but several people here) blame china because they exercise that control, then you blame freenet because it takes away that control.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Henry V .009]

Of course, and every normal person agrees with you that a perfect world shouldn't have child porn.

But does the threat of child porn mean that you should give your government regulatory powers over speech in order to stop it? I'd think very carefully about that. Government abuse of power over speech is far more dangerous than individual abuse of free speech.

Your line of reasoning can be logically extended. Murder is bad. Far worse than child porn. The government could theoretically end murder with current video surveillance technology. Should government have the power it needs to do that? Of course not, the abuse would be horrendous. It is one of the costs of liberty.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[guacamolefoo]

If you don't believe in total, indiscriminatory, complete freedom of speech and expression (an information anarchy, as it were), Freenet is not for you.

I have no problem with your first statement, because I think it is probably true, based on what I know about Freenet.

On the other hand, if you believe there can be such a thing as "freedom of speech, but only when I agree," you probably have some thinking to do.

This second statement is a little around the bend, however. Care to reel that in some?

To wit:
Are your statements meant to indicate that there can be no reasonable restrictions on speech under any circumstances?

I must admit that, to some extent, I fall into the "freedom of speech, but only when I agree" category, at least under some circumstances. For instance, I don't want the asshole in the crowded movie theater to shout "Fire!" or even to talk loudly during a movie I paid to see. Most of the rest of the time, I am opposed to speech limitations, but there are clearly times and places where speech ought to be limited.

Should a neighbor be allowed to amplify his voice outside my house and recite pornography at 120 db without restriction? I suggest that the answer is no. Do I "have some thinking to do"or am I misunderstanding your apparent point?

I certainly have no objection to someone saying "the US sucks" or "raise taxes on the rich" even though I disagree with those propositions. But I will kick ass and take names if someone next to me is talking during RotK in December.

In any case, your comments do not seem to foreclose the possibility of a middle ground, but when I first read them, they struck me as silly, cartoonish statements, and perhaps I over-reacted. Wouldn't be the first time.

GF.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Lemmy Caution]

The question is this: if you can technologically censor some speech, you are technologically capable of censoring any speech. If you can find a way to determine what's on your hard drive, you can be held accountable for it - and freenet's entire raison d'etre as a failsafe protection for free speech is destroyed.

In other words, one of the costs of ensuring free speech on FreeNet for Chinese dissidents is that it also gives a channel for child pornography and snuff films.

Also, there's a big gray zone when it comes to child pornography. The production of child pornography is clearly the exploitation of children. However, is documentation of a criminal act also criminal? Are all depictions of the sexual acts of or with children criminal? Should books like "Lolita," or dramas like "Romeo and Juliet," which describe relationships and sexuality with or between minors, be rightlly censored? Most of our ancestors before the 18th century or so were bearing children by the age 15 - do we want to treat their journals and love letters as kiddie porn? (I do believe there's a line between pornography and literary portrayal, but that line can at some places become blurry, and Nabokov is one of those places.)

Also, "kiddie porn" has extended to include pictures of kids taking a bath that were deemed just a little too sensual by some photo clerk, who brought them to a judge and got an indictment. Guess what: pictures of one's wife or husband as a minor can be treated as child pornography! There's a level of hysteria on the topic which has clouded the subject, and the desire to protect children from sex has become, in itself, a source for real censorship. And one that I'm sure the PRC would happily take advantage of while pursuing dissidents.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Cyclometh]

ISPs are allowed to filter out content if they wish. It doesn't happen with most of them (that I know of) but there would be no legal recourse for the customers if an ISP did begin blocking some traffic. The ISP owns the systems, the user cannot tell them how to run them. The user can go elsewhere, along with their wallet, which is why most ISPs don't censor content on their networks.

This is of course assuming they didn't violate their own TOS or contracts, etc, which is a different issue entirely.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Lt Razak]

Very true. This sick person could (and will) put the content up somewhere else, if not on freenet.

And to the poster who is concerned--> I don't agree with the K.K.K either, but I do realize that they should be allowed to speak their stance. And the fact that you & I support our local/state/ government when they grant permits for these types of gatherings, doesn't mean we're promoting the K.K.K.

I would say the same thing about Kiddie Porn. Supporting FreeNet is about so much more than possibly supporting (a very very small fraction of) the Kiddie Porn out there.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[MrWa]

Since when was kiddie porn considered "speech"? Last I remember it was exploitation of a minority.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument of the peeping tom spying without getting caught as an argument against Utilitarianism might be a good place to start

Hadn't heard that one, but I suspect it is much like the "puppy killer" argument:

Is there a basis for preventing someone from killing puppies (painlessly) in his home without making a fuss or telling the neighbors? He's not hurting anyone after all.

Should it really be a crime to kill puppies if the only harm that occurs is that someone, somewhere might be bothered that there is a puppy killer out there killing puppies for no reason other than his own pleasure?

I don't think that Freenet really matches up with that argument, though. There is kiddie porn (and not the Nabakov-type -- actual kiddie sex porn). It does cause actual actual harm to juveniles whom society has collectively determined cannot consent to sex or the recording of the sex act. Freenet *may* result in your computer being used to propagate kiddie porn (which is harmful in and of itself -- it continues the nonconsensual exploitation of juveniles).

If you are to compare Freenet to the puppy killing, there would have to be no actual harm. Your assumption seems to be that distributing existing child porn is non-harmful. As I mentioned above, I don't buy that.

if you need to refer to the laws every time you make a moral decision I'm worried for you.

Not a bad place to start -- don't kill, don't initiate force unless in self-defense, don't steal, don't act recklessly or with careless disregard for human life. There are worse places to look to for moral guidance.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Cadillac STS]

There's a big gulf between "freedom of speech, but only when I agree" and "I don't want to be distributing said speech".

I do think that the right of free speech does/should extend to kiddie porn, but that does not mean that I will support its distribution.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Anonymous Coward]

> The fact that someone may have produced kiddie porn and shoved it onto Freenet does not mean that it is sitting on your machine. Since the content on your machine is encrypted, you'll never know for sure anyways.

You'll always know for sure that the possibility exists, and it exists by design. You cooperate with pedophiles, perhaps yes/perhaps no, and there's nothing you as a Freenet user can do about it. To someone who doesn't want that shit on their computers at all, such loss of control of the content on their own computer is unacceptable.

Willful blindness is NOT a valid defense.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[RPoet]

I share some of your view about my own statements; they could be taken quite to the extreme. What you have to understand, and accept, though, is that if a system like Freenet were to have some kind of built-in mechanism for removing extremely objectionable material, it would (as several others have commented now) need to have mechanisms to remove any material (and who would make the removal decisions?). And you can't have that and still have a system implementing the ideals of Freenet (total anonymity for both publisher and consumer).

And no, freedom of expression does not include the freedom to break into my private sphere and make noises during RotK. OTOH, that won't happen by running a Freenet node ;-)

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Threni]

I love the idea of roads, but after reading about how people travel on them to commit crimes, i`m not sure I want to pay any money towards them.

Nice idea, but until there is a method of transport which cannot be abused by criminals I'm going to sit right where I am.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Telastyn]

Ahem.

Kiddie [18] porn illegality irregardless:

Freedom of speech is the freedom of any citizen and to a lesser degree any person or corperation to speak and express themselves however they desire.

Freenet is not that. At least not entirely. The side effect is that the network of people also chant [albeit without their knowledge] things that other people say.

Would you allow anyone else to decide what you say?

Freenet is freedom of information at the cost of personal freedom of speech, or as the case might be, silence.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I didn't realize NAMBLA members hit Slashot.

Nice job with the inability to see the *real* big picture. Nothing wrong with a leftist; definitely something wrong with a stupid leftist.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Lemmy Caution]

And no, freedom of expression does not include the freedom to break into my private sphere and make noises during RotK.

Anyway, in both this case and in the "fire" case, there's a difference between speech as the expression of an idea and any given utterance - the utterance of the word "fire" is an act which generates a false alarm; it isn't the content of the speech which is really at issue, it's the performance of the speech-act. Likewise with hate speech - in which there's a speech act by which one is directly and imminently threatening someone else; it's the act of imminent threat that is the subject of enforcement, not the content of the speech to create the threat.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[mskfisher]

But I will kick ass and take names if someone next to me is talking during RotK in December.

That's a bit of a non-sequitur, because it falls under the rules of a private establishment. Speech on private property can be restricted by the owner of the property, and isn't protected under the Constitution.

Unless, of course, you were making a broader statement, e.g. "I endorse freedom of speech until it inconveniences me."
But that doesn't seem to be the case.

Or maybe you're going to go see RotK on public property...

Re:Good idea, bad content

[calumr]

The problem is not with the storage mechanism, it is with the sick person creating the content. That's where the problem lies, not in the bits and bytes on your hard drive. Yes, but it'd be nice to make the kiddie porn pushers lives a little harder by not storing their data (or being able to trace & report them).

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Shewmaker]

Freedom is harmful if it is not balanced with responsibility. In our society, we have laws to help us keep ourselves responsible. We also have revolutionaries/patriots that keep watch so that laws don't become unbalanced and limit freedom too much.

In an ideal world there wouldn't be child pornography. Also in an ideal world we could live free and responsibly without laws. Unfortunately we don't, but I prefer a reasonably limited freedom necessary to safeguard the defenseless from abuse to some self-serving, damn-the-cost-as-long-as-I'm-not-paying ideal of "indiscriminate" freedom.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[carpe_noctem]

Not to get too far OT, but isn't it set up such that only one gun has the actual bullet, and the rest have blanks?

Correct me if I'm wrong....

Re:Good idea, bad content

[paganizer]

IANAFE, but I don't really think that is possible.
One of the ways that anonymity is assured is that the files which are inserted into freenet don't have a "type"; the key for a .jpg file is not discernable from the key for a .txt file; only by knowing the filename AND key can you get the file in question.
and then there are multipart files; you may only have a portion of a file on your node.
About the only way I can think of to limit what is on your node is to decrypt all contents of your datastore, then examine the headers, deleting the ones that might be nasty content, and the ones you can't figure out WHAT they are.
Of course, if you do this, you no longer have deniability about the content of your node; you may have deleted the kiddie porn, but left the MP3's intact, which is still illegal, right?
I don't see how we can have it both ways; if chinese dissidents are going to be safe posting to freenet, then it automatically follows that other illegal actions would have to be safe to do on freenet.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[pigscanfly.ca]

bah . Look at it another way . I support total freedom of speech , however that doesnt mean that I want to:
a)help carry a message that is offensive to me ; if you want to spew propogande fine but I am in no way obliged to help you
b)violate the laws of my country (unless I can reasonable expect not to get caught :-)
JK Mr.investigator dude.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[lysium]

Research has definitively shown that infant males get erections, and that infant females have vaginal secretions. Should infants be having sex with each other, or adults? No!
BUT.....Should we be pretending that they are sexless until older? NO! We are creating our own demons here.....

-----------

Re:Good idea, bad content

[trout_fish]

Yes, but it'd be nice to make the kiddie porn pushers lives a little harder by not storing their data (or being able to trace & report them).

The problem is that as soon as the source or location of information is made available the system ceases to be anonymous and is rendered pointless.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[blibbleblobble]

"I'm not really happy about the idea of "anything" being able to be shared on my computer. Kiddie Porn comes to mind as one thing I want nothing to do with"

Good idea. In a similar vein, I happen to disagree with GreenPeace, and I think their ideas should be censored out of existance. The fact that they're allowed to campaign is disgusting, and anybody hosting a freenet system allowing them to communicate should be shut down immediately.

We really ought to shut down these pro-democracy sites too. After all, if communist sites are bad, and nazi sites are bad, democratic sites must be really nasty. The ideas are dark and viral, and we ought to shut down the system that promotes them.

Christian sites too. KKK is bad and should be censored, scientology is bad and should be censored, then churches must be bad and should be censored too.

Block child porn? Why only children, why not block non-aryan porn? disgusting stuff y'know.

Get enough people together, each with different views, and each with a "free speech for those who agree with me" attitude, and you'll not end up with any sort of society you'd want to live in.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[kylemonger]

The issue is complicated. Suppose someone takes a kiddie porn image, chops it into several thousand rectangular bitmaps and scatters them across thousands of computers on the Internet. Which computer can be said to contain kiddie porn?

Suppose someone takes a KP image and XORs it with online copies of the U.S. Constitution, an image of Julie Andrews, and a PDF file of U.S. census data. They then take the result and put it up on the net, labeled as "white noise". Then they delete the original KP image. Where is the kiddie porn now? It can be reconstructed by XORing all the remaining files together, but none of those files by itself is kiddie porn. Is the kiddie porn really in the instructions on how to assemble the files to recreate the original KP image? Or does the KP image not exist until someone actually XORs the files and recreates it?

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Sloppy]

On the other hand, if you believe there can be such a thing as "freedom of speech, but only when I agree," you probably have some thinking to do.

And if you believe in "Freedom of speech, but with responsibility" then Freenet and its users are a tricky problem worth thinking about. Freenet is about more than just freedom of speech, it's an attempt to get freedom from accountability. Those two things are not quite the same.

IMHO, Freenet users are going to run into this problem: if you can't pass the buck, then the buck stops with you. Freenet users are going to try to claim they are carriers who are not responsible for the information that passes through their nodes, but they will be responsible, because they won't be able to pin it on someone else.

When someone breaks a law using Freenet and it is shown that they got their packet full of Evil Bits from your computer, the men with badges and guns are going to knock on your door. Then you'll either have to show in your log where you got that packet (so that the men with guns can leave you and go visit someone else), or they are going to have nowhere to go, so they'll stay interested in you.

That is undesirable, and it's why I won't run a Freenet node. I don't want LEOs bothering me because I assisted in someone else downloading their kiddie porn or sending a death threat to the president, or whatever. I hate bein' marked to take the fall.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Famatra]

"Should a neighbor be allowed to amplify his voice outside my house and recite pornography at 120 db without restriction?"

Thats the great thing about Freenet, content that is not requested is quickly repleced by content that is in demand.

I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it.
-Voltaire

Re:Good idea, bad content

[steve_stern]

if you believe there can be such a thing as "freedom of speech, but only when I agree," you probably have some thinking to do

There is a huge difference between believing in full freedom of speech, and actually allowing that speech to exist on your own private property.

People are allowed to make speeches about terrible things, things I strongly disagree with, and I will defend their legal right to make such speeches. However, if those same people ask me to post one of their flyers in my home, I'll laugh in their face.

Thats the Freenet problem. I feel they should legally be allowed to make such speeches. I just don't want it stored on my personal computer. I don't care about plausible deniability - if I disagree with it so strongly, I don't want to help distribute it using my personal resources.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[jazman_777]

Yes, Freenet is not for everybody. If you don't believe in total, indiscriminatory, complete freedom of speech and expression (an information anarchy, as it were), Freenet is not for you. On the other hand, if you believe there can be such a thing as "freedom of speech, but only when I agree," you probably have some thinking to do.

I find it odd that so many people take such a strong moral stand in favor of Absolute Free Speech while finding other moral stands repulsive. It appears that the Absolute Free Speech morality is uncompromising--it is the highest morality in the universe, and trumps all others.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[jazman_777]

This is the same scenario as the firing squad -- everyone knows that one gun contains a blank, but noone knows which one it is... therefore each person has a lingering hope that they were the one with the blank.

It's called "How to Execute with a Clear Conscience: Hey, You Just Might Not Have Done it!"

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Dynedain]

if you have the ability to restrict what appears on a network, then you've opened the door for the RIAA, other powerfull corps, or the government to tell you what you can and cannot place on the network.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[jazman_777]

Since when was kiddie porn considered "speech"? Last I remember it was exploitation of a minority.

I suppose some people try to sanctify anything as a "Freedom of Speech" issue by taking photos of it.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[jazman_777]

Exactly. I support free speech, but what about my rights? I think it makes sense that if I value freedom, I must have control over what is on my own hard drive.

You've properly identified the issue: property rights. Freenet asks you to abdicate your property rights (i.e. anything may go on your drive) while asking you to keep your property responsibility (if the Feds ever figure out it's on _your_ drive, you take the fall).

Re:Good idea, bad content

[alienw]

Do you want to go to jail for sharing kiddie porn? That is really the risk you are taking on with freenet. By using freenet, you pretty much give consent to everyone to store whatever on your computer. If it's illegal, YOU are responsible. Sure, it's encrypted, but that doesn't help much.

You do realize that freenet is not exactly anonymous? Sure, it protects the person who made the content, but it's rather easy to figure out who has kiddie porn. Better hope the feds don't start searching for it, or you're in deep shit.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[togofspookware]

Is there a basis for preventing someone from killing puppies (painlessly) in his home without making a fuss or telling the neighbors? He's not hurting anyone after all.

Uhhhh... what about the puppies? Maybe that's not a good example, either. :-/

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Golias]

But does the threat of child porn mean that you should give your government regulatory powers over speech in order to stop it?

Yes.

The government should also prosecute those who use speech to incite a riot (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), or amplify their speech over 80 db in a quiet neighborhood at 3:00 AM, or constantly sexually harass, over the telephone women who live by themselves.

You also do not have the right to commit slander or libel. You may not publish my credit card number or medical records. You may not redistribute copies of my novel, or bootlegs of my movie, or, as unpopular as it is to say here, an MP3 file of my musical performance.

Get over it.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Eminor]

Freedom of speach is one thing. Freedom of expression is quite another. I believe in freedom of speech, but not neccisarily in freedom of expression.

Freedom of speach is the ability to have and discuss ideas freely.

Freedom of express is the ability to express your ideas in anyway you choose.

For example, it is okay to say I don't like George W Bush for reason X. That is freedom of speach in action.

An example of Freedom of expression would be burning an effigy of George Bush. Although I would view this particular example of freedom of expression as okay, others are not.

Allowing an individual to share their views on child pornography falls under Freedom of speach and is acceptable. But Allowing an individual to create or distribute child pornography falls under freedom of expression and is not acceptable.

In short:
freedom of speach = good.
freedom of expression = shady area.

I can not support freenet because it allows freedom of expression and hence child pornography.

So to be clear I SUPPORT FREE SPEACH.

When you say "freedom of speech, but only when I agree," is a strawman falicy (you are twisting our ideas). You are lumping things into free speach which should not be there. Not being able to distribute certain content does not place restrictions of freedom of speach (although it may put stipulations on freedom of expression).

The Child Pornographer: "Hey man, I took pictures of your 12 year old daughter naked. It is my right to freedom of expression."

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Henry V .009]

So you want a government that has the power to outlaw something like Freenet, all based on the "you can't yell fire in a theatre, can you now?" argument.

You know, they'd get more child pornographers if they monitored all of our computers constantly. Or if they set up video cameras in our houses. That would really make those child pornographers run scared.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Loki_1929]

"Government abuse of power over speech is far more dangerous than individual abuse of free speech."

Beautifully stated. What many people fail to grasp is the simple fact that liberty is hard. Your own liberty is not what makes it hard; it's the respect for the liberty of others which makes things nearly unbearable at times. In order to ensure that some poor soul has the ability to speak out against a repressive regime without being shot for it, I must in turn allow some sick bastard to get his kicks? This is difficult, but it's outright dangerous to start picking and choosing who should have which liberties.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Qzukk]

I keep seeing this, but there is one problem...

There is no search engine for freenet.

So yeah, your drive *might* have kiddie pr0n, but the way freenet works is that unpopular stuff eventually expires from your host. If nobody can find the kiddie pr0n, nobody can request it, and it dies.

Of course, someone could post the key to the kiddie pr0n somewhere, but that would risk being caught. I don't think that kiddie pr0n makers are as much of a candidate for martyrdom as, say, someone with the Falun Gong would be.

In the end, it comes down to "Is kiddie pr0n more popular than other forms of communication?" If it is, then freenet will eventually fill with it. If it isn't then freenet will eventually expire it. Your answer to that question depends on your faith in your fellow users.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Jeremi]

It's not so much a question of whether or not a given bit of kiddie porn is "speech", but rather whether a given bit of speech is "kiddie porn". Who decides where to draw the line regarding what must be censored? Who do you trust to do that?

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Qzukk]

Yeah, and of course anyone who complains about the cameras in their daughters' rooms MUST be breaking the law. After all, the only people who complain when privacy rights disappear are the ones who have something to hide.

Of course, by the time it reaches a point where even the staunchest pro-survelliance-anti-privacy advocates realize the government has crossed the line, it will be too late... they'll have the cameras in their childrens' bedrooms too, and speaking out against them would clearly indicate that they have something to hide...

Re:Good idea, bad content

[arodland]

Okay. a few things.

1) Okay. Making CP is not a good thing for reasons you've mentioned and others.
2) Freedom of speech has nothing to do with that
3) Freedom of speech _does_ have to do with people being able to distribute content to people who want it, free from censorship
4) At least if people are grabbing it off of freenet they're not paying for it (irrelevant for someone who uses freenet for storage rather than publishing, but the other stuff works)

Anyway. The point is that besides the fact that it's (supposedly) constitutionally protected, a lot of people seem to think that freedom of speech (and a bunch of related things) is a natural right. Coercion of children is bad and illegal and etc. Attack that. k?

Re:Good idea, bad content

[leviramsey]

Of course, if you do this, you no longer have deniability about the content of your node; you may have deleted the kiddie porn, but left the MP3's intact, which is still illegal, right?

However, how can anyone else (specifically the RIAA/MPAA) know that you decrypted the content and deleted stuff? If they can't prove that you did that, then they can't shoot down your plausible deniability defense (any more than they would be able to shoot it down otherwise).

Re:Good idea, bad content

[MourningBlade]

You know, it's funny. I'm a bit fuzzy on the dates, but child pornography was only made illegal in the US about 40-or-so years ago.

Of course, you have to separate pornography into two categories: 1) a media work showing an explictly sexual act (masturbation, penetrative sex, oral sex, etc) 2) a media work of a prurient nature that does not explicitly show "sex."

The former was illegal (minor consent laws and all that), but the latter was kinda legal.

When I say "kinda" I'm not being wishy-washy, it's that we're coming up against anachronism: according to experts on this sort of thing[1] attitudes of the "man on the street" have shifted drastically concerning photographs/drawings of young children. What would be considered "cute" and "childlike" back in the 1950's would be considered "grotesque" and "unsuitable for public consumption" now. Most of this can be linked to the witchhunts regarding child pornography.

Even more amusing, since the enactment of child pornography laws the average age of actors involved in sex scenes and -- and this is very odd -- in just plain romantic kisses in movies has gone way down. Way, way down.

I think it was Ebert (or was it Stephen King? King wrote about this a bit as well) who commented that youngsters used to go to the movies to see oldsters in a sex scene. Now it's reversed.

Salon commented[2] that the rabid and far-reaching bans on child "pornography"[3] has caused us all to think like pedophiles. Reminds me of the joke about the sexaholic who goes into the psychiatrist, who gives him a rorschach test.

"What do you see?"

"Two people having sex. A naked woman. A threesome."

"Jane, I think you've got a fixation on sex."

"What? Doc, you're the one showing me all these dirty pictures!"

Ah well.

So my point is that it's tough to say what's child porn and what's not, with the fact that we've gotten hypersensitive about it recently. I don't really feel like having the morality police check out all of my mom's photo albums to see if they're kosher. Especially morality police from the MPC[4]. Though being a smart son who knows the power of embarassment blackmail from mothers, I have removed all of my naked baby pictures. Now if only I could get the picture of me hugging then penguin at Sea World when I was 12....

And to spare myself accusations: no. I'm not "into" kids. To be honest, only recently has my age group become somewhat appealing to me at all: I've always been after older women, which is a real drag as women are used to young guys being...well, young guys.

So, just something to think about.

[1] I'm thinking of the historians interviewed in Salon concerning the somewhat-recent Paul Ruebens case. Interesting article.

[2] Again, the Paul Ruebens case.

[3] bare-butt baby picture arrests, anyone? Traditional Brazilian breast feeding family photos getting your kids under the care of CPS, like just happened in Dallas about a year ago?

[4] Most Persnickity Country

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Anonymous Coward]

How does freenet take away control from china? china may not be able to see what information is in the freenet traffic, but there must be unencrypted identifying headers which china can use to identify freenet traffic.

So it should be pretty trivial for them to block all freenet traffic, and if they feel like it, to jail all freenet users in china.

Remember, this is a country which puts people in jail for practicing a certain type of mediation / exercise (fulan gong). You think they would be squeamish about nipping freenet in the bud?

Since its communications are encrypted, but not concealed in other traffic, Freenet is not useful in any extremely oppressive society. It can only work in societies that are already relaively free. (e.g., Europe, Russia, US, Japan)

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Anonymous Coward]

What many other people, including you, fail to grasp is that pictures of child porn aren't free speech; they're not speech at all, they're evidence of actions already taken. They're waaaaay past the point of just talking, that's why they aren't protected.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[leviramsey]

Bad analogy. There is a difference between the medium and the content. However, with Freenet, you are effectively required to drive the getaway car for those who have committed actions you object to.

No other P2P system that I am aware of has that feature; while others may use KaZaa/Gnutella/OpenNap to transmit material that I wish to have no part of, I am not required to be an active participant in the exchange of said material.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Henry V .009]

I've heard horror stories about the breast-feeding stuff, but I'd be interested in finding out more about that Salon article. I searched for it with Google for a little while, but I couldn't seem to find it.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Lt Razak]

And I own a hotel.

God knows what goes on there. In fact, I do find out what goes on there when the police get involved. But it's not like I woke up one day and said I wanted to start a business that helps husbands cheat on their wives, and dealers sell their drugs.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[xdroop]

It is one of the costs of liberty.

<troll>

So, you are willing to spend the lives of your fellow citizens as payment for your liberty? Are you willing to have your life taken as payment for mine? How about the lives of your children?

</troll>

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Henry V .009]

Yes. Yes. And yes.

For further reference: http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.h tml

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Anonymous Coward]

>The government could theoretically end murder with current video surveillance technology. Should government have the power it needs to do that?

Some governments (such as the Austraian govt.) are having a pretty good tilt at it. Just look at the cameras on your railway stations, shopping malls, roads, back alleys (they're trying to catch 'rubbish dumpers'), building exteriors, ... Have I missed anything? Actually, there is not much else to miss out.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[xdroop]

How noble of you.

Me, I put to slightly high a value on lives (mine, and others) to justify squandering it so that others can continue to do ill.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Loki_1929]

"They're waaaaay past the point of just talking, that's why they aren't protected."

"Free speech" covers a number of things that are not spoken. Free speech is better described as free expression - the freedom to express one's thoughts. Secondly, pictures of child porn are not illegal in every part of the world. As for whether they should be or not, I'm reserving judgement until such time as I see what effect the exceptions placed into Canada's laws by their Supreme Court have. If it reduces actual abuse of children, then I'm all for those specific exceptions. Thirdly, and more to the point, I never claimed it was free speech. What I did claim is that Freenet, as a whole and like the internet, is a method of free speech (or expression, if you will). It is not child pornography which I seek to protect and defend; only Freenet. If you attack Freenet on the grounds that it facilitates distribution of child pornography, then you must also attack the internet at a whole, which is equally, if not moreso responsible for the distribution of such obscene material. So now go ahead and please argue for the dismantling of the internet - that at least would entertain me.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[guacamolefoo]

That's a bit of a non-sequitur, because it falls under the rules of a private establishment. Speech on private property can be restricted by the owner of the property, and isn't protected under the Constitution.

Unless you happen to own a public-like place, such as a shopping mall (in some states).

In any case, as a general rule, you are correct. The Constitution only protects you against government actions. It was a poor example, but it was a throwaway line meant primarily for entertainment value in any case.

GF.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[guacamolefoo]

"Should a neighbor be allowed to amplify his voice outside my house and recite pornography at 120 db without restriction?"

Thats the great thing about Freenet, content that is not requested is quickly repleced by content that is in demand.

That is a nice fact to know, but it is irrelevant to my point, which was that there are clearly reasonable cases where speech is (and ought) to be restricted (for a variety of reasons).

I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it.
-Voltaire

I guess Voltaire would have fought to the death to protect the rights of Klansmen to burn crosses in the rights-of-way adjacent to homes of blacks. Good for him. I can't say that I'm for that sort of an absolutist interpretation of the notion of "free speech".

GF.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[mskfisher]

Kinda what I expected from the tone of your comment, but I figured I'd ask for clarification.
And besides, I like using the words "non sequitur" whenever I get an excuse. :)

Re:Good idea, bad content

[stwrtpj]

should ISPs be allowed (or forced) to filter out content they're unhappy with on their routers and not pass it on because a request was made?

Unless the request was a valid court subpoena that was obtained by legal means, the answer is no.

Most ISPs don't. They do not set up filters to, say, block copyrighted material, but instead clearly state in their terms of use that you are not to use the network for that purpose and they will cooperate with authorities if you violate this. To do anything else is to increase costs and lose customers.

I always tend to use the telephone analogy. The telcos don't filter content. They don't even really post any "terms of service", other than paying your bill on time. You and I are free to plot overthrowing the US government on the telephone, and we can be reasonably sure that the telcos are not listening in or attempting to block us. If someone wants to listen in, they have to get a court order, and in the US, that generally means (ignoring the PATRIOT act madness for a moment) having to convince a judge you have enough evidence that you and I are up to no good. And if we're found out, WE'RE responsible, not the telco for providing the telephone service. This is why I think this crap about holding ISPs responsible for the content that crosses their networks to be bullshit and ultimately won't hold up if a case ever makes it to the supreme court.

So to bring this back to the topic at hand, when you're a member of Freenet, you are, in a way, a router of information. You are providing a service similar to that provided by an ISP or a telco. So if something illegal turns up on your hard drive, you should not be held responsible for it, so long as you had no prior knowledge of the content or that that specific content would be stored on your PC. If everything is encrypted, and you don't specifically go seeking the content that appears on your PC, then this test is satisfied.

Now, if YOU go seeking kiddie porn, or copyrighted songs, or whatever else may be considered illegal, then yes, you ARE responsible in that case because you made the conscious decision to go and get the offending material.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[mrex]

The idea the founding fathers put forth, through their own experience, was that life without liberty is worthless, worse than worthless in fact, it is perpetuating an evil.

Enough people agreed with that to eventually make our nation a pretty popular place. Popularity appears to have made us forget that.

Oft quoted, but not often enough: "Anyone who would trade essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Alpha_Nerd]

Some of us hope we're not the ones with the blank =D

Re:Good idea, bad content

[mrex]

Which is exactly how this sort of thing works. There's always going to be some reason to justify any government intrusion, and this is a favored technique of the proponents of it. But, without the government watching, [some nearly universally repellant thing] will happen! This is the essence of the "what about the children" argument.

Debating against this point puts one at an emotional disadvantage. Making the average person understand that however unacceptable a certain behavior is, there are limits that should not be surpassed in trying to eliminate it is practically impossible, particularly in this society ruled by fear and faux moralism.

The effectiveness of the "but you're safer this way" cannot be understated. Gun rights, free speech rights, even the right to a fair trial seem to be under attack, all apparently to "keep us safe". I live in fear that by the time the people learn the lesson that liberty is what keeps us safe, we'll have precious little left.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[zangdesign]

The problem is not with the storage mechanism, it is with the sick person creating the content.

That statement is entirely true. HOWEVER, I doubt any court in the United States would see it that way and you could end up spending a whole lot time next to some hardened killer who "just wants to cuddle".

I'm not sure that sort of indignity is worth some wierdo's free speech rights.

And yes, I am aware that people in China die because of government repression. But it is entirely within the power of the Chinese people to settle their problems with the government, WITHOUT our intervention, and so I leave it to them to do so.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[solferino]

well argued post, thanks for taking the time to write it

Re:Good idea, bad content

[gacp]

>Doing so would potentially create legal trouble for all other freenet users which allow those types of files.

Then we need sensible laws.

And if you can't change bad laws, you live in an Orwellian regime. And if you live in an Orwellian nightmare, like I the one I grew up in, then you'd kill for Freenet---how do you even discuss that the regime is totalitarian? how do you tell the truth without being murdered (I am NOT exagerating!) how do you plan to overthrow it?

Man, may the gods bless the Freenet and its creators! It may become our last line of defense agains the Shadow. And kiddie porn is not going to stop because you kill freedom of information, nor is it going to increase because of it. Sick people are sick people; gagging them does not restrain their hands (nor other parts of their anatomy).

And to be outrageously logical: In fact, the distribution of kiddie porn could perhaps decrease the incidence of child abuse for pornography, because the pr0n is already DONE and there is less desire to make what's already there. And perhaps the fantasasing with pictures could sublimate and help some not to physically do those things--after all, they are sick, not necessarily evil all of them. Or the child could the identified and so get the help and protection he/she so desperately needs. Then again, maybe none of this will happen, but in any case censorship won't help any of these abused children, period.

No, the issue of child abuse won't be solved by censorship, no more than murder or rape or the poisoning of food with noxious chemicals by corps will be.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[__aaklbk2114]

Man, where are the mod points WHEN I NEED THEM!!! Very well said.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[MourningBlade]

Damned if I can't find it. Must not've been in Salon. Weird. Ah well, I remember reading it.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[fenix down]

And some of us are sane.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Rainer]

Speculation:

Freenet might help making child porn unprofitable. As soon as material appears on freenet everybody can get it for free.
That leaves us with those who are not in it for the money.

Want to do something against the rest?
Pick up all material you can find, make it into a freesite and promise a $10000 bounty for identifying the participants.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Per Wigren]

I agree with you 100%, but the problem is that kiddie porn sites are only like 2 or 3 clicks away from the Freenet webinterface's first page. No searching needed... :P

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Threni]

"However, with Freenet, you are effectively required to drive the getaway car for those who have committed actions you object to."

You are a bus driver, who's passengers could be commuters or criminals. You are not, as a driver, expected to interrogate each one individually - indeed, such an interrogation would not work.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between the production of child porn and the distribution thereof (especially unknowingly).

Considering that there is hardly any way for someone to profit from the dissemination of child porn over freenet, it doesn't seem likely that running freenet encourages the creation of child porn.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Ian Bicking]

I think it should be clear that child pornography is different from KKK material. If the KKK beat up some black guy who they didn't like, then taken pictures of it and distributed it, then it would be analogous. As it is, the KKK mostly just distributes at worse incitement to commit crimes, not actual evidence of crimes. There's a qualitative difference.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that people have a difficult time distinguishing between the production of kiddie porn and the material itself?

Distributing the material is speech (in the sense that all information is speech), producing it is not. Looking at it may be sick, but especially if you obtain it through freenet, it is even less linked to the production (because the producer couldn't figure out who you are if they wanted to).

Re:Good idea, bad content

[fenix down]

I can't say that I'm for that sort of an absolutist interpretation of the notion of "free speech".

Then I hate you. Sorry.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[fenix down]

You're right, but your concern isn't a idealistic one, it's a practical one. Freenet isn't practical. (If you've ever used it you'd know that) It's pure idealism. It's saying that free, anonymous speech is absolute. In the ideology Freenet comes from, responsibility doesn't come into the equation. If you can't subscribe to that, then there's no reason why you should be running Freenet. If you don't believe in the Freenet ideology, then you can't counter the risk you mention with the perverse pleasure of fighting The Man when you're right.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[fenix down]

Nice, an even worse analogy.

It's Freenet, for fuck's sake. It's so completely unreleated to roads in so many goddamn ways that the both of you are fucking idiots for even having the mental short-circuit that caused you to connect the two. Lay off the acid and come back to the real world where verbs and nouns are different and where people don't compare the action of using an automated switching system to a hammer on a regular basis.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[xdroop]

It just occurs to me that you are trading my liberty to be safe from my fellow citizens for your safetly from the state.

Or does Mr. Franklin's observation apply to those trading their own liberties?

Re:Good idea, bad content

[GooberToo]

I don't think that's a substainable chain of logic. The basic goal of freenet is to provide plausible deniability for each and every node operator. It even provides anonymity, which can be deemed important in any society. This is hardly about bad laws nor is it about Orwellian nightmares.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[GooberToo]

That's not true at all.

If the Feds ever figure out it's your drive, you have plausible deniability. Not only did you not know it's there, but you did not place it there. In fact, you had no knowledge that anyone had placed it there. You knew there was some content there but you did not know what it was. There is a lot of content on FreeNet that is legal you know.

This is like a total stranger hiding something in your garage without your knowledge. Sure, you knew that by leaving your garage door open someone could come in and hide something illegal, but you hoped for the best. Just the same, that doesn't suddenly make you a master criminal.

Plausable deniability is what FreeNet is all about!

Re:Good idea, bad content

[guacamolefoo]

I can't say that I'm for that sort of an absolutist interpretation of the notion of "free speech".

Then I hate you. Sorry.

Why don't you send me your address, and I'll send over the 120 db sound truck to read porn, or worse, Jackie Collins novels, outside your window at full volume for, say, a week.

I guess that defamation is fine with you, too.

Perhaps you're just a troll.

GF.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[DancingSword]

Do you believe in total, indiscriminatory, complete freedom-of-expression among the cell-types in your body ( cancer )?

... I thought not.

You would allow all accommodating-of-you cell-types, but suppress only those that are corrosive of the whole, you, eh?

But you say that cannot transpose to any alternative ecology or ecological-level?

Boole-sh#t.

It is possible to have a:

Nothing is allowed, policy ( called Being-Dead )

Only that which is explicitly authorized is allowed, policy ( called TIA / Totalitarianism: see East Germany's STASI and Stalin and Hitler for such )

More-or-less whatever is alright-with-the-majority, policy ( for fun, see The Stanford Experiment )

All that doesn't damage the totality is allowed, policy ( buddhism )

Anything is allowed, including cancer, terrorism ( state-committed or independent ), butchery, etc. policy

( of course these aren't the only options, obviously )

"freedom of speech, but only when I agree" is a straw-man:
"freedom of speech, except when it wrongs" is an alternative your assertion assumes to be non-potential?

That's alright: many are devoutly committed to that foundation...

Re:Good idea, bad content

[FroMan]

An example of Freedom of expression would be burning an effigy of George Bush. Although I would view this particular example of freedom of expression as okay, others are not.

And burning an effigy of a black man falls where? Or a cross?

Don't let your political views distort your vision of freedoms.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Anonymous Coward]

but they would know all the kiddy porn pervos are not in government.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[mrex]

Liberty is 'safety' from the state. "Liberty to be safe from my fellow citizens" is a misapplication of the word "liberty".

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Golias]

So you want a government that has the power to outlaw something like Freenet, all based on the "you can't yell fire in a theatre, can you now?" argument.

No.

Fuck, you can't say anything on /. without somebody reading more into it than what you said.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[leviramsey]

However, if you see someone get aboard your bus with guns, you are within your rights to deny them service.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Threni]

"However, if you see someone get aboard your bus with guns, you are within your rights to deny them service."

Yeah, but on Freenet, a gun looks exactly the same as a copy of John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty". Personally I think its worth the risk that someone might place a photograph I find objectionable on my hard drive if it means that any information at all can be placed there. The police should be catching child porn users earlier on.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[vbweenie]

It is entirely necessary to form, defend and - at the limit - enforce judgments about who should have which liberties. This is because not all liberties are commensurable: not all liberties can be realised simultaneously in the same universe. The liberties of the child rapist in particular absolutely contravene the liberties of the child he rapes. Conversely, the protection of that child necessarily entails the curtailment of the rapist's liberties, including the liberty to advertise, legitimise and profit by his actions.

Michel Foucault, no great friend of authority, once commented that it will always be intolerable to the necrophiliac that he is excluded from the mausoleum. I admire the technology behind Freenet, which poses all sorts of challenges all by itself; but the "idealism" driving it is another matter. Like every idealism, it is incoherent precisely because it fails to recognise the incoherencies inherent in the domain it idealises. There can be no consistent and coherent all-embracing model of liberty, either in speech or in conduct.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[Loki_1929]

Liberty is freedom within the social context.

"The liberties of the child rapist in particular absolutely contravene the liberties of the child he rapes."

Actually, it's the freedom to rape which contravenes the freedom to consent (granted a child lacks the capacity to consent). Therefore, the rapist cannot count rape as a liberty to which he or she is entitled. What I spoke of referred to the "equal protection" clause under the law, which states simply that liberty amoung citizens is universal. Freedom, however, is not and cannot possibly be absolute without self-contradiction.

"Conversely, the protection of that child necessarily entails the curtailment of the rapist's liberties, including the liberty to advertise, legitimise and profit by his actions."

I disagree completely. The rapist has the right to advertise, though by doing so he or she openly incriminates themself, and therefore may face punishment for the perpetation of the actual crime. The advertisement itself is a liberty the rapist may choose to exercise at the expense of their freedom of movement. As for their liberty to legitimise their actions, they may feel free to do this as well. They are perfectly free to stand up in court and explain to the judge and jury why raping a child seems perfectly ok to them, although this will most likely guarantee as severe a punishment as the law allows. As for profiting from their actions, having advertised their sickening and illegal rape, and further going forth with a defense that what they did was morally acceptable, I should think that a book deal would be quite easily secured based on their story. Thus, profit ensues from their actions. There is no law against any of this.

" Like every idealism, it is incoherent precisely because it fails to recognise the incoherencies inherent in the domain it idealises. There can be no consistent and coherent all-embracing model of liberty, either in speech or in conduct."

What Freenet says to this is that speech itself ought never be regulated. Further, it puts forth the idea of no-holds-barred freedom of expression through freesites. I believe strongly in self-responsibility, and I think something like Freenet is perfect for that. It could quite easily turn into a forum for folks slandering one another, yet by refusing any and all restrictions, it inherently calls us to a higher state or morality. It says to all who use it, "no one is watching you, no one is going to punish you, and no one will stop you from saying anything you please", and thus it demands a greater responsibility from us. What most do not understand about the anarchy movement is that it calls for individuals to regulate themselves, believing that the laws, regulations, and punishments handed down by governments do nothing but hold back the human spirit, which is quite capable and willing to regulate its own actions.

Freenet is the ultimate in free speech anarchy, and I think it is often used very wisely for its stated intent. It enables speech in both litiguous societies like the US, and repressive regimes like China. While some do abuse this freedom, my personal observations are such that most use this opportunity to bring up things they would be afraid to bring up in public. From detailing the abuse of companies on their workers to detailing the abuse of governments on their citizens, Freenet has opened the doors to a world of free expression without limits, where no one is physically harmed in any way.

As for idealism being "incoherent", I again beg to differ. In this particular case, I urge you to look at the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights - for which I have the utmost respect and admiration. Never before have I seen such extraordinary idealism in government, and the fact that our Constitution still stands today shows that it is neither incoherent, nor impossible at all. I personally consider myself an idealist realist; I see things for how they are, yet can imagine and hope they become the stuff that dreams are made of. :)

Re:Good idea, bad content

[77Punker]

Actually, you could make your node transient (worthless). It doesn't help anybody but you, but it won't send kiddie porn out to other nodes.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[cannon_trodder]

Where *are* my mod points when I need them?

Part of your business is to provide privacy and with that will always come some form of abuse. I think that most patrons would expect privacy and understand that with that, also comes a risk of some people abusing it.

Freenet users should accept that to ensure their privacy, without discrimination, publishers need privacy from the participants who are dedicating their resources to host it. It's all or nothing.

I'm *so* close to saying that if Freenet helps criminals then its still worth it if it helps spread global free speech without feer of intimidation. Then someone mentions Kiddie porn or terrorism and the decision to join in with Freenet gets morally complicated.

It's the downloaders of kiddie porn that create the demand, not anonymous hosters. Hoteliers too are exempt form blame for abuses of privacy provided by them for legitimate reasons.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[xdroop]

Hey, I learned something today.

Liberty is 'safety' from the state. "Liberty to be safe from my fellow citizens" is a misapplication of the word "liberty".

OK, next someone gets to explain to me why 'liberty' is more important and desirable than 'safety from my fellow citizens'. Because personally, I have far more concerns about my fellow citizens than I do about the state.

Re:Good idea, bad content

[mrex]

OK, next someone gets to explain to me why 'liberty' is more important and desirable than 'safety from my fellow citizens'.

The two aren't necessarily opposed (especially considering the role of good governments in protecting their citizens rights from infringement by other citizens), only when one side or the other upsets the balance. For example, killing every single person in America save for yourself would provide you with tremendous 'safety from your fellow citizens'. So would taking away their right to leave their house.

But the question you pose belies a complete lack of understanding of history, and priority. The more everyone's liberties are restricted, the less likely it is that you will be physically harmed, this is true. But the founders of this nation apparently believed, as I do, that a long life of total restriction is much less appealing than one which is directly under your control and riskier. They also apparently believed, again as I do, that a people who readily surrender their rights to be protected by the government sooner or later find themselves in the same danger they were always facing, only this time by the very government they were hoping for protection by. Governments can be arbitrary and capricious, and your interpretation of life may run afoul of someone elses idea of safety no matter how absurd their logic. If they have power over you, it's not a matter of arguing superior logic. I'd remind you that there are plenty of people who justified the laws against sodomy with outlandish arguments that it was a public health concern.

Because personally, I have far more concerns about my fellow citizens than I do about the state.

"The state" is always made up of citizens, just ones with "legitimate" power over you as a private citizen. The legitimacy of their power is part of the danger.

If you have more concerns about your fellow private citizens than you do about tyrannical state administrators, you don't have much of a grasp of history, or even the current events of less free nations than our own.

But, I'm just some guy on slashdot. If you want to answer the question for yourself, go read the writings of people like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Hamilton, etc. and they will explain it to you with considerably more thoroughness and eloquence.

why can't freenet be more like bit-torrent

[aztechClanIII]

faster/any-at-all downloads. not everyone can run their damn client 24x7. that doesn't mean I don't seed torrents either. PiZeace my nizzoZ~!

Oppenheim still won't get it.

[Xerithane]

The man used a furniture analogy to try to prove his point that copyright infringment is piracy. He discounted Freenet because it was too clunky. If the man were any more dense he'd require life support.

Re:Oppenheim still won't get it.

[argoff]

Actually, he can have a *COPY* of my furntiure any time. In fact, he can have a copy of my car too. In fact, it's a Geo Metro, there are 10 million coppies of it out there. Somehow I don't feel violated.

Re:Oppenheim still won't get it.

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

In fact, it's a Geo Metro

No shit! I had one too for a few years. The odometer RESET TO ZERO since it only has 5 digits (exluding the 1/10-mile one) and the car hit 100,000 :) It now has 114,000 and still running, but the compression on the cylinders is going and only one good cylinder remains. Poor thing. New Altima comming soon but sad to see the Geo Metro go! Awesome car. It's bright blue, so everyone calls it the "Smurfmobile". Come to think of it, not TOO sad to see it go :)

Re:Oppenheim still won't get it.

[argoff]

Goddammit you, you stole a copy of my Geo Metro. WTF, I have no incentive to drive it now. I paid for that Geo Metro, gimme gimme gimme royalities Right Now! YOU HAVE VIOLATED MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. I'm suing!!!!

Re:Oppenheim still won't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

right on...I bet most software/music dosent really cost much anyways once the development costs (manhours,equipment,etc..) are recouped. Supporting a product might be expensive (but who downloads something then calls in for tech support?). If your building televisions you have the initial development costs there too, but you still have huge overhead and material costs as long as you produce the item.
I think the analogies between the real world and the digital are very enlightining for legal purposes. But I think they should be used more rigourously than the riaa would like to uses them.
As far as humans care about music, it is just sound, or information, which can be collected and saved for later or given to someone else...its dosnet fit the analogy of physical good. Its more like air or dirt that anyone can just collect themselves. Either from the radio, cd, or written down (like tab or lyrics). I thik the correct analogy is that the riaa wants to make it illegal to collect rainwater just becasue they are standing there holding a bunch of bottles they already filled wondering why there buisness model sucks now that people have their own bottles.
Oppenheim's only good point is that artists shold be rewarded for creating something. But why not reward them the way someone gets rewarded in real life? If a guy moe's a lawn, he gets paid for moeing the lawn...he dosent get paid everytime someone notices how nice the lawn looks. For that, he gets pride and recognition.
Last i checked, it heard it was very profitable to organize a concert. But not so much selling ice to eskimos...to that the riaa would convince Orin Hatch to nuke those feking eskimos.

Re:Oppenheim still won't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations on the best IP analogy I've seen in weeks, possibly ever.

You're right on -- support the artists. Give the artists absolutely anything they ask for in return for the music? Fuck no (though most of them aren't asking too much, I think). Give the RIAA anything it wants? Especially fuck no -- they, unlike the artists, aren't even giving us anything worth while. I can conceive of a perfect music system with artists, but no RIAA.

RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how long it'll take for RIAA to spread the FUD about how freenet and opensource are evil

Guess I won't worry until the BSA kicks in my door

[DeDmeTe]

I'm suprised the BSA hasn't started sending out lawsuit threat letters..... I would assume that software makers stand to lose alot more money than any record company. I can download a $500 app in an hour. Mp3's???? Whoopie. I'm after software. Thank gawd for eMule.

Question

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Okay, so let's say Freenet works perfectly and you can't trace anyone by IP address. But someone from the RIAA uses it to download a copyrighted song, wouldn't they then be able to sue all users of Freenet as accessories to the crime? (Assuming each node handles traffic from transactions it may or may not be involved in - that's the way I remember it working.) And then get a court order for Freenet to give up IP addresses of users who have downloaded the client?

Re:Question

[hawkbug]

That's why freenet needs to purge their webserver logs once an hour :)

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd better sue ISPs and computer manufacturers as well, then.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

freenet includes a "distribution servlet" with which people can download the software and join the network in a purely peer to peer fashion, requiring NO central download size (e.g. freenetproject.org or sf.net).

If you're wearing a tinfoil hat, find a friend on freenet (via iip or some other mechanism) and download from them. (not to mention the absurdity of suing someone for just *using* freenet... that'd get tossed even in a patriot act america)

Re:Question

[William Tanksley]

Not according to current legal theory. If you provide a service (in this case, hosting encrypted fragments of files) but you have no control or even visibility of how that service is used, you're not liable for the details of how it's used.

The people who use it are still liable, of course.

I have no idea how this is going to turn out. Freenet sounds like a great idea, but it's so obviously useful for such horrible uses, and there are other tools that handle most of the useful uses... I don't see it surviving legally (I mean that it'll be outlawed anywhere it'll be useful).

-Billy

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

This would mean that people could sue USPO, FedEx, UPS, etc., for the contents of packages delivered via their services. In each case, including Freenet's, the node's operator is unaware what is contained with his cache. The contents are encrypted. This is more or less the same thing as a sealed package.

Can the RIAA sue the USPO to force them to open every package before sending it to it's next stop? I wouldn't hold my breath. After all, it's this exact idiom why Freenet is designed the way it is.

Re:Question

[x_man]

More specific to your question is this:

If the RIAA downloads a Brit Spear MP3 using Freenet, they can tell which IP they got the MP3 from. Can't they just sue the person at that IP address? Will the judge care if the user claims he didn't know the mp3 was on his system? The user might try and invoke the DMCA carrier provision but no user is going to have the cash to defend himself anyway.

X

Re:Question

[tuba_dude]

If I remember correctly, Cryptome deletes all their traffic logs after a day or two to prevent that sort of thing. I don't think there's anything stopping the Freenet Project from doing the same.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

why even bother to keep them at all? Don't track the downloads at all.

Re:Question

[Henry V .009]

It's worse than the RIAA. There is a large quantity of child porn on Freenet. Now, because of the way Freenet works, you have no idea what's being served from your computer at any given time -- and no way to find out since it's encrypted. So if you run Freenet on your computer, you may be hosting child porn. Can the government go after you for that? If it wants to it can. Are there good reasons to take the risk? That's up to you to decide.

Is having truly free speech where some people inevitably abuse that speech better than having speech regulated by governments who inevitably abuse their regulatory powers themselves? Participatory democracies don't have a great track record when it comes to allowing unpopular opinions to be heard. In most of Europe today -- to pick one example -- you will serve jail time for questioning the holocaust. To pick another example, anti-hate speech statutes have been sucessfully used in Britain and Canada (and elsewhere, no doubt) to supress supporters of immigratation reform. Libel law is commonly used to supress opinions of those who don't have the money to defend themselves in court.

Is this a power you want to trust the government with? I don't trust mine with it. That's why I run Freenet. And hopefully, Freenet -- or the idea of Freenet -- will have enough popular support to make my government wary of cracking down on it. And as long as Freenet exists, there is at least one forum for truly free speech.

Re:Question

[DickBreath]

If a machine running Freenet sends you some copyright content, is the owner of this machine any more guilty than, say the telephone company of any intermediate ISP's?

After all, the owner of the machine may never have requested the copyright content, nor made any effort to get involved in piracy in any way.

Re:Question

[Mysticalfruit]

Purge? They should just be writing them do /dev/null...

Re:Question

[garcia]

exactly, are they in the running for top P2P application? Do we have to beat out the numbers for Kazaa (which is just more fodder for the RIAA to prove that piracy is a REAL BIG problem)?

Re:Question

[Zork the Almighty]

The day it's outlawed in any western country is the day i set up a dedicated node with 40gb of hd space. There was a reason that Freenet was created after all.

Re:Question

[tuba_dude]

Well said. There are always fringe opinions, and I'd rather have the choice of listening to them than have the government tell me if I can listen or not.

...Of course, then you get into the problem of having kids with malliable minds listen to 'wrong' opinions. A slight connundrum, but easily solved if parents at least pay attention to their kids.

Re:Question

[einstein]

question: if child porn is encrypted... is it still child porn? I mean.. as far as you can tell, you're passing around random bits.

may not be legal, but perfectly ethical to me.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

> If the RIAA downloads a Brit Spear MP3 using Freenet, they can tell which IP they got the MP3 from.

No, they can't. Useing Freenet means that the computer that you download from is NOT the origional suplier of the data. (And odds are that was NEVER stored on that PC.) And they can't sue that computer for complience, because it has NO WAY of knowing what the data was that you requested.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Freenet sounds like a great idea, but it's so obviously useful for such horrible uses, and there are other tools that handle most of the useful uses... I don't see it surviving legally

"Such horrible uses"? What praytell are these uses that elicit such extreme language? Does it kill people, or would that be only "terrible"? Do we distinguish between "horrible" and holocaustic? Really, given that the uses of FreeNet are not actually "horrible" but perhaps infringing at times (and depending on the user), the fact that you raise the existence of other utilities with similar functions but that do not (presumably) aid "horrible" uses proves that FreeNet does in fact have substantial non-infringing uses. So, is FreeNet capable of these "horrible" uses only because it combines the uses of these other unnamed utilities? Under what pretense do you suspect that it could be outlawed in places where it is most needed?

Re:Question

[Cyclometh]

I doubt any judge or jury will grant you as an indivdual common carrier status- that's usually reserved for telecommunications providers and the like.

Without that status, you're fair game. Of course, IANAL.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

> So if you run Freenet on your computer, you may be hosting child porn. Can the government go after you for that?

Not legally. The only way they could determine what is on your PC is to request that data. (Or randomly confiscate it and brute forcing the encryption.)

If they make a request, and you supply the data, there is no way for them to prove that you ever had the data on your PC. And if you ever did, chances are pretty good that they caused you to have it by routing the request through you.

They can't go after you for compliance, because you have no way of knowing what is on your PC, or what is being requested of you.

So while it is true, that in running Freenet, you may be helping the distribution of child porn. However, the way Freenet works there is no way you can do anthing about it, or even tell.

So while it is unluckily that you could ever legally be punished for running a Freenet node, the decision of wether you think it is right is up to you.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chinese will clearly forget about outlawing Freenet once they read your brilliant legal analysis.

Re:Question

[DeepRedux]

An ISP can register under the DMCA for a Safe Harbor, that would protect them in this case. Otherwise, if a system under your control makes an unauthorized copy, you are liable for a civil copyright violation. The law explicitly provides a penalty of up to $30K for non-willful copyright violations.

Besides, if the RIAA wants to shut down something like Freenet, they are free to sue just those running Freenet nodes and ignore ISPs, even if the ISPs neglected to register for safe harbor protection.

Re:Question

[Zork the Almighty]

If anyone can make that argument in court then it will effectively make running a Freenet node illegal. I think we'll have to wait and see.

Re:Question

[foolip]

I believe he's referring to the fact that it would be quite possible to set up a kiddie porn ring of something in freenet, and it would be near impossible to get hold of the criminals.

You know, freenet isn't just a file sharing network. First and foremost it's a medium which guarantees your anonymity, which makes it great for organizing a political movement in an oppressive regime and other things. But it's equally "useful" for doing things coveretly which most of us are disgusted by.

And child pornography is well beyond horrible, don't you think?

Re:Question

[Cyno]

That's like going after everyone who owns a gun because someone got shot and nobody's talking. Don't make much sense to me, but you go.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a large quantity of child porn on Freenet.

On what authority do you make this claim?

Re:Question

[Neon Spiral Injector]

Yeah, it came from 127.0.0.1. Also MP3s are big enough that the encrypted fragments will be stored on many different nodes. Not to mention the node that handed your node the fragment may not have it stored on their hard drive, Freenet routes the fragments through multiple hops, so you can even tell where the file originated. That also makes it so you can't tell the IP that requested the data either.

Re:Question

[blibbleblobble]

"But someone from the RIAA uses it to download a copyrighted song, wouldn't they then be able to sue all users of Freenet as accessories to the crime?"

If you've narrowed down the suspect to five thousand people, that's not going to get you very far in a court. When a shoplifter hides in a crowded shopping centre, you can hardly prosecute every person in the place as accessories.

To be technical about it, freenet guarantees common carrier status, simply through not knowing the content it's hosting. A freenet node is no more suspicious than any of millions of email servers which allow encrypted messages.

Asking freenet for people who've downloaded the client is hardly going to be a roaring success either, as you try to track down dynamic IPs that're months old and in different timezones. It's also pretty damned stupid, the equivalent of asking for the names of everyone who was given Internet Explorer on their computer, then suing them all. The AOL transparent proxy will be getting a lot of court-orders...

Not that anybody needs reveal an IP address to download something nowadays. What else is BitTorrent for?

Not a critisism of the thought, just that freenet is legally pretty safe. It's been directly taunting $cientology for years, and if there were a legal attack against it, it would long-since have been discovered.

Re:Question

[William Tanksley]

Yes, I would do the same, but the day it's outlawed is the day it becomes possible to arrest anyone using it -- and it's easy to detect use. This is why we agitate against laws to illegalise crypto. It's hard to tell what's being encrypted; but it's easy to tell that crypto is being used.

Yes, it's technically possible to defend against even this; but most people won't be able to, even technically competent ones.

I guess there's a good defence: everybody think of good uses for Freenet and start using it NOW. The more there are, the harder such a law will be to pass and slip by the judges. To be really powerful such a use should REQUIRE Freenet, and I can't think of any such uses (but I trust that others will). BUT ... don't let that stop you. Use Freenet instead of Kazaa to publish your legally permissible stuff.

If only I had anything to publish...

-Billy

Re:Question

[Cyno]

You have tons of content to publish. Put up your own GNU website on freenet with your scripts and personal modifications, icons, etc. Your own place on the net, and its free. :)

Re:Question

[Cyno]

And child pornography is well beyond horrible, don't you think?

No.

But treating a child like a lower class lifeform is rather pathetic in my opinion.

I was a child once and I loved to make pornography, video taping myself, etc. I guess you didn't start thinking until you turned 18, huh?

Re:Question

[TheZax]

You are being obtuse. Just because every node can route, does not mean every node WILL route the aforementioned /tainted/ packet.
That would be like me suing you for libel in English, just because you CAN speak English.

Or, I could be wrong, and they need to seriously rethink their routing/caching algorithms (sp?), if every node does touch it... ;-)

Re:Question

[Nexus Seven]

anti-hate speech statutes have been sucessfully used in Britain to supress supporters of immigratation reform

I call your bluff. I'd like to see a specific example, please. Or are you using hearsay?

In my experience, the supporters of the "round 'em up 'n' shoot 'em" type of immigration reform are extremely vociferous and are given plenty of column inches (quite often referred to as "editorial")

Re:Question

[gilgongo]

> It's hard to tell what's being encrypted; but
> it's easy to tell that crypto is being used.

I'm glad you mentioned that - because I'm designing a stegonographic layer for Freenet that would make its use very hard to detect. Passing it over SSL or SSH ports, or even hiding it in transfers of images over FTP...

Just give me some time, a team developers and bingo. Stego is the velvet glove over the steel fist of crypto.

Bwah ha ha haaa!

(Several secret messges are hidden in this post by the way.)

Re:Question

[jazman_777]

First and foremost it's a medium which guarantees your anonymity, which makes it great for organizing a political movement in an oppressive regime and other things.

Sounds great. So is it being used to write a New Constitution? No, it's being used for junk, absolute crap.

Re:Question

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Now why did you need to begin your comment by insulting me? Did I say anywhere that every node was going to handle traffic for 1 download? No, I did not. I was pointing out that since the RIAA doesn't know who is supplying the copyrighted content, they could go after everyone involved with the system since, at some level, they are facilitating the distribution of copyrighted material. IANAL and so I was asking about the legality of it. I feel that you did not need to insult me with the very first sentence of your post and so, this will be my only reply to you. Try to be a bit more civil in your discourse for the future.

Re:Question

[PyromanFO]

It is being used quite extensively in places like China where people are persecuted for what they say, and access to information is limited. If you call that crap, well, I can't say I agree.

Re:Question

[sploxx]

Hey, there is a relatively clear law in germany for that. Or, better, a principle in the constitution. It's called "Wehrhafte Demokratie" (well-fortified democracy).

The idea is, that it should (and is) be forbidden to speak against the principles of free speech and democracy, because they are the very ground you base your speech on. So if you praise hitler's dictatorship here, you will be punished for working against democracy.
I think it works well here and I also think it's not hurting freedom of speech too much.
Freedom is *NOT* absolute, even if some posts here suggest such a thing.

Freedom ends where the Freedom of others begins.

Re:Question

[Guppy06]

"So if you run Freenet on your computer, you may be hosting child porn."

You may be hosting child porn even without Freenet. How secure is your firewall?

"If it wants to it can."

Not in the US legal system it can't. If the government can't prove that you decripted your Freenet cache on your hard drive and knew what you were caching, you have this thing called "plausible deniability," which in turn creates this thing in juries called "reasonable doubt."

Re:Question

[TheZax]

I wasn't trying to be personally insulting to you by saying that you were being obtuse.
But, I was trying to point out that your conclusion that anyone using Freenet could be sued if someone downloaded a copyrighted mp3 (or even many) is a bit of a stretch.
And I hope that you would admit that, in hindsight.

Re:Question

[rmjiv]

That's great for those localities that care about legal theory and have presumption of innocence and other "Western" legal concepts.

Somehow I don't think that if the Chinese government is interested in stamping out dissent they're going to care whether an individual node requested the forbidden file or is simply hosting it for others.

Re:Question

[Henry V .009]

Yeah, too bad that has never worked in a child pornography case in the US yet. The US has been convicting on the theory of "if it's in your browser cache, you're guilty" for a few years now. This is all despite people protesting that they may have come across images accidently.

My statements weren't limited to the US, but since some people think it's the center of the world, I'll say this: If Congress wanted to outlaw Freenet, it could. They'd call it "The Anti-Child Porn distrubtion network Act of 2003" and almost certainly get away with it. The Supreme court might only vote 5-4 in their favor, but Congress would get away with it.

Re:Question

[Henry V .009]

Writing from a country that has a long tradition of actually not throwing people in jail for their opinions, let me make a statement.

Having the government regulate which speech is or is not allowed can easily lead to tradgedy. The government shouldn't be in a business like that where there is so much temptation for abuse.

Now, what exactly is the form that your law takes? It surely can't be so general as outlawing "speaking against the principles of free speech and democracy." After all, I could say that German democracy sucks because it voted Hitler into power in the first place. And German free speech is terrible because it gave Hitler a platform. Would I be carted off to jail?

Re:Question

[Henry V .009]

I was thinking about:

http://www.amconmag.com/02_24_03/taki.html
http://www.amconmag.com/02_10_03/taki.html

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n ews/2002/11/20/npage20.xml

And at least one other case which I can't recall exactly. There are just stuff I've run across in everyday web surfing. I imagine that there are further abuses that I simply haven't come across.

Re:Question

[Qzukk]

You know, freenet isn't just a file sharing network.

Its not much of a file sharing network at all. You can't search it anonymously. Sure, there are spiders and indexes and such, but these all operate outside of the field of anonymity. So you could establish a child porn ring using it, but the only useful way to make use of it would be if you had a non-anonymous external channel for communicating with your conspirators.

Re:Question

[Loki_1929]

"But someone from the RIAA uses it to download a copyrighted song, wouldn't they then be able to sue all users of Freenet as accessories to the crime? (Assuming each node handles traffic from transactions it may or may not be involved in - that's the way I remember it working.) And then get a court order for Freenet to give up IP addresses of users who have downloaded the client?"

Considering the fact that you can't narrow down what any single node has or has not done to aid in the download, you would pretty much have to launch a lawsuit against each user. Problem with that? Well, first of all, you'd have to find all the users of Freenet, and many are not in the US. You could start doing interner-wide port scans, but you're still going to run into a lot of walls, what with proxy servers, non-standard ports, etc. Assuming they managed to get a court order for the people who run the Freenet project to turn over the ips of those who have downloaded the software, they still will have only the records that the folks who run the Freenet project have. Who here keeps server logs for every single download of every single file, and maps all those downloads to individual ip addresses for any significant length of time?

Then you'd have to go about suing all of these people. Assuming we're only talking about say around 20,000 US-based users whose ip addresses can be identified as Freenet nodes, you're still looking at thousands of lawsuits. Thousands of lawsuits means thousands of lawyers, and tens of thousands of paralegals. If someone would like to try doing the math on this one, feel free, but I'd venture to guess that the amount of money invested in this kind of thing would run into the billions. The trick is, you can't selectively sue a few Freenet users, as you can't prove they had anything to do with the infringement you're claiming took place. We get up there in court and they start babbling off about piracy, my response is simply, "what proof do you have that I, specifically, infringed your copyrights?" The simple answer is, "we have none"; that's the way the network works. So they can either sue every single Freenet user en masse, knowing that they cannot prove a single case of infringement against any given individual, or they can pick off a few individuals and hope that they judges they get are so technically inept as to ignore the law and assume guilt without evidence.

That's the trick of it, really. Can you really win a lawsuit against someone without a single shred of evidence? If the RIAA can, it may hurt them far more than Freenet ever could, as they would be seen as an out-of-control lobby group which has managed to penetrate deep into the judicial system; completely disregarding the rule of law and forcing judges to do the same. It would prove once, and for all, that the RIAA is a ferocious beast which abuses copyright laws and manipulates the legal system to its own ends, and that it does so quite successfully.

Re:Question

[Jeremi]

So is it being used to write a New Constitution? No, it's being used for junk, absolute crap.

How do you know what it is being used for? Have you accessed every Freenet server in the world? Or are you just making an assumption?

Re:Question

[duffbeer703]

I hope nobody takes your brilliant analysis seriously.

Re:Question

[dasmegabyte]

Well yes. Freenet could be used to set up a kiddie porn ring. Which is why it's so important not to expect the internet to solve every investigation on the planet.

You know, there are insanely illegal things going on right now all around the world. Some are conducted over regular phone lines with code. Some are conducted right out in the open, and the people involved either don't care or they're relying on normal citizens not caring enough to act.

DUTY is important to freedom. I'm not talking about the sort of duty that reports the arab neighbour next door getting a package in the mail. I'm talking about calling the police when there's a drug deal going down outside your window, or stepping forward when somebody's being attacked. That's what catches criminals. You know, there have been many instances of people using open forums like Yahoogroups to trade child pornography. We've caught the ones stupid enough to do that. But nobody's policing each of the millions of web servers on the planet. Pornographers are hiding RIGHT NOW. Freenet isn't activating them to do anything that the smart ones aren't already doing, and it isn't going to make the dumb ones any harder to catch.

Freenet doesn't touch kids. It doesn't fly planes into buildings. It might supply nuclear secrets to third world nations, but it doesn't build bombs and it doesn't set them off. People did this shit WAY before the internet. Ever hear of Guy Fawkes? Charles Manson? Caligula? Goddamn Hitler?

All Freenet does is equalize things. Makes it possible for everybody to anonymously access and supply information. Maybe some of the pedophiles out there will post their journals online, and somebody will care enough to help them instead of forcing them into hiding.

At the end of the day, it's just information, and people still have the free will to do with it what they will. Some of them might beat their swords into ploughshares. Some of them might bear them into more dangerous weapons. Some people might just put on a Charlotte Church MP3 and masturbate furiously. People are strange. Freenet lets them tell us all about it.

Re:Question

[Qzukk]

>>There is a large quantity of child porn on Freenet.

>On what authority do you make this claim?

Good point. If everything is encrypted, how can one claim to know that there is a large quantity of child porn on it? Even if the poster put it there themselves, how would the poster know it was still there, since after all content expires and disappears if it is not in demand.

Of course, the poster could just be claiming a "well, it can be used like this, therefore it must be being used like this a lot." Which is a persuasive argument, except for the fact that it has fallen flat on its face, HARD, time and time again. Just think about this example yourself: Concealed handgun act in Texas... people were saying that this would increase the murder rate, since if everyone was packing a gun, robbers would just start shooting first and then looting the corpse instead of trying for the old stick'em'up routine. Didn't happen.

I think if I had to give a name to this logical failure, it would be "Reverse Application of Ockham's Razor"... the Razor says that the simplest cause is probably the correct one. It cannot be applied in reverse to indicate that the simplest outcome will occur.

Re:Question

[duffbeer703]

A couple of years ago /.'ers made the same pronouncements regarding Napster. Where is Napster now?

Re:Question

[jazman_777]

OK, I'm wrong, I made a sweeping assumption.

Re:Question

[Hao Wu]

Now, because of the way Freenet works, you have no idea what's being served from your computer at any given time -- and no way to find out since it's encrypted. So if you run Freenet on your computer, you may be hosting child porn. Can the government go after you for that? If it wants to it can. Are there good reasons to take the risk? That's up to you to decide.

You're an idiot.

I guess if I serve a pedophile his #2 Value Meal at the drive through, then I'm responsible for feeding his hunger so he can go commit crime all day....

Re:Question

[stwrtpj]

I have no idea how this is going to turn out. Freenet sounds like a great idea, but it's so obviously useful for such horrible uses, and there are other tools that handle most of the useful uses... I don't see it surviving legally (I mean that it'll be outlawed anywhere it'll be useful).

Freenet may very well serve as the ultimate litmus test of America's continuing commitment to the tenets of freedom and liberty on which its founding was based. You simply cannot have a truly free society unless you allow a means for truly anonymous speech. In the days before the information age, it was easier to be anonymous. Now it's next to impossible. Something like freenet makes it possible to have that anonymity again.

Will Freenet be used for objectionable actions (this being relative to the perceiver of course)? Of course it will. I will have to accept the fact that it will be used for kiddie porn, and that it will be used for neo-nazi hate speech. Liberty is all or nothing. You cannot have degrees of liberty, for that is not liberty at all, it is privilege, and privileges by their very nature can be taken away.

Re:Question

[Henry V .009]

Whoa, boy. Lay off the Jasmine tea.

Governments are unpredictable beasts. I am sure any number of them will outlaw freenet once it takes off. Others may prosecute you right now for it if they're out to get you and want something on you.

I don't know where you came across the poor, ill-informed, and stupid idea that most governments around the world operate by logic and reason. It just ain't so, Joe.

Now, if you really have the faith in all governments around the world that you seem to have, you've got bigger problems with idiocy than I have. I'm sure you'll grow out of it once you're a few years past puberty.

Re:Question

[ozric99]

In most of Europe today -- to pick one example -- you will serve jail time for questioning the holocaust.

I've lived and travelled in Europe all my life and have never heard of this. Can you give me a list of all the European countries that have this particular law?

Thanks.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, of course, who determines what speech is against the principles of free speech and democracy?

If I propose a bill which states that it's purpose is Defending Democracy, and then I attach an ammendment which gives thousands in subsidies to an old country club chum of mine, and you veto the bill, I'll claim that your real goal is to defeat democracy and that you don't care about the ammendment, not really, you nazi/communist/leftist/whatever.

The problem with efforts to curtail free speech is that is does not matter if the intents are noble or base. The problem is that the law is a tool and tools care not for your motivations. So if I can use a tool to curtail your speech for good, why not bad? And the fact is that most restrictions on free speech are not used to protect our person and properties, but rather to eliminate political dissent.

Take the wave of political correctness on campuses in the US in the last few years. Does anyone actually believe that we are protecting students by silencing non-PC speech? Just to cite one case -- the answer is no, this doesn't protect students, it allows the administrators to keep a collar on the students.

Goddamn it, when will people learn? There are only three things that keep us from being chattel of the state/corporations.

1) The benevolence of those institutions and the people who hold positions of power within them.
2) Our ability to engender change by making the facts and our views known to others.
3) Our willingness to rise up and fight if we are fucked with too hard.

If you rely on 1, you're a fool

Re:Question

[sploxx]

Yes, you have to hold a balance. This complicated, for sure, but maybe worth the effort. Yes, I'm also not sure that it is the best thing to do, but it stood in balance for now 50+ years here.

Let me correct you at one point:
> After all, I could say that German democracy sucks because it voted Hitler into power in the first place. And German free speech is terrible because it gave Hitler a platform. Would I be carted off to jail?
This was in the short period of democracy, the "Weimarer Republik" in the 1920-1930s.In that time, there were no such a law.

Re:Question

[sploxx]

Yes, you are right. If noone wants democracy and wants to fight for it, it will not last very long. But 1 is still a point, although I would it express in another form: "The fight for laws that deny others the possibility to exploit oneself."

Re:Question

[Henry V .009]

Germany, France, and Spain for sure. I believe Sweden and Switzerland as well. Don't know about any others.

Re:Question

[Rainer]

... get a court order for Freenet to give up IP addresses of users who have downloaded the client?

Each freenet client contains a webserver that allows others to download the freenet software.

Currently it is off by default but that is easy to change.

Re:Question

[TheZax]

If I say that you made a dumb mistake, that doesn't mean that I think you are dumb. When I said "You are being obtuse" , I meant your comment was obtuse. I have no idea if you are obtuse all the time, that is what I meant by don't take it personally.

In the post above you mentioned:

I did not conclude that anyone using Freenet could be sued

But in your first post you wrote:

...wouldn't they then be able to sue all users of Freenet as accessories to the crime?

While the RIAA can sue anyone they want, realistically I don't think their case would hold a drop of water if they just decided to sue anyone (or everyone) who uses freenet. And I am having a hard time believing that you truly believe that a lawsuit against any/all freenet users would stand a chance, or maybe you're just playing Devil's advocate, I can't tell.

Re:Question

[alexo]

> The US has been convicting on the theory of "if it's in your browser cache, you're guilty" for a few years now. This is all despite people protesting that they may have come across images accidently.

Source? Links? Proof?

Re:Question

[james_gnz]

Is having truly free speech where some people inevitably abuse that speech better than having speech regulated by governments who inevitably abuse their regulatory powers themselves? Participatory democracies don't have a great track record when it comes to allowing unpopular opinions to be heard. In most of Europe today -- to pick one example -- you will serve jail time for questioning the holocaust.

That worries you? Here in New Zealand not too long ago, someone was arrested for burning the national flag outside parliment buildings. Can you imagine that? Turns out there was some special piece of law just to protect the flag, or something. Who in their right mind would get so worked up about a useless bit of rag with some lines and stars on it? (If he had burnt a nice patchwork quilt or something, I might be able to understand.)

Re:Question

[Henry V .009]

They keep trying to write that into the Constitution over here. With the decline of religion and family, the rise of universal education through state schools, and the background election-time media barage of government propaganda, nationalism has a power that it has never had before. I find that dangerous.

guns dont kill people ...

[emptybody]

For the same reason that a gun is not sent to jail after a homocide, the tools (software and networks) cannot be held liable for the actions of the people that use them.

Now, let me have my new anonymous data transfer protocol already!!!

Re:guns dont kill people ...

[jd142]

True. But the people who use the guns can be held liable.

As an earlier poster pointed out, the problem with this is that a user's home computer could be providing kiddie porn. It's one thing to steal songs and software, but it's another thing to host pictures of some 7 year old getting raped. I don't want to even have the possibility of that happening, so I think I'll stick with another distributed client.

Legally, would host computers be analogous to the phone company -- a common carrier? If you use a telephone to plot to kill the president, the feds don't bust the phone company as part of the conspiracy. Just like they don't bust AOL for providing chat rooms for 35 year olds to pick up 12 year old English girls. Are people hosting files or parts of files like the phone company in the eyes of the law?

Re:guns dont kill people ...

[battjt]

The phone company provides taps, they don't hide what is happening on their networks. Joe

Re:guns dont kill people ...

[benjamindees]

Actually, I was shocked to notice this one day at the courthouse, the state/city does actually prosecute the *tools* used in the commission of a crime. That's how they can *confiscate* cars, guns, drugs, etc... by bringing charges against them. Better make sure your car hasn't done anything illegal, like speeding, or else it might find itself in car prison.

Re:guns dont kill people ...

[Sunda666]

aw dude, wtf is up with this anyway? does really anybody get a hard-on
seeing a 7 yr old getting raped? totally un-sexy IMHO. but whatever.

but, if they want to trade it trough the freenet, whatever. It is
encrypted and no one can "open" the data in my node (at least I hope so)
and find that it is kid porn or other illegal crap. It is what I downloaded
and used that matters. I would not give up the ability to anonymously trade
stuff to be sure that no one is "trading kid porn" trough my node.

BTW, the "kid porn traders" can trade it by at least 100 different methods
other than freenet, so, whats the point... And I don't give a rat's ass
about this sick fuckers either.

I think initiatives like freenet are the response of geeks to some nastyness
from the USA (and other) governments, like the patriot act and crap like that.
Human beings are complex beasts and hate being observed in their intimacy, and
it goes for a lot of shit we download off the internet. So, there will be a
spyware/encryption war until the government totally outlaws encryption and
we are all fucked.

Mind ya, I say this stuff but I'm not even affected by this things... In this
country the piracy runs free and no one gives a shit, you can buy rips of
movies and cds on the street for less than 2 USD. Same goes for software. Anti-piracy
stuff is just starting here these days, but law enforcement and courts have a lot
of more important stuff to deal with than kids using pirated windoze.

cheers.

Re:guns dont kill people ...

[1029]

Right. Instead guns are deemed "evil" and are banned left and right after a person uses it in an action that harms another person. So by your example we should fully expect P2P software to be banned the first time some sicko puts kiddie porn into the system. Yay for mob rule!

Re:guns dont kill people ...

[Loki_1929]

"As an earlier poster pointed out, the problem with this is that a user's home computer could be providing kiddie porn. It's one thing to steal songs and software, but it's another thing to host pictures of some 7 year old getting raped. I don't want to even have the possibility of that happening, "

Then why do you continue to pay your ISP? The internet houses and makes possible the mass distribution of such material. You claim such a moral high ground, yet you fail to see that it is the internet itself which facilitates providing child pornography. If you truly believe in this so strongly, why don't you cancel your ISP account, encourage others to do the same, and lobby government for laws outlawing the internet? What you've displayed is simply an extension of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). People want more prisons, but not near their homes. People want more homeless shelters, but not near their homes. You don't mind the global information network that carries child pornography, but as soon as it hits a bit too close for home in the form of Freenet, you're all up in arms. I won't even get into the argument about going after the actual abusers, rather than the mentally ill folks who seek this type of material. But I will say that if hosting something which sickens me is the price for allowing a Chinese dissident to say what they think without being shot, then so be it.

"Are people hosting files or parts of files like the phone company in the eyes of the law?"

Which files are you hosting? Which parts of which files are you hosting? Chances are, unless you know a whole lot about computers and a decent bit about the design of Freenet and how to tweak it, you probably couldn't figure it out if I held a gun to your head. Even so, that's looking far too far ahead. Finding which files or parts of files are actually hosted on your computer is hard enough, but finding them on someone else's computer is impossible according to the intended design of Freenet. Assuming you had a complete setup of packet sniffers and such, you might be able to see which nodes have specific files or parts of files passing through them, but you would still have no evidence that the files are actually hosted on those computers. That's the beauty of Freenet; it's a double-blind system where no one knows where the files came from and no one knows where they went. Providing any evidence for even a search warrant would seem virtually impossible to me. Putting someone in jail over it appears, on its face, completely impossible. Quite frankly, the prosecution's case would be built from supposition, statistical probabilities, and highly technical data that even most /.'ers wouldn't understand. How anyone can claim proof beyond a reasonable doubt of wrongdoing or intent in such a situation is quite far beyond me. I certainly couldn't put someone in jail based on a bunch of statistics. What would that look like? "Well, there is a 72.8% chance that 10% or more from files A, D, F, and L came from the defendant's computer."

"they don't bust AOL for providing chat rooms for 35 year olds to pick up 12 year old English girls."

No, they don't; but maybe they should have a word with the parents of a 12 year old girl who are so disinterested in her that she can chat with, email, and exchange postal letters with an older man for an entire year without them noticing. With her spending 11 hours a day on the computer, which was in the kitchen, you just have to wonder how in the hell they had no clue what was going on. Somehow, I doubt you'll find too many 12 year olds spending 11 hours a day checking out beanie babies on eBay, or even reading /. Another thing is the accusation you leveled. Whether you realized it or not, you pretty much accused him of purposely seeking and "grooming" a 12 year old girl in chat rooms and then kidnapping her from her home. It must be nice to be omniscient, but those of us who aren't are stuck with confl

Re:guns dont kill people ...

[femto]

I would argue that distribution of a picture of a 7 year old being raped isn't the actual crime. The crime is:

1. Raping the 7 year old
2. Possibly the act of enjoying the picture of the 7 year old being raped.

If the actual distribution (and distribution *ONLY*) was wrong, wouldn't it be wrong to distribute such a picture for use as evidence against the rapist?

I can see that distribution of the picture could have positive effects.

1. It alerts society that 7 year olds are being raped, so it can be stopped.
2. It provides evidence, increasing the chances of a particular offender being caught.

Yes, a picture of a 7 year old being raped is *repulsive*. At the same time, isn't blocking that picture from view because it repulses you, while allowing the 7 year old to be raped, a selfish act pandering to your own sensibilities? To put it in politically correct terms, it is like banning pictures of the Jewish holocaust because the act was so horrible. Yet there are museums full of holocaust pictures so we remember.

Maybe one could argue that the rape was soley motivated by the desire to distribute a picture of it and without the picture the rape would not have occured? That argument strikes me as tenuous, and my response is "Back up your argument with evidence". How would you get that evidence? One way is to use Freenet to interview those who rape 7 years olds to find out their motivations. One can then address the real cause of the problem.

I don't see child pornography as an argument against Freenet.

Re:guns dont kill people ...

[stwrtpj]

As an earlier poster pointed out, the problem with this is that a user's home computer could be providing kiddie porn. It's one thing to steal songs and software, but it's another thing to host pictures of some 7 year old getting raped. I don't want to even have the possibility of that happening, so I think I'll stick with another distributed client.

Perhaps the biggest freedom of Freenet is the freedom not to use it.

Re:guns dont kill people ...

[Jarth]

Hmm, that's a good one.
So after http:// telnet:// ftp:// https:// there is freenet:// ???
Would be really nice :)

Re:guns dont kill people ...

[dfn5]

guns dont kill people...

bullets do

Different purposes

[Anonymous Coward]

Freenet's primary goal is privacy for users.

Re:Different purposes

[aztechClanIII]

yes, privacy is *very* good. Don't get me wrong. It just seems like this type of network is only for people who can run the client 24x7 (the more you run it the faster it goes). There must be some way to speed up the connection process so that mobile users can have quicker access to freenet content. It would be nice if mobile users could have a "buddy node" that would always be 24x7 that they could connect to in order to get online with more nodes faster. Perhaps 2 types of clients are needed? ahhh, nevermind. this project is slated for the far-reaching future when no one can do anything anymore. Maybe then, everyone will run their nodes 24x7 "for the cause". For now, I'll just stick with bit-torrent. ~

Re:Different purposes

[cayenne8]

Well, not so much running the client...which is your web browser, but, you do get better if you run the server part 24x7....and with broadband, why turn it off?

Re:Different purposes

[aztechClanIII]

haha, forgot the client was web browser :) nice. To answer your question: mobile users, that's why. There's an increasing amount of them, and I happen to be one. I have to drag my laptop to work everyday, and then drag it back home at night. While I'm at work, I get to take advantage of a very fast connection, at home I only have a cable modem uplink. In either case, my laptop is hardly on 24x7 even though it is a killer multimedia machine (P4-mobile 1.8ghz, with 512MB ram, 60gig HD, and g-force4 mobile gfx). Does freenet support resuming downloads? Downloading from multiple sources? Node address caching for quick-re-connect? These are all features that I need, and last I checked, freenet doesn't got 'em. HTTP for downloads? what a bunch of crapola. ~

Re:Different purposes

[Joe Tie.]

and with broadband, why turn it off?

The Java VM sucking up my tiny amount of free memory :{

NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[BassZlat]

Or close to it.

I'm one of the main developers for freenet (see zab_ on the opn irc logs the cvs logs)

When 60% of the code (measured in locs) is workarounds for jvm bugs, you know you have problems.

If the sun QA dept. had pulled their act together, this release would have happend at least a month ago.

zab

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[McDutchie]

So why hadn't you guys written it in C as a portable un*x application? It can be compiled and run on practically anything, even on Windows under cygwin.

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[mhesseltine]

Ok, one other poster suggested C and making a portable build. I would suggest something like Python. Look at the success of Bittorrent, for example. It runs on all the major platforms, it's consistent in its usage on all platforms, and Bram only really has to maintain one branch of code.

Any particular reason that it couldn't be ported over?

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[jo42]

That is why Java must die.

Not only do you have to concern yourself with bugs in the underlying platform, in addition to your own code, but the stupid shite JVM/JRE. Forkin' morons.

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[*weasel]

and yet whenever i try to tell people in the 'woe is java because of MS' threads that java has its own problems - i get called an MS plant and troll.

i'm just a developer who's run into these kinds of things too, and java left a damn sour taste in my mouth.

it's portable ansi C for me.

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, it's gotten to the point where a Python application is far more portable than a Java program, not to mention it's faster to write!

C/C++ are good tools too but again, not as portable, longer development time, harder to debug, etc.

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Merk]

Last time the Freenet topic came up on Slashdot I asked about alternative platforms. I was told that the Java implementation is the reference implementation, but that other ones were possible. If 60% of the code is workarounds for JVM bugs, then is it really any use as a reference??

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[DogIsMyCoprocessor]

That's true for java.nio on 1.4.0, but isn't for 1.4.1 and later, at least in my experience.

And they aren't "jvm bugs", they are library bugs.

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Hard_Code]

It's very interesting to hear that freenet is built on Java. I had been looking forward to NIO, do you have any links or references to these "bugs"? Where are these irc/cvs logs?

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[alext]

Hmmm... really?

Given that the old IO APIs were rewritten to sit on top of NIO, I'd expect NIO to be breaking all those existing applications that use java.io. But that's not happening.

Do you have links to the relevant bug reports?

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Hard_Code]

nevermind, found it

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[daveq]

I've never heard this claim, and I doubt Sun would be daring enough to actually do such a thing. Can you point me to where it says this in the official documentation?

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Orasis]

No, the old IO apis were not re-written to run on top of NIO. NIO is a whole new can of worms/bugs to be ironed out.

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Cyno]

Perhaps that's a good reason not to write the damned thing in java, but I'm sure you geniuses know what you're doing.

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

no... noo!! java is bad?! my world is falling apart!

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Tom7]

One nice thing about it being written in Java is that end-users don't have to worry as much about buffer overflows and other exploits. That's pretty important for this kind of application.

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Tom7]

C programmers have to worry about bugs in their applications, c library, the compiler, assembler, operating system, and hardware. Sure, it's great to get the size of code you need to rely on down, but the idea of Java is to get the common bugs (in the platform) ironed out once for everyone. And by pushing much of the complexity into the platform, the hope is that application level bugs will be fewer.

There are probably better ways to do it, but I don't think that the C paradigm is a particularly good example of a successful way to create bug-free software!

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Kunta Kinte]

NIO - the buggiest api ever. (Score:5, Interesting)
...
When 60% of the code (measured in locs) is workarounds for jvm bugs, you know you have problems.
...

+5, Interesting. No proof, no examples. In fact, his only number mentioned is an unverified stat of a very weak metric ( lines of code ). What does he consider a bug?

We are suppose to pour over open irc network logs to check out that assertion? Heck, we don't even read linked articles half the time.

By the way, NIO was introduced in 1.4, IIRC, and is still relatively *new*. Did someone hold a gun to their heads and have them use NIO, ie. Why rush to NIO?

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing: My experience has been that the more blame a developer lays on the JVM, the crappier their coding is. Let's all have a look-see at the source shall we? Much more accurate than blindly accepting a "60% of the code..." statement.

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Wraithlyn]

Oh man... tell me about it. Coding in Java always feels like the old cartoon where every leak you plug, a brand new one springs up for no reason.

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[alext]

Conscious as I am of the incomparable force of bald assertion in /. debates, I venture to direct the attention of all those interested to the API linked in my earlier post.

Take a look at methods such as getChannel() on stream implementation classes such as FileInputStream.

Now recall that channels are part of NIO and did not exist prior to 1.4. A reasonable deduction is that the implementation of IO has changed to use NIO.

Though reasonable, I cannot claim to have made it since it appears in the book "JDK 1.4 Tutorial". Those possessing sufficient literary stamina and dedication to reach page 2 will be rewarded with the following:

"The New I/O API model coexists peacefully with the original I/O libraries from the java.io package. In fact, to a substantial degree, the original I/O libraries have been rewritten to take advantage of the New I/O API."

For what it's worth (and I appreciate that this may be very little) my experience is that since 1.4, java.io socket calls are throwing additional run-time exceptions, including more descriptive variants of IOException. This, to me, indicates that revised mechanisms are in operation beneath the covers.

I trust that this conclusion will not be too shocking to those of delicate disposition.

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

try writing something big, and you'll see for yourself.

and since you're too lazy to even read articles, you can go fawck yourself

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely under the 'free software theory' all that effort invested in cirumventing bugs should have been directed to improving one of the free VMs until it could run Freenet???

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, I've been writing C code for 5+ years now and I've never had a problem with the assembler, operating system, or hardware. I have had two problems with the compiler, which were ICEs, and were immediately resolved by "use -O2 instead of -O3" and "use -g instead -ggdb3" respectively.

For comparison, I coded in Java for 4 months (about a year ago) and ran across 2 bugs in the JRE and one in rmic.

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mind adding a "I only want to share MP3's" option to Freenet, so those of us who want to pirate music without the possibility of hosting child porn can?

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then, assuming everyone told the truth (even though this is Slashdot), the logical conclusion is that Sun engineers assumed that implementing the old IO APIs on top of NIO would be sufficient testing, but all they accomplished was to debug the specific NIO uses exercised by the old APIs... In other words, instead of thinking the design through before implementation, they just coded NIO and then debugged it in a single use case. Standard engineering practice for many Java projects, but not good enough for system software.

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

The design of freenet makes this impossible. This is the very reason why it's safe for you to share MP3s on freenet, and not safe on any other P2P network.

If you were able to filter out child porn, the courts could also make you responsible for filtering out copyrighted MP3s.

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Joseph Vigneau]

Why rush to NIO?

Because it solves a lot of scalability problems for applications that use lots of files/sockets/etc. Before NIO, and application (like a web server) would have to spawn a thread for each connection it is servicing. If you have a web server that is serving 100 simultaneous clients (or Freenet, which makes many connections to neighboring nodes), you've got to create a thread for each one. That can be very expensive on some platforms. Also, those threads are almost always waiting for data to be read from or sent to the socket/file.

One of the features of NIO is the concept of "selectors", which is very similar to the POSIX select() call. In other words, instead of creating a thread for each connection, an application can register channels with the selector, and in a loop, ask the selector for the list of channels that are ready for I/O. As a result, far fewer threads are needed to handle the I/O for many more connections.

See this for more information.

Re:NIO - the buggiest api ever.

[Tom7]

Yeah, I agree that the C platform is more stable than Java's, for sure. They also have the benefit of 40+ years. I'm just saying that the idea of pushing common code into a platform and then just debugging it once is a reasonably sound one.

opensource is not evil...

[pauly_thumbs]

You are evil ... yes... you!

admit it ... ok?

Hrm...

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone bothers to download this, make sure to let us all know if the UI is actually usable now. Mmkay?

Re:Hrm...

[captredballs]

You mean your web browser's UI? I'd recommend mozilla, konqueror, opera, or internet explorer. If you have trouble with any of these I'd recommend this book. This page might also be useful.

Searching on freenet?

[pv2b]

As far as I've understood, freenet is designed to be somewhere where you can access content, as long as somebody has given you the exact address to the file.

The problem I see here, is that there are no easy ways to search for content, except for out-of-band stuff like the web or e-mail, which mostly defeats the entire concept.

What Freenet needs in order to be a viable platform for not only publishing content anonymously, but also for finding it, is a search mechanism built into freenet. Before that happens, there is no way that it will become any popular with the file sharing masses -- it's just too find to hard something to download.

Re:Searching on freenet?

[bersl2]

When you install Freenet, on the start page (http://127.0.0.1:8888 by default) are several links to index pages. Most people writing freenet sites submit a link to their own site, along with a description. While one cannot directly search for content, most freesites have a definite topic. I consider this "good enough," at least at this size of network.

Re:Searching on freenet?

[pv2b]

Note, for the length of this post I am assuming that these index pages are human-maintained. It was a while since I last used freenet. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Does the fact that the indices are maintained by humans not create a form of bias in the network?

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment. Let's say I want to use freenet to distribute kitty porn.

Now, the index maintainer will not like this, and will refuse to allow the submission.

This leaves the index maintainer with having to draw a line, of where acceptable and unacceptable content lies, and effectively allows the supression of "evil" web pages, which is precisely what we want to prevent.

A machine of today has no potential for ethical judgement, and neither should it. Therefore, it is the prime method for creating an index that is completely unbiased.

This means that freenet today effectively does not provide completely anonymous free speech, unless you're willing to take the risk of distributing the key to your freesite out-of-band, via the web for example.

This, in essense, leaves me unable to post my kitty porn on freenet without exposing my identity.

(Substitute "kitty porn" with whatever you like or hate.)

Re:Searching on freenet?

[tuba_dude]

When I last used freenet (three or four months ago), there were a few portals/freenet-spiders linked in the main UI. They've got a whole lot of links and information. I managed to find a copy of the Matrix pretty quickly (less than an hour of random link clicking), and the download speeds were reasonable, just a bit slower than other p2p networks. Sometimes it is hard to find stuff, but it's not painfully difficult, you just have to be patient on your first few outings.

Re:Searching on freenet?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should think freenet more like a transport mechanism / platform than a file sharing application.

Freenet is more like special HTTP / FTP transport than a gnutella or similar p2p networks.

How can you find anything in web? Can you find warez-ftp servers?

There's no seach for HTTP ;( You just have to index the pages / use someone elses indexed pages / follos enough links or know where to find them.

Because freenet is a platform and can store any data, you can use special programs (like frost - http://jtcfrost.sf.net) to create 'newsgroups' and share files. You can search the files in that program. Every file that has been shared with that program can be searched, if you have joined the approppriate groups.

Freenet is like a net in the net. You have to provide similar services to the freenet and you can use it (more or less) the same way you use Internet today - with internet-enabled applications.

Re:Searching on freenet?

[Dave2 Wickham]

When I was last using Freenet, the "directories" had links to everything - on some of the less-favourable entries one of the editors had put their personal stance that it made them feel sick, but they still linked to it.

And that made no sense :/.

Re:Searching on freenet?

[pv2b]

Interesting little program. I'm going to have to take a closer look at it.

Thanks for pointing me at it.

Re:Searching on freenet?

[42forty-two42]

Frost

Re:Searching on freenet?

[pv2b]

It's good that there are some people out there who are willing to drop their personal judgement of information in order not to censor it, but the question is whether we can rely on them to always be this impartial.

For all we know, them linking to kitty porn to appear impartial may be just a smokescreen hiding that they don't link to Falun Gong information, or whatever.

I was told about frost earlier, which allows you to anonymously post messages on freenet for all to see.

With this capability, the possibility of bias is gone, which needless to say is a good thing, so my argument that freenet is inherently biased, effectively falls down there. :-)

Re:Searching on freenet?

[Dynedain]

Isn't that how the wwww (and the internet in general) started?

From my little bit of usage of freenet, it seems to me that the analogy of it being a distributed, encrypted www is better than calling it a p2p filesharing app.

Re:Searching on freenet?

[jez9999]

I have to agree with the grandparent poster. Freenet may be similar to HTTP, but it is *NOT* HTTP, and in fact, if you look at the specification, it's *NOTHING* like HTTP. It's perfectly possible that a search function be added to the protocol, in the same way that content is requested over Freenet, ie. A search request is forwarded over x levels of node, and the results sent back to you. The only problem I could see would be a Gnutella-like CPU/bandwidth resource problem, because of the sheer volume of searches. Maybe that's why they haven't implemented it.

Re:Searching on freenet?

[dasmegabyte]

Well, that's sort of wrong.

In freenet, you are ALWAYS searching. You're searching for a KEY, that LOOKS like a URL but doesn't have any information about where it's stored, that translates to a piece of data. When you make a request, you tell your fellow clients what you're looking for, and they either return it, or keep looking for you.

The problem with "keyword" searching over freenet is that somebody, somewhere has to index everything -- make a list of keywords, associate them by "URL," etc. On the internet, the indexing is performed by spiders that work for massive database engines. On Freenet, there's not really any way to perform indexing without exposing the data inside keys being passed back and forth.

To get around this, applications have been written to publish indexes of the data to common KEYs (like "INDEX07162003"), so you can download them and maintain a search engine on your own PC. One such application is Frost. They work pretty damned well.

In the early days of freenet, OFF freenet spiders created search engines, but these are by nature not anonymous -- and they were kind of crap. There was also some experimentation with english language keys -- eg, KSK@GPL.txt -- but the problem was that people were uploading FALSE data on top of what was supposed to be there. So most freenet content is now published using a private/public key system, so only change requests from the initial producer are honored.

The result is this system which works in the exact opposite way of the regular internet. On the regular internet, the client can only handle static content, so manipulation is handled by the server. On Freenet, the content on the server is static, so manipulation is handled by the client. You don't get the full understanding of how strange this is until you've used some of the funkee freenet messaging systems.

Re:Searching on freenet?

[Cyno]

Have you ever used freenet? Why are commenting?

You clearly have NO CLUE. Because of the encrypted design of the system freenet can easily store data. And the most important and widely used data will be the easiest to obtain. This means if you want to search for movies, for example, lots of them will be available because movies are popular. And what is even better than that is you don't have to "search" for them anymore. With freenet they have their own website, linked off the main indexes if they are popular, and will let you download the content from the P2P directly off their website. No more searching for movies. Just select what you want from the lists.

If you want a specific file then perhaps an alternative P2P network would be good for you. But if all you want is a divx rip of some popular movies its the easiest thing in the world.

What comes into question is not the performance of the network but its security and anonymity.

Re:Searching on freenet?

[jimmcq]

I agree... Until Joe Sixpack can do a general Freenet search for "Metallica MP3" and have results returned he isn't going to bother using it.

(My last post ended up in the wrong thread, D'Oh!)

Re:Searching on freenet?

[sevensharpnine]

What Freenet needs in order to be a viable platform for not only publishing content anonymously, but also for finding it, is a search mechanism built into freenet. Before that happens, there is no way that it will become any popular with the file sharing masses -- it's just too find to hard something to download.

Freenet isn't a napster clone. It's a technology that allows people to bypass draconian laws against sharing information. Freenet allows repressed people a means to communicate without a gov't monitoring their speech. Freenet makes it impossible to place distrubution restrictions on information that a gov't or private interest doesn't want public. Freenet allows anonymous mirroring and caching of content beyond what any internation body could ever hope to control. Freenet is not a product-awareness funded positively-branded real-time-sharework P2P+.v2 media library creator for the latest MTV garbage.

Re:Searching on freenet?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I've understood, freenet is designed to be somewhere where you can access content, as long as somebody has given you the exact address to the file.

The problem I see here, is that there are no easy ways to search for content, except for out-of-band stuff like the web or e-mail, which mostly defeats the entire concept.

There are many ways to get to know keys, several of the index pages on Freenet are a good start. A number of them are generated automatically by crawlers.

Other often used channels are Freenet-based message board Frost and Invisible IRC aka IIP which provides anonymous IRC. Contrary to Freenet, IIP is very quick and interactive - but only for very short messages.

There is a full-text index to Freenet. Definitely out of band (insecure http), so use an anonymous proxy to visit it. Try the JAP proxy for example; powerful concept and acceptable performance.

There's also work being done on making a full text search engine available via HTTP over IIP, which ultimately could be seamlessly accessible from your Freenet client. (Hope to be able to announce a link to this soon.)

A project like Freenet will never be fully done of course. But keeping its goals in mind, it's already doing quite a fair job I think. Performance and usability should and will improve of course, but the level of privacy it offers is already outweighing these rawer edges for a significant user group.

Re:Searching on freenet?

[Anonymous Coward]

...a general Freenet search for "Metallica MP3" and have results returned...

There you are, 79 results.

Anything else?

Re:Searching on freenet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, because that's really not what Freenet is for. If anything, the legit users of Freenet are irritated by all the porn and MP3s because it makes the good stuff harder to get.

Re:Searching on freenet?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong asshole!

Re:Searching on freenet?

[bersl2]

This is true, that the maintainer of the index site is the one responsible for deciding the content. However, the main index sites are very permissive.

For instance, the author of The Freedom Engine currently has a medium-length treatise on the issue of child porn sites as an entry page.

An excerpt: "Whilst I intensely dislike some of the freesites I link to, whether they be child abuse related or otherwise, my goal is to treat them all as fairly as possible."

English site?

[Anonymous Coward]

I may be a fool but I haven't found the English homepage for this project yet, could some kind soul or karma-whore please post it.

Re:English site?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not karma whoring if you're an Anonymous Coward.

Mirror?

[jason0000042]

I keep meaning to dl and install FreeNet when there isn't a /. story running about it. But I keep forgetting. Is there a mirror anywhere for when the web-install server gets /.ed?

Re:Mirror?

[42forty-two42]

Ask someone for a distribution servlet link. The IRC channel is #freenet on irc.freenode.net.

Re:Mirror?

[essdodson]

It's hosted on SourceForge. SourceForge does fairly well. Besides, it's only 2MB

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is really great that there are initiatives like this one out there. I really appreciate all the hard work these programmers have put into their product. Information (and music, and software) wants to be free! I hope none of you programmers or musicians reading this mind terribly that I am pirating your stuff and taking food off your table. Nothing personal, man. Now, back to stealing music and downloading warez...

Lack of Content

[TheAmazingGoat]

The biggest issue I had with Freenet was not reliability or the fact that I might be sharing kiddy porn, but the fact that THERE WERE NO GOOD KEY INDEXes. Seriously, do a search on Google and the only ones you find are down or haven't been updated in two years. It's the big Catch-22; I won't use it 'til there's something to look at, but there won't be anything to look at until somebody uses it.

Re:Lack of Content

[Anonymous Coward]

This is inherent in the way freenet works. The default interface links to 4 "gateway" sights. These sights link to anyone that wants to submit their sight. This does mean you are dependent on someone to link to you. However sense it doesn't require a server to put up content, anyone can easily make their own index.

Re:Lack of Content

[42forty-two42]

Look on freenet itself - there are quite a few good ones on freenet itself.

Re:Lack of Content

[Famatra]

There is more and more content being put on. Several people are uploading many books and content trying to make an online Freenet Public Library.

Also Freenet can compliment ordinary websites. If you have to host a large file, or other files mp3s etc, on say a geocities website with limited bandwidth why not link the files via freenet? Its like your own unlimited hard drive!

Its a good program, download it now and insert content and help it grow.

Re:Lack of Content

[jimmcq]

I agree... Until Joe Sixpack can do a general Freenet search for "Metallica MP3" and have results returned he isn't going to bother using it.

New upgrades work well

[Realistic_Dragon]

I have been running a node with 10k down, 5k up and a 1gb store forever now (niced at -15), and the new version of the software has made a huge difference.

No longer is my CPU at 100% all the time - before when I got put in seednodes I was flatlined, even with the thing niced to -18. Now it's not even noticable.

Bandwidth usage also seems to be more steady, rather than spiking every now and again it holds steady at one number. (~85-90% of allocation.)

Responsiveness has increased slightly - it's about what you would expect from a 56k modem connection.

Run one in the background for a few days - you won't notice it, really. The more people running these things the better, even if they have no use for the system yet and throttle it right back. (10/5 on DSL adds less than 1ms to my ping on ut2k3.)

Re:New upgrades work well

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I looked it was this painful, clunky, Java ridden piece of shit. I downloaded KazaaLite and its just an exe that you run. Whats the deal with Freenet? Can't they write it in C as just one exe? MAME doesn't have a problem, and that emulates multiple CPUS on multiple platforms (OS/CPU) etc. Which part of the system, exactly, requires all the slack?

Re:New upgrades work well

[N7DR]

Well, I just hope that it doesn't crash. All recent versions (but not versions from about more than six months ago) have gone down within the first 24 hours or so. Unfortunately, the crash mode consists of the light on my hard drive staying locked on for about ten minutes, during which time I can do nothing at all on my machine. (I suspect that this means that it is simply eating all my swap space, and keeps going until it has used it all.)

I did report the problem, and submitted some detailed info that I was asked for, but no one ever got back to me to tell me if they found and fixed the problem.

Anyway, I just downloaded the release, so let's see what happens. It sure would be nice if it was both as stable as old versions and as usable as newer ones.

Re:New upgrades work well

[Famatra]

Seeing how you like to use anonymous coward, I think freenet fits your style quite well ;).

Anyway, if you want a C implementation why not do it yourself? It's opensource, so get cracking. And also look up "Entropy" + Freenet i think its also an open source C version of Freenet.

Re:New upgrades work well

[muldrake]

I've mirrored some normal web content to Freenet . This freesite (only available if running Freenet) is a mirror of http://www.operatingthetan.com, my normal website on Keith Henson v. Scientology.

My major gripe with Freenet to this date is while it is marketed toward "weblike" applications, it often loses content more than a click or so in (note the front page of my freesite there works almost perfectly but if you click in the performance is significantly degraded).

I think its killer app might ultimately be the distribution of large 'splitfiles' with FEC encoding. I don't want to nuke Freenet right now by suggesting downloading huge pirate AVIs, but if you find one and try it, you'll see what I mean.

--
http://buttersquash.net Home of the Buttersquash Conspiracy

Re:New upgrades work well

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anyway, if you want a C implementation why not do it yourself?"

I've got a job, thanks!

Did anyone else notice how many cookies RIAA sends

[pecosdave]

just to read that article? I think they're starting their monitoring from their own site. I rejected them all, but I'm thinking about going back to read the content. If those cookies are trackable through ad sites..........

Re:Huzzah!

[Abcd1234]

Ahhh, the now-infamous kiddy-porn rhetoric. I know you're probably joking, but this always comes up... "Oh no, private communications! But, now they'll distribute kiddy-porn! Think of the children! Oh god, won't someone please think of the children!" Puhlease... yes, something like this will be used for illegal means. So does the US postal service, or PGP for that matter. Does that make it any less useful? No.

The fact is, the minute you guarantee anonymity (something which, IMHO, is required for free speech... after all, what's the point of free speech if you're afraid to exercise that right?), people will abuse it. However, if you truly believe in the right to free speech, you must be willing to take the good with the bad. Anyone who suggests anything else doesn't truly believe in free speech.

Weak analogies

[felonious]

Matt Oppenheim: An individual who illegally distributes music on a peer-to-peer network has less of an expectation of privacy than a bank robber wearing a mask when holding up a teller. And, just as the bank robber cannot be heard to complain when the guard pulls off his mask, an infringer on a P2P network cannot complain. The bank robber can at least claim that until his mask is pulled off, nobody knows who he is.

I'll tell you what. If I'm robbing a bank and someone tries to pull of my mask they're getting shot.

Truth be known his comment gives us all a nice hint on how to further anonymize ourselves. What happens when the guard pulls off the mask and you have panty hose pulled over your head? Clean ones...He still can't indentify you...plus if you shoot him he can never tell anyone.

So today's lesson is if the guard/RIAA tries to pull back the mask/masque to make you identifiable then you must shoot to kill and leave no witness behind.

Thank you for playing

Re:Weak analogies

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not sure why this was modded as funny, this is exactly what has to happen. The RIAA is not going to quit until either you or them are dead.

The Arms Race Begins

[Foofoobar]

As it has been stated before, this is nothing more than an arms race with each side escalating the threat and the defense with each move. The problem howver is that the RIAA is fighting against ALOT of techies and as such, not just in the US but worldwide. Even if they manage to pass laws against it in the US, people will still be developing tools to bypass in and will host them on international servers.

The sooner they discover they are fighting a losing battle and just accept it and look for a better marketing scheme, the better.

Re:The Arms Race Begins

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the hosts file Kazaa lite supplies. Talk about war!! My God, someone has some giant balls to declare all these sites as do-not-connect-to.

Re:The Arms Race Begins

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is a war, then I find it interesting that the RIAA are on the same side as the Chinese government. Says a lot about the RIAA.

Re:The Arms Race Begins

[AintTooProudToBeg]

The sooner they discover they are fighting a losing battle and just accept it and look for a better marketing scheme, the better.

You sound like the Iraqi information minister!

Re:The Arms Race Begins

[Anonymous Coward]

... RIAA is fighting against ALOT of techies and...

That'll be "A LOT" for the non-linguistically challenged among us.

Mark my words:

[Istealmymusic]

Freenet will never amount to anything.

Its simply not efficient. I want to download music, new releases, and movies -- I don't need encryption. I don't need to store unknown files in an encrypted cache. I don't need the rediculously slow speed Freenet offers.

Enter China. They have TriangleBoy. An array of proxies available not behind the Great Firewall. Chinese dissidents can use these anonymous proxies to do publish and consume information. Freenet only inhibits this. Freenet's lack of performance is a major flaw. US proxies are fast, even when trans-Atlantic. Its tried and true tested technology; innovation is welcome, but Freenet is nothing.

Many P2P programs have been developed in shorter timeframes than since all the hype about Freenet began to now. EarthStation5. Piolet. Blubster. RockItNet. Heck, even Kazaa K++'s modifications to Kazaa. Although many of these are not totally anonymous, ES5 is. Check out the ES5 forums (warning: registration required), you'll find a list of tons of anonymous and transparent proxies to use with ES5.

AIM can use proxies too. So can ICQ. SOCKS5, HTTP. Even FTP, HTTP, Internet Explorer, etc. Many proxies also support SSL. For chatting dissident, one can do SSL over IRC.

Freenet is dead.

Re:Mark my words:

[comnenos]

You may not need encryption now, but what if somebody (The RIAAA, the government) wants to start tracking what you are doing. In that case, you'll start feeling a lot better about a network where no on can tell who published what, and who downloaded what. All nodes might be requesting something for themselves, or just forwarding someone else's request.

If you think K++ is going to cut it, you're in for a bit of a surprise. That isn't going to hide you're ip address because of the very way that network is designed. When it comes time to download/upload something it will go straight from your computer to their computer and they'll know who you are.

As for SOCKS proxies, etc, those aren't decentralized. If you're in a situation where a few machines are serving many people, then it's easy to take them out. Not too mention who will pay for the bandwidth of enough proxies for everyone in the world. You need a self-supporting system.

IRC over SSL would only protect you from people in the middle. However if you connect to bad guy, they'll know who you are.

There's a lot to making a network anonymous, and I only know a part of it. I do know though, that freenet works fairly well and was actually designed with the goal of anonymity in the first place.

Re:Mark my words:

[Dr Reducto]

"Freenet is dead"

Please don't say that. The "BSD is Dying" Trolls are looking to expand their operations.

Re:Mark my words:

[Anonymous Coward]

and you, are a stupid troll

Re:Mark my words:

[dasmegabyte]

Yes, but here's the problem with ALL of these:
1) They are not ubiquitous
2) They are not general purpose
3) They are not anonymous

Who needs encryption? You fucking do. Now that companies are going after traders directly, anybody who trades any files illegally is going to need plausible deniability. ANYBODY. If you get the latest Apalachian Stomp disc, you're breaking the law. This is fine as long as the people who have the legal ability to fine or imprison you are willing to ignore your activities, or can't prove you did them.

They aren't. And they can.

So everybody needs encryption (UBIQUITOUS) for trading every type of file (GENERAL PURPOSE), and still remain ANONYMOUS.

If you use a proxy, they know YOU used a proxy. If you use SSL, they know YOU used SSL. If you used Freenet...who knows what you did!

And your speed argument is bullshit...My cable line is limited to 256 kbit, and i can download from Freenet just as fast, and usually faster, than I do from most other P2P apps. Besides, the fastest conceivable rate that your hard drive can POSSIBLY save data is 133 meg/second. With processors at 3.2 GHz, that leaves 24 clock cycles per byte to handle encryption, which should be plenty.

I think what YOU saw was the slowness of any new node on the system. It's gotten MUCH better in the last three months. Give it a try, before Hillary Rosen calls.

Re:Mark my words:

[Anonymous Coward]

It has useful content, it serves a purpose, and it is reasonably fast given what is being done. There are *much* faster implementations in the works, btw. The slo execution speed is currently due to Java and the current routing algorithm which is being phased out.

pfft..

[SophtwareSlump]

I played with freenet for about 6 hours one weekend and it just wasn't doing it for me. There was no central search function and a lot of sites with indexes weren't responding. I'm not saying that the technology behind the scenes isn't top notch, but the user interface leaves a lot to be desired if it's aiming for the mainstream or even just a blip below. It was actually infuriating me.

Summary of my experience: I found it nearly impossible to use and it was giving me massive Gopher flashbacks.

Re:pfft..

[Tumbleweed]

> I found it nearly impossible to use and it was giving me massive Gopher flashbacks

Yeah, Captain Stubing said the same thing...

Re:pfft..

[bobbozzo]

As mentioned in other threads, try Frost .

waiting for gcj...

[Anonymous Coward]

With the gcj dev's (very cool project, btw) working on a proper NIO implementation currently, there's hoping we'll have a proper implementation soon. And be able to run freenet entirely on free software again.

IP GO BYE BYE

[greygent]

Hey, since we're all throwing intellectual property rights to the wind by trying to deceive the RIAA, how can I apply FreeNet to misusing GPL'd software for my own benefit?

I'm sure none of you would have a problem with that, because you're not all about double standards, right?

Re:IP GO BYE BYE

[Anonymous Coward]

What good would it do anyone to distribute a GPLed program without source code through freenet? Go ahead and make an open program closed and then distribute it yourself, you can't make any money off of it, and if you do, then its not from using freenet. It isn't hard to violate the GPL, or distribute copyrighted music, or movies. Try and make money off of any of those things, and thats when you lose anyone's sympathy.

Re:IP GO BYE BYE

[ReconRich]

how can I apply FreeNet to misusing GPL'd software for my own benefit?

And just how do suppose you will do that ? Freenet only allows the transfer of information; The GPL requires transfer of information - inhibiting that transfer of information is a violation of the GPL. What are you talking about; distributing "illegal" binary copies of Emacs ? And to whoever moderated this troll "interesting" - go stand in the corner and think about what you've done.

-- Rich

Re:IP GO BYE BYE

[shatfield]

how can I apply FreeNet to misusing GPL'd software for my own benefit?

Short answer: You can't.
Long answer: You shouldn't.

Re:IP GO BYE BYE

[Chexum]

I'm sure none of you would have a problem with [misusing GPL'd software], because you're not all about double standards, right?

Analogies, schmanalogies.. Well, many people use and develop GPL software, and many people pirate everything from Microsoft. Therefore many people have double standards, eh?

Not to be taken personally, but please be aware that not everyone else on slashdot is one man with a coherent worldview. There are many of us opposing even some ideas of our friends, you know..

Got to get that in a sig before this theme gets as tiring as Natalie Portman... :)

Re:IP GO BYE BYE

[Anonymous Coward]

The obvious solution is:

• develop your program using GPLed source
• distribute binaries via freenet
• get paid in yodels (anonymous cash, check freenet)

Of course, it may be difficult to keep people from redistributing the binaries. That's where Palladium comes in.

Re:IP GO BYE BYE

[blibbleblobble]

"how can I apply FreeNet to misusing GPL'd software for my own benefit?"

You're welcome to distribute my GPL'd programs on freenet. If you want to be really cheeky you can even distribute the source.

Seriously, how can you possibly abuse GPL on freenet? By offering binaries without corresponding source or something?

Re:IP GO BYE BYE

[dasmegabyte]

Well, you can't. Because for YOU to benefit, you have to expose your identity. Which means you leave the anonymous world of Freenet, and return to the accountability and responsibility of Real Life (tm).

AND THEN THEY GOT YA!

Re:IP GO BYE BYE

[Cyno]

That's teh funny thing about the GPL. There are no restrictions on use. But I'm sure you just wanted to get a rise out of me. :)

Please explain in legal terms the double standards you are talking about. Maybe you'll understand them better if you do.

Re:IP GO BYE BYE

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a build of GCC 3.x for U/Win?

Re:IP GO BYE BYE

[TheZax]

If downloading copyrighted RIAA music is the only thing you can think of to use Freenet for, then you have seriously missed the point.

...but thanks for playing anyway.

Re:IP GO BYE BYE

[greygent]

Did you even bother reading the story? It specifically mentions the RIAA's witch hunt, implying that FreeNet may be the way to go to avoid it.

No, THANK YOU for playing, ass clown.

Re:IP GO BYE BYE

[TheZax]

Did you even bother reading the story?

Uhh, there's actually 10 links in that post, did you even read the original post?

Re:IP GO BYE BYE

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course we would have a problem with it. However, unlike the litigation-happy RIAA, we might have a more enlightened attitude about it and would merely forgive your foolishness.

Re:IP GO BYE BYE

[DoorFrame]

You know, this is a good point that I've never really heard argued before. What happens to the "information wants to be free" folks when people start pirating GPL'd software, taking the parts they like and then redistributing it without permission under a different license. Information wants to be free, right? So why even use the GPL? Why place any restrictions on how information can be used? The GPL is too restrictive.

Re:IP GO BYE BYE

[Anonymous Coward]

So use the BSD license then.

Re:IP GO BYE BYE

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in theory freenet is slashdot-proof so you could run kernel.org without 250GBit link.
In reality though it tends to randomly slashdot itself into a grinding halt every now and then.

Support Chinese dissidents

[frovingslosh]

should provide increased rest to Chinese dissidents

Unfortunately, while freenet might be somewhat secure and private, it would be pretty clear by monitoring a link to an ISP that you were using Freenet. If the Chinese government were to do this they could easily identify and round up the Freenet dissidents. What can we do to help protect freedom behind the bamboo curtain? You can do your part by making sure that Freenet is also used for downloading music! Everyone knows the Chinese like to download and pirate copyrighted material. The Chinese gub'mint will not give it a second look as long as they believe it's being used for piracy and not for dissident speech. We can all do our part for freedom by making sure that Freenet becomes a popular tool for file sharing.

Re:Support Chinese dissidents

[42forty-two42]

The government can identify proxies easier - freenet just looks like random data most of the time, and on random ports. So it's already better than proxies, even if only marginally.

Re:Support Chinese dissidents

[sharkdba]

You can do your part by making sure that Freenet is also used for downloading music!

Funny this got modded as interesting. Although there is a point (Chinese government really ignores music/movies piracy), I really think the poster tried to be ironic/funny.

Re:Support Chinese dissidents

[frovingslosh]

Funny this got modded as interesting.

Yea, I was really expecting troll or flamebait! Amazing what some people will mod up! Certainly goes to show some problems with the moderation system.

I downloaded 1 week ago and it was slow

[truthhurts1]

Not sure if its the new version they're talking about.

The bad thing about all the Filesharing is that you can only find popular items certain items at certain time of day.

I don't like using desktop computers as file sharers . I like the idea of servers being used as databases. Kazaalite is still the best. http://www.kazaalite.tk/

http://www.k-lite.tk/

there's solutions to this

[Anonymous Coward]

On a low level by hand-maintained key lists (best quality that way, think mp3z-groups publishing on freenet), or on a more automated level by distributed key indexes. Check out frost for a quite workable implementation that also incorporates in-freenet message boards.

Do I need a permanent connection to run a node?

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, but it is preferred. You can run the software and test it from a "transient" connection (such as provided by typical modem/ISP setups), but for the network as a whole to be most useful, we will need as many permanent nodes as possible (most cable modem or DSL setups are sufficiently "permanent" for this). A later version of Freenet may take better advantage of transient nodes."

That really, really, sucks. The reason I like Gnutella - you start the sucker up, and it starts figuring out the network by itself.

How do you spell "clueless"?

[djeaux]

How about "O.P.P.E.N.H.E.I.M."?

From the C|Net interview:

Oppenheim: How does this have anything to do with corporations? This has to do with artists and creators. Artists and creators, like anybody else who creates something, should have the right to sell what they create...Indeed, most artists spend a lifetime trying to sell the result of their efforts to record companies so that they may make a living making music. At the end of the day, that is a great thing for music lovers--otherwise artists would have a lot less time to create the music we all love.

Fine, let's take the corporate aspect out of it & pay only the artists' share for compact discs. That would be somewhere on the order of 30 or 40 cents per disc, if that much (if the artist has a good contract). OK. Throw in $2 for the media & production. CDs start selling for $3 (like vinyl in the early '70s) & P2P would be irrelevant.

Yes, artists deserve to be able to sell what they create. That's why the record company moguls, agents & hangers-on often make as much as or more than the artists themselves.

20 years ago, I remember the high price of CDs being explained as "recouping research & development costs." Ummm... Methinks those costs were recouped long ago. Corporate greed is what it is...

But yeah, Oppenheim, let's take the corporations out of this. Who do you think is paying RIAA in the first place? Roadies?

When the guy equated file sharing with bank robbery, he showed that he is a nutcase.

6/4 is out the door

[neoThoth]

Another anonymous peer to peer system is being developed called 6/4. Many will recognize this as a tribute to the massacre at Tienamen Square and rightly so. It was not developed in order to thumb our noses at the **AA organizations but since they are attempting to inpinge on our rights why not use this tool against them as well.
Download here
Please note these restrictions:
1. You cannot download this software from us if you are a national of Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan or Syria. Sorry. That's the rule and we cannot let you copy it if you are a national of one of these countries.

2. You cannot download this software from us if you are located in Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan or Syria (or you are located in an embassy, consulate, or other facility that belongs to one of these countries). Again, that's not our rule but it applies to us and we intend to obey it.

3. You cannot download this software from us if you are an entity on the "Denied Persons List" published by the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security. The Denied Persons List is published here or here [text file]. The most recent changes to the Denied Persons List are published here.

4. You must be a Certified Patriot! In our view, it is exceptionally patriotic to be a member of Hacktivismo and to advocate civil liberties all over the world. And we don't view people who agree with George Bush, John Poindexter, John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, or Don Rumsfeld as very patriotic at all. It is patriotic to disagree with Mr. Bush and other friends of Big Oil. But neither we nor George Bush can decide unilaterally whether you are a Certified Patriot merely based on your politics or point of view. A "Certified Patriot" has come to mean anybody (even communists, militia members, muslim extremists, animal-rights activists, tree-huggers, vocal critics of John Ashcroft, and card-carrying members of the ACLU) not listed as a "Specially Designated National" or "Blocked Person" by the U.S. Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC"). The OFAC list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons [PDF] is located here [PDF] or here [text file]. The most recent changes [PDF] to the SDN and Blocked Persons List are published here [PDF]. IF YOU ARE NOT ON THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT LIST, THEN YOU, TOO, ARE A CERTIFIED PATRIOT! Congratulations! ;-)

Re:6/4 is out the door

[bnavarro]

You cannot download this software from us if you are located in Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan or Syria

Wow, Ironically it's people (by that I mean the dissidents, not the terrorists) in those countries that desparately need software like this. This is the first concrete example that I have seen of the U.S. Encryption Export Embargo having the exact opposite effect of that desired. I wonder if you can apply for an exemption?

slashdotted....

[pecosdave]

oh well, have to check again later.

What concerns me about Freenet

[jeremyds]

Taken from Freenet's 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. However, keep in mind that freenet is not designed so as to only allow communication between people if a sufficient number of people agree with the communication. Freenet is designed to make communication possible even if there's just one publisher and one reader, and this is already reasonably feasible on the current freenet.

I'm all for freedom of speech. However, I really don't like the idea of my computer being used to trade child porn. By running a Freenet node, I give up control of what information gets shared from my computer. Sorry, but I'll pass.

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[goldspider]

Now that's pretty creepy. Wouldn't a FREEnet want people to have the freedom to determine what they do and do not want on their computers? Giving up that control doesn't sound very free to me.

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[EllF]

You are not "all for" freedom of speech, then. You are partially -- perhaps mostly -- for freedom of speech. Just not speech which crosses your own personal boundary, in this case, pornography involving children.

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[jeremyds]

Freedom should go both ways. By using Freenet, I'm actually giving up the freedom to only trade the information I want to trade from my computer. My personal opinion on child pornography is irrelevent to freedom of speech.

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[Abcd1234]

No, it's the ultimate form of freedom for the publisher. No one can censor you, not even the members of Freenet. Heck, I could post a massive rant about how much I hate the authors of Freenet, and they couldn't do a thing about it. THAT is the ultimate protection of free speech, and that is what Freenet is all about. The fact that you don't get that just proves that you don't really understand what free speech (and Freenet) are all about.

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[goldspider]

So then you'd be OK with people posting pictures of children having sex in your front yard, because that's what ultimate free speech is all about, right?

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[Alranor]

Oh for pities sake.

Child Pornography is NOT speech.

Freedom of speech is about being able to say anything you want, and not be punished for your ideas and viewpoints.

If someone wants to tell the world that he approves of child abuse, and likes to have sex with children then that's free speech. Once the act is committed then it's moved beyond the boundaries of speech, how is it that people can't understand this very simple point?

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[goldspider]

"No, it's the ultimate form of freedom for the publisher."

And does that mean the free speech right of the publisher supercedes that of the person who owns the computer? Assuming I vehemently oppose child porn (and I do), is my right to express that taken away when some publisher decides that I should host their child porn collection?

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to even sound like I agree with the grand-parent, but there is a HUGE difference between actually having sex with a child, and taking pictures of someone else doing it.

Not that I agree that it's art or speech either. It's an abomination.

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[Abcd1234]

Well, I have a right to exert control over my property, so I could just take those pictures down and charge the person with trespass. *shrug* There are other ways to deal with these issues outside of censorship (like preventing kiddy porn production in the first place... but that's way too obvious, right?)

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[Abcd1234]

And does that mean the free speech right of the publisher supercedes that of the person who owns the computer?

Of course not. Ultimately, since it's your computer, you can choose what you do with it... your choice to remove the material does not infringe on the person's right to express themselves since they can always find another way to publish their material. It only becomes a problem if you prevent that person from expressing themselves in the first place. Freenet simply guarantees an uncensored distribution channel which, again, is necessary in order to exercise free speech effectively (especially in this day and age of terrorism paranoia, etc).

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

"like preventing kiddy porn production in the first place... but that's way too obvious, right?"

Sounds like a great idea, any idea on how to do that?

I didn't think so. In the meantime, I'll go on maintaining control over my property (my computer) as well. If someone has a problem with it, tough shit. I think Freenet is just being hypocritical.

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[Abcd1234]

Because you're confusing the issue. Saying you like to abuse children is one thing. Doing it is another. Freenet guarantees your right to do the former, not the latter. Unfortunately, in order to guarantee that right, you also guarantee the right to distribute pictures of you abusing your children. Of course, the cure is to arrest the person who's abusing their children in the first place...

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[ReconRich]

Child Pornography is NOT speech.

But what is a child ? It turns out that the definition is very different in different countries. What is an art photograph of a 17 year old adult in one country is vile exploitation in another. The vilification here based on the word child must be associated with a definition of a child. While all civilized countries agree that sexual representations of pre-pubescent persons (a definition of children) is abhorent, they disagree radically in the post-pubescent category. The law that typically defines who is and is not a child is the law that defines who can (based on age) enter into a contract. Think about that when you look at a picture that shows boobs from the UK - She could be 16 - and you could be a kiddie-porn dealer.

-- Rich

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[goldspider]

That doesn't sound like the Freenet position:

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.

There is a HUGE difference between tolerating certain views, and endorsing them.

To my way of thinking, the existence of such material on my property (not to mention the distribution thereof) constitutes an endorsement of said offensive material by me.

Now if people do want to be a party to that, then fine, but make it opt-in (just like the SPAM argument, right?). You shouldn't have to constantly evaluate what others may have put on your machine. That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[Tumbleweed]

> Child Pornography is NOT speech

Oh yeah, what if the child talks?

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[salesgeek]

whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find disgusting.

If child porn were speech, it would be just talk. As it stands, at the best it is evidence of a crime that was committed in creating it. At the worst, it is a product that required the rape of a child to create and is a tainted product.

Child Porn != Speech.
Child Porn != Expression.

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[gl4ss]

Why the addennum? You fail the test, simple as that. The whole point of freenet would be lost if you could choose what to serve, be it kiddies, nazis or car videos. It's like "i dont want to pay my isp because drug dealers might use their fiber too".

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone putting pictures or in your lawn, or even just sending you junk mail, subjects you to what they have to say. Freenet does not provide this. On Freenet nobody is even capable of seeing anything they did not explicitly request. (Because it is all broken up into encrypted pieces.)

On the other hand your computer may hold a chunk of a file that is child porn, a message encouraging terrorism, etc. But you are only aiding this to the extent that you contribute to the network. IE: if 1% of the network is child porn, then statically 1% of the chunks of data stored on your PC could be child porn. However the same can be said of just about any indiscriminate technology. For example roads are used to transport chemical and biological weapons.

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[dasmegabyte]

Hehe...on freenet, 90% of the content is rants about how much we hate the creators of freenet.

The other 10% is porn. Just like the real internet!

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to nitpick, but I hope you realize that if you use any P2P programs which use distributed search queries, your computer is helping people distribute childporn by forwarding those queries. Unless of course you filter your queries, which is possible under something like gnutella. It would even technically be possible to ban keys passing through a freenet node as well. But then again, in both cases, how do you know exactly what to filter, and in the case of something gnutella-like, that in the process you aren't blocking queries for other content?

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[randyest]

You shouldn't have to constantly evaluate what others may have put on your machine.

You don't get it -- you can't "evaluate what others may have put on your machine", ever. No one can. It's all little bits of this or that, encrypted. You probably won't have all of any one single file (except possibly really small stuff, like txt files). And you can't see inside, or know what it is inside any littly mysterious encrypted chunks of data on your drive. That's what those two big words plausable deniability are all about.

BTW, I've no problem with those who choose not to support freenet for whatever reason, but repeated posts explaining this, with reference to kiddy porn or any other reason, are unintereasting and redundant, and should be modded as such.

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

That is true, but some people think its more important to develop and have one forum of truley free and anonymous speach then it is to have one less mode for criminals to trade child porn

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[adaknight]

Now this is silly. It is obviously a form of expression. Please don't be upset at this fact or get overemotional. I repeat: it is a fact that kiddie porn is a form of expression. I actually find it offensive that I'll probably have to defend myself from overemotional nuts now by saying something like "Of *course* it's disgusting, and I'm *sure* *everyone* will agree with me." In any case, ("as much as I agree with your sentiment," dammit!!!) your argument makes no sense and as such, being without logic, it doesn't really belong in a g33k ph0rum.

The fact that we're even debating this stupid kiddie porn argument at all is disgusting and it's really telling. Grow up, everyone.

Fucking political correctness will preserve my karma, right?

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm completely for the commandment, "thou shelt not kill". However, I really don't like the idea of people trading child porn. By obeying this commandment, I give up control of whether or not people are trading child porn are allowed to live. Sorry, but I'll pass.

Or maybe its worth letting scumbags live, although it allows them to continue to commit crimes?

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[alwsn]

If child porn were speech, it would be just talk.

Clearly the logic you suggest isn't true, as many forms of non-verbal communication have been deemed 'speech' and are protected.

There are some (no, I am not one of them) who view adult male, child male sex as not only good, but a requirement for a healthy life. The North American Man Boy Love Association is an example of such a group. Until recently their motto was "sex before eight - or it's too late."

I personally find this sort of behavior abhorrent, but it certainly is an expression of personal belief.

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[DancingSword]

" an expression of personal belief" that leaves the child-participant permanently compromised in autonomous-boundary formation.

They don't have operational self/other boundaries, and they aren't ever going to have totally operational self/other boundaries.

Objective results ( catalogues of cases of people who've been molested as children, and the difference between their lives' operational-worth compared-with the operational-worth of normals ) clearly indicate that there is predictable, consistent ( in kind, and generally in magnitude ) undermining done by such relationships, so...

... whomever holds that it is simply "a question of free speech and lifestyle", as some do, is denying objective fact in order to do-so.

... and falseness is unconvincing ...

And one notices that many who're all-for such relationships had their boundaries infringed by others, when they were young, so it seems to be profoundly self-perpetuating...

A friend-of-mine who died a couple of years ago was someone who'd been molested as a kid, and neither their life nor the lives of any of the others molested by the church-men of that case, were even somewhat whole...

Perhaps transmitting ebola/HIV/rabies is "free speech" too?

or transmitting SARS? or lethal-injections? or pushing crack? or pushing propaganda? ( suppressing others worth to extend one's 'authority/control' on others, or to destroy 'competing' worth, in all cases )

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

Trouble is, bits is bits. If you trust your government to protect the right bits and only outlaw the nasty bits, then you don't need Freenet. If you don't trust your government, then your only option is to protect the bits by technical means...and if you do that effectively, you end up protecting child porn just as much as Chinese dissidents, because either you can censor the bits or you can't.

The saving grace: relatively unpopular content drops out of Freenet. The more people use Freenet for legitimate purposes, the less useful the network will be for child pornographers.

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[alexo]

> Freedom should go both ways. By using Freenet, I'm actually giving up the freedom to only trade the information I want to trade from my computer.

No, you're not. You may argue that you are giving up some of your property rights but, IMO, you are making a donation.

In effect, you are donating a portion of your bandwidth, disk space and CPU time to the Freenet network. After the "donation", they are no longer "yours" and, as such, you should not care how they are used.

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[salesgeek]

Um... expression doesn't involve bamboozling a kid into doing some pretty sick stuff.

I think you are confusing the print/distribution of depictions of a criminal act with expression.

Re:What concerns me about Freenet

[leandrod]

> you end up protecting child porn just as much as Chinese dissidents

Given porn is usually done for profit, i doubt there will be much of that in FreeNet... undubtedly there will be some, but how much?

> The more people use Freenet for legitimate purposes, the less useful the network will be for child pornographers.

...but your arg cuts both ways. If porn gets done for free, it could become pop.

waaaaaaahhhh!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I want my Audiogalaxy back!!!!!

NIO

[alext]

For anyone in the dark as to what the NIO reference is to, it's the new + revised Java APIs for sockets and files.

These include:

• non-blocking I/O similar to a Unix select()
• no-copy buffering
• file locking
• memory-mapped files

There's also a transparently obvious move to appeal to the /. audience in the form of the new Perl-style regexp handling!

Re:Huzzah!

[egg troll]

So does the US postal service, or PGP for that matter. Does that make it any less useful? No.

You're right. One can use these means to acquire child pornography. My concern with Freenet is that it could be hosted on my PC...without my knowledge of consent. Right now, its this factor that keeps me from adopting Freenet. But that's just my opinion....

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be like suing MCI for operating routers that handled the pirated traffic (along with legal traffic), or suing Cisco for making routers that handled pirated traffic (again, along with legal traffic).

As soon as you censor one thing ...

[jstockdale]

Remember that as soon as you censor one thing, you must censor everything. If the system has the ability to say restirct kiddie porn then it must have the ability to arbitrairly restrict anything, therefore undermining the system in its entirety. Also, remember that freenet functions to keep alive items that are most frequently accessed, so if the world were free of perverts we wouldn't have the problem in the first place ;)

Re:As soon as you censor one thing ...

[Chokma]

Also, remember that freenet functions to keep alive items that are most frequently accessed, so if the world were free of perverts we wouldn't have the problem in the first place ;)

I think this is the point were Freenet could become self-censoring. It depends on the user base. If more people use Freenet for mp3 and Star Trek episodes, the quicker the ugly content will die

10000 people calling for Metallica mp3 will drone out the 10 people who search for illegal porn. Note that this will not work if 1000 people try to look for child porn on the net because "they want to see if there is really such a bad thing stored in Freenet".

Bottom line: Get more normal users on Freenet, so we can banish the bad stuff. :)

Re:Huzzah!

[Anonymous Coward]

..So does the US postal service, or PGP for that matter. Does that make it any less useful? No.

No. No less useful, however, neither one pass through, nor reside in my house....freenet kiddie-pron might...

thanks, but not interested.

Humm, Java client works well in OS X

[Aqua OS X]

It's nice to see a P2P app that actually launches without a hitch when using the shell in OS X :) I don't know if I will use this often, however the "unix" client is well documented and very easy to install. I love when things "just work" :)

Re:Humm, Java client works well in OS X

[jinglecat]

links to download software? Versiontracker?

Flaw in your analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with kiddie porn is it is illegal to even possess it. When someone send a kiddie porn snapshot through the USPS, I never have any contact with it. The letter never gets stored on my person or property. And even then, the handlers get immunity.

With FreeNet, it does. Plus, there is no immunity. I'd love to see you try to persuade the judge to be lenient on you should the unlikely event comes that they find kiddie porn on your Freenet zombie.

Re:Flaw in your analogy.

[Abcd1234]

So, if someone hacks an FTP server you run and copies kiddy porn to it, that makes you liable? Somehow, I doubt that... it's called plausable deniability.

Another example, you own a field and someone grows weed on it, does that make you liable? I double that, too...

The fact is, Freenet protects the node operator because they honestly have no idea what content is on their computer. Moreover, they aren't even likely to have the full contents of any given file... only parts of it. Therefore, I suspect there's a real defence for people running Freenet nodes.

Re:Flaw in your analogy.

[Uncle Gropey]

The problem with kiddie porn is it is illegal to even possess it

Well... I'm a letter carrier in the USPS. So am I guilty of something if I pick-up or deliver the stuff?

Re:Flaw in your analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

> So, if someone hacks an FTP server you run and copies kiddy porn to it, that makes you liable? Somehow, I doubt that... it's called plausable deniability.

You said it right there - someone cracks the FTP server and makes it do something which its owner didn't intend. Same with the field and someone sneaks in (presumably by cutting the boundary fence or climbing over it) and grows weed. The fence and "No Trespassing" signs give public notice of intent.

Now, contrast with Freenet: the whole purpose for you running a Freenet node is to allow ANY content to be stored and retrieved from your computer. No plausible deniability at all:

Prosecutor: "So, you had no idea that *any* content, including child pornography, could be stored and retrieved from your computer via Freenet? Isn't that what Freenet's all about?.."

Defendant: "No, I had no idea!" (BANG, perjury)
Defendant: "Yes, but -" (BANG, guilty of possesion of child porn)

It's not called "plausible deniability", it's called "willfull blindness" and it's not a defense, it's a support for a prosecution.

Re:Flaw in your analogy.

[Cpt_Kirks]

Get a rope.

Especially with your nick...

Re:Flaw in your analogy.

[Ultra64]

Another example, you own a field and someone grows weed on it, does that make you liable? I double that, too...

It definitely does make you liable, they will sieze your property and you will go to jail. The law doesn't care if you claim that you didn't know about it.

Re:Flaw in your analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

you own a field and someone grows weed on it, does that make you liable? I [doubt] that, too...

Tell it to this guy.

Re:Flaw in your analogy.

[Abcd1234]

Hmm... interesting point. Of course, it should be noted that, theoretically, there is absolutely no way to track content to a given computer. Every node is anonymous, and a given node cannot determine where the contents of a file came from. Therefore, an interesting question is, how can the prosecution prove that the content came from your computer in the first place?

Re:Flaw in your analogy.

[mfrank]

History is filled with examples of secure systems that are broken a decade later. If you're paranoid enough, you'd believe the only reason the govt lets people use modern encryption is that they already have quantum computers that can crack them.

Re:Flaw in your analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm..

As I understand it, the "datastore" is encrypted on disk. This (at least through my eyes) equates the "datastore" as UPS* boxes**. The carriers get immunity because they have no fucking clue what's in the box**. Now, you are turned into a UPS*-like entity because you anonymously traffic unknown-peices of data (boxes**).

Essentially, I think carrier immunity would prevail here.

* UPS/USPS/FedExetc.
** Box/Envelope/Container/etc.

Re:Flaw in your analogy.

[kharchenko]

>Another example, you own a field and someone grows weed on it, does that make you liable? I double that, too...


My friend was having a party at her house, and left before it was over. Cops came by 3 times because neighbours complained about the noise, and guess what .. my friend, who wasn't even around during all this got the ticket and even had to do community service. This might be a silly example, but it's just to show that laws don't always support remote analogies.

US has a fine track record of respecting privacy as long as it doesn't cost much. Child porn is a problem that has been around for a while, and people are not shocked by its presence, so the validity of a tool like freenet can still be argued in such contexts. But all it takes is a more sensitive topic, for example, terrorism. Just throw a bone to the media and watch them drag Freenet (or almost anything else novel or esoteric) through the streets of Salem onto that faithful post with a flaring fire under it.

Re:Flaw in your analogy.

[BitwizeGHC]

Another example, you own a field and someone grows weed on it, does that make you liable? I double that, too...

Under the RAVE Act, now federal law, YES. Up to 20 years in prison, even if someone SMOKES weed on your property.

Re:Flaw in your analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

They seize your computer on warrant with "probable cause" based on the fact you are running freenet, then search your datastore with a list of known child porn keys harvested from freenet. BAM--possession of child porn. Since there is a considerable amount of widely propagated CP on freenet, odds are any permanent node that's been on freenet very long has it.

That wasn't very hard, was it?

Re:Flaw in your analogy.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, but its easy for someone like say....Ashcroft to come along and stick his foot in your ass anyways. I'm refering to the following link where he did exactly that to people with your argument. All kinds of people were rounded up for making or selling bongs and hookas even when they were being sold and marketed for smoking tobacco only. That was the loop hole that let head shops get by in many places for years, then comes along some guy who can change it like that without any debate.

http://www.hempbc.com/articles/2929.html and many others

Re:Flaw in your analogy.

[naasking]

Since all stored data is encrypted and only partial, how exactly are they going to extract this information?

If all content could be encrypted ....

[cyberjessy]

Computers should have encryption capabilities built into hardware

then ...

All web servers would serve encrypted content..

All you mails would be encrypted...

All filesharing would be encrypted...

Perhaps this could be done if the modem/network interface had encryption built in. (Just that I wish they were standard)

Then we wont have to look at freenets and peek-a-booties for freedom.

Re:If all content could be encrypted ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers should have encryption capabilities built into hardware Give it up Bill, we're onto you

Re:If all content could be encrypted ....

[Detritus]

3COM has a series of network interface cards with encryption hardware. I don't know how well they work in practice.

Re:If all content could be encrypted ....

[Single GNU Theory]

Encryption is not the same thing as anonymization, authentication, or authorization. Encryption is a method for hindering the decoding of your communications. It is not a method of disguising the identities of parties in a transaction, verifying an identity, or granting privileges to an identity.

Encryption everywhere without the rest of the infrastructure means that there is a better than average chance that the spam in your inbox has not been snooped in transit.

Re:If all content could be encrypted ....

[kippy]

Bruce Schneier said something to the effect of "encryption isn't just some fairy dust that you can sprinkle here and there and expect things to be secure". Even if there were hardware level encryption, there would need to be an infrastructure set up to make everything work together securely.

That would require everything from the read/write head of a disk to a DNS server to a java app to communicate with each other. If there is any error in implementation, nothing will be able to talk to anything else. If there are any weak security links, well, you know how chains work.

I'm not saying it can't be done, it would just require no less than a full overhaul of pretty much all computing hardware and software to conform to a complex set of security protocols. Anything less would be insecure.

PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lord knows I do!
When whacking off.

-- A. Pervert

Free speech isn't the issue...

[sczimme]

"Freedom of speech, but only when I agree"??? What an awful argument. In the US, there are very real penalties for trafficking in kiddie porn. IOW, KP is not protected as free speech. Not wanting it on your system has nothing to do with free speech. I'm not sure you understand what "free speech" really is.

In the same vein, try to rent a storage locker or other facility to store your large stash of $ILLEGAL_MATERIAL. Let us know how many places are willing to let you do so without placing any restrictions on what you put there.

Re:Free speech isn't the issue...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're so brainwashed you don't even realize what your're saying. You're arguing the big picture and moral against the current regulations. But I don't wonder, after all you live in a totalitarian state, the Soviet Union of the 21th century.

Re:Free speech isn't the issue...

[gilgongo]

By that logic you would be in favour of outlawing the telephone system, since I can use that to make a drug deal, or incite racial hatred.

Or what about beds? I can have sex with minors in my bed. Make beds illegal!

You're right - it's not about free speech, but it *is* about balance. Balancing the good with the evil.

If you can find a way to design Freenet so that kiddie porn is difficult or impossible to upload without altering the system so much as to make it useless for everybody, then go ahead.

Re:Free speech isn't the issue...

[sczimme]

Re: by that logic - wrong, wrong, wrong.

I was not talking about about outlawing anything; read it again. My point was that FreeNet appears to have an all-or-nothing approach [by design]: IOW, if a user has a strong objection to a particular type of content (for whatever reason), that user cannot stop that sort of content from being stored on his system. Of course, he won't actually *know* it's on there, but the possibility that it might be there could be an unpleasant thought. It's up to the individual user to decide whether the greater usefulness of FreeNet outweighs the objection.

In any case, the theme [on /.] seems to be that "everyone has to approve of everything or they oppose free speech", which is of course complete bollocks.

Re:Free speech isn't the issue...

[gilgongo]

Of course it's bollocks that "everyone has to approve of everything or they oppose free speech", but like I said, playing the free speech card on this is not the issue.

You say "FreeNet appears to have an all-or-nothing approach [by design]" - but that's because it's FreeNet! It would't BE FreeNet if it wasn't like that. It would some other peer-to-peer system and we wouldn't be having this debate.

You're right about the individual's choice to weigh up the pros and cons of the system. I think on balance most people who think like that would decide not to use FreeNet. However, it seems to me like this is akin to Schrodiger's Cat: you can't know whether your hard drive contains kiddie porn, so in the end why should you care? Your mobile phone network might be used by drug dealers... and so it goes on.

It will probably survive by analogy

[Pac]

Freenet sounds like a great idea, but it's so obviously useful for such horrible uses

In the same category we already have guns, knifes, airplanes, TNT, email, television, cars. I think Freenet has a good chance.

Re:It will probably survive by analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the UK: only knives (blades under 2 inches) and e-mail on that list are used without a license.

Re:It will probably survive by analogy

[jez9999]

But don't you have to admit that the UK is one of the worst nanny states in the world? They're even trying to force water companies to put fluoride in our drinking water, for chrissakes! I want to get out, now, before it gets any worse.

Re:It will probably survive by analogy

[BitterOak]

I live in the UK: only knives (blades under 2 inches) and e-mail on that list are used without a license.

We in the uncivilized rest of the world look with great envy at a country that requires people to have a license to operate a television in the privacy [sic] of your own home.

Re:It will probably survive by analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Email is completely insecure. You are forgetting that anything vaguely threatening that is electronic is subject to double standards by politicians. Stealing a CD from a music store? Have a slap on the wrist! Downloading an MP3 from the Internet? Your computer should be destroyed!

Re:It will probably survive by analogy

[gid]

But you can't really apply the same logic. Because we don't have libraries of child porn out there that people could use on whim and only prosecute them if they looked at it.

For instance, there are certain types of guns that are illegal, (automatic weapons), and selling/distributing/owning them is illegal. In the same sense, certain types of porn are illegal, child porn for instance, merely possesing it, even if unknowningly, is against the law. I believe that's how the child porn law is, it's absurdly strict, for good reason I suppose tho.

Re:It will probably survive by analogy

[randyest]

certain types of porn are illegal, child porn for instance, merely possesing it, even if unknowningly, is against the law

Are you sure about that?

Re:It will probably survive by analogy

[Eminor]

In the same category we already have guns, knifes, airplanes, TNT, email, television, cars. I think Freenet has a good chance.

Why does the public need access to semi-automatic weapons? To kill deer?

My point being there is not valid need for some of these items. Sporting weapons are fine. But hand guns and semi-automatics?

In terms of freenet, I was using frost (a P2P client over freenet) and I doing some searches. A could barely find anything I wanted. But you should have seen the number of results that came back that implied the content was child porn.

I think freenet is a nature safe haven for child porn.

I stopped using freenet and will not support it.

Re:It will probably survive by analogy

[Chibi Merrow]

Do you even know what a semi-automatic weapon is? I know a few firearms experts who would claim a semi-automatic doesn't exist, but that's a whole other kettle of fish. It simply means that when you pull the trigger, the gun fires one round then loads the next round. Contrast this with fully automatic, wherein by holding down the trigger the bullet will continuously fire rounds. I'm very confused by people who talk about the evils of semi-automatics...
And while I wouldn't use a semi-automatic rifle for deer hunting (I'd rather a bolt action rifle for accuracy), semi-automatic shotguns are very useful for hunting smaller game like rabbits and water fowl. I'd rather have three shots for a duck on the wing than one. :) Why shouldn't the public have access to such weapons? If nothing else, they're a last resort against government oppression (a point often made by the framers of the constitution).
Handguns are useful for self defense, nuff said. In the US during our period of westward expansion the Colt 45 was known as the great equalizer. No matter how small/weak of a person you were, if you had one you did not have to fear someone bigger/stronger than you. Nowadays I know of numerous cases where people's lives have been saved due to their carrying a handgun. In most cases, the weapon never even has to be discharged. The gun itself is an effective enough deterrent. :)

Re:It will probably survive by analogy

[Eminor]

If nothing else, they're a last resort against government oppression.

I don't people will be able stand up against the US military with their guns. The US military could crush any pockets of resistence.

No matter how small/weak of a person you were, if you had one you did not have to fear someone bigger/stronger than you. Nowadays I know of numerous cases where people's lives have been saved due to their carrying a handgun.

Protection by fear. Sounds like a great country. There are over 10,000 gun murders annually in the US. That is by far the highest gun death rate PER CAPITA.

Here in Canada, we have 165 gun murders a year and we have 1/10 the population. SO that means the gun muder rate is 10 times ours.

And no, are gun laws are not that tough. There are 7 million guns here (population 30,000,000). Most people do not have guns for protection (other than drug dealers and criminals).

I think that some Americans have the attitude that guns are the solution to violence.

Re:It will probably survive by analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

When they take away your free speech, how are you going to rectify that situation?

There is only one Constitutionaly relevant reason to support the ownership of firearms -- protecting your civil liberties with violence or the threat of violence.

Are you really satisified with your rights and freedoms given that your government allows you to have them? If so, you're a fool. If someone allows you these things, they are not freedoms and rights, they are whims of the government. And when the governemnt takes them away, what do you suppose you might do about it? You won't even have the right to piss and moan anymore.

The right to keep and bear arms is in place not to protect our rights to hunt (that is no right, and, yes, I hunt, but I'd give it up if so said the law), but rather our ability to overthrow a government which has run roughshod over the people's rights.

We're not at that point yet and haven't been for 143 or so years, which is why people like you are such mealy-moutched pussies willing to roll over for any government that asks, but, just the same, I'm keeping my guns.

Re:It will probably survive by analogy

[Chibi Merrow]

But guns are a solution to violence. If a criminal is shot dead he is no longer violent. Are they the only solution? No, but they're an effective one. :) How else would you protect yourself from an unbalanced individual except with a nagging fear of the consequences in the back of their mind? Studies have shown that when criminals fear being shot (due to concealed carry laws, past experience, etc) the crime rate drops through the floor.

Yes, 10,000 gun murders is too much (but that's almost 50% less than 10 years ago)... And on the flipside, handguns are used by people to protect themselves 1.5 to 2.5 million times per year on average (depends on the survey). Are you sure about your PER CAPITA comment? I seem to remember hundreds of thousands of people (God rest their souls) being ethnically cleansed in third world countries. I don't think they were killed with harsh language. Meanwhile, 10,000 gun deaths comes out to be about one death per thirty thousand people... Which seems like a lot until you realize one in 15000 people dies of Alzhemer's every year, and Alzhemer's is way down near the bottom of the list for causes of death.

I'm especially amused by your 'other than drug dealers and criminals' comment, thereby associating law abiding citizens who own a firearm for protective purposes with peddlers of poison. Criminals own guns in the US, too. Almost always illegally so. Meanwhile, legal owners of guns barely register as a stastical blip on crime charts. I think a husband and father of three's idead of 'protection' is very different than a cocaine dealer's idea of 'protection'. :)

Re:It will probably survive by analogy

[Eminor]

I'm especially amused by your 'other than drug dealers and criminals' comment, thereby associating law abiding citizens who own a firearm for protective purposes with peddlers of poison.

I am amused by your amusment. In Canada, law abiding people don't walk around with concealed weapons. Your chances of being attacked randomly are slim to none. Most violence is commited against someone is by someone they know. More often than not, it's a friend or family member. Having a gun readily available makes things worse.

How often has someone you know needed to use their gun for protection?

I come from a small town, and the only times guns were used (other than hunting) were:
- one guy commited suicide
- another guy went crazy and ran around his house threatening to shout his wife.

Both were within a block from were I grew up. In both cases, the guns were legal and the owners were law abiding citizens previous to the incedence.

Are you sure about your PER CAPITA comment?

I was actually talking about countries with democracies. It would have a been a lot harder to kill hundreds of thousands of people in these third world countries if they didn't have guns.

Also, comparing gun killing statistics to Alzhemer's statistics doesn't make sense. No-body gave these people alzhemer's maliciously.

Everybody dies. The death rate is 100%. Are you going to campare the gun death statistics to that?

I don't know. I guess Canadians and Americans are two different types of people. I am not afraid to walk down the street late at night (I live in the city now).

Re:It will probably survive by analogy

[ssstraub]

I don't people will be able stand up against the US military with their guns. The US military could crush any pockets of resistence.

You think none of the people that are in the military would become part of the revolution? Think about it. They all have regular "citizen" familes too...

Re:It will probably survive by analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that unbalanced people tend not to think much about the danger of the actions they are going to take.
so I dont see concieled carry or even a gun in open view stoping them. You would ahve to shoot them, and the cops will want some damn good proof YOU are not the unbalanced one.

Yet another good idea destroyed....

[Anonymous Coward]

By greedy people who are afraid to face the consequences for their actions of downloading copyrighted music.

I find it irresponsible for all those who dumped their cash into the freenet project just to hide their actions from the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/etc. They don't care about people being oppressed and having their information censored, all they care about is themselves, not paying for things, and getting stuff for free.

Funny that they don't mind giving them funding to hide from the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/etc, but they sure don't want to pay for anything else. Then again I bet a majority of the people who begged for anonymity and will use this probably will not donate anything.

Then again, hopefully this money helps the freenet people towards their real goals and they will ignore the whinny "I WaN't FREE STUFF, make it easier to find mp3s!!!!11 Oh shit I might get caught, I DEMAND anonymity !!!!!11 WAAAH ITS TOO SLOW, MAKE IT FASTER!!1!!!!!."

From what I can tell and understand is that if freenet does get that popular the RIAA is at least it planing to sue people running freenet. From my understanding they are assuming that if you are running freenet you helping in the triad of their copyrighted works.

While as of now they can't prove it, I do wonder how this will work out.

There is a difference

[commodoresloat]

One can believe in and support the right to free anonymous speech, yet still refuse to extend that support to the act of providing bandwidth for it. Freenet actually stores the files (or parts of them) on your computer; every node is part of the whole. So the grandparent poster is not necessarily against free speech, or even "information anarchy," just because he refuses to store child pr0n on his computer.

Re:There is a difference

[Lemmy Caution]

What if I want to refuse to store criticisms of the People's Republic of China on my hard drive? Or criticisms of G.W. Bush or Bill Clinton? If I find a mechanism of discerning the content on my system and becoming selective about it, then so can the people who wish to squelch the speech to begin with.

Truly free, truly anonymous speech, if speech is understood as any text or image or sound that can possibly be stored or transmitted, whether it is secrets vital to national security, pornography, slander, libel, copyright violations, or my recipe for waffles, does really demand, in this case, that someone risk hosting materials they might find detestable.

Otherwise, it's like saying "I support your right to live, but I'm not going to pull you out of the water while you're drowning." At best, the "support" is just so many words - it's really support for "nice" speech.

Re:There is a difference

[commodoresloat]

Not really; it's like saying, I support your right to speak, but I'm not going to contribute my resources to your cause if I don't believe in it. I support the right of Nazis to speak; am I thereby obligated to provide them with space on my website, or to buy advertising for them? Supporting the right to free speech and actively facilitating that speech are two different things. I am not obligated by a belief in liberty to do the latter.

In regards to freenet specifically (and I don't really agree with the other poster about not using it), I agree that its virtue may be in its inability to be selective, which means that in a legal sense it may be "safer." But that may backfire, in that all freenet users are potential targets for legal action based on content they may not know was on their hard drive.

Re:Guess I won't worry until the BSA kicks in my d

[shatfield]

Who are they going to send the letter to? You? Me? The hackers at the Freenet project? The Freenet project isn't pirating their software, the people on the network are. This is Grokster all over again. Freenet has legitimate uses, just like Grokster does... the BSA will never be able to shut it down, because it is GPL'd. The software will always be there.

And since the BSA will never know what anyone is downloading or uploading, they really have no-one to send their stupid letters to.

Freenet, saving trees one BSA letter at a time ;-)

bull

[Anonymous Coward]

bittorrent has no searching mechanizm and is insanely popular. freenet is *better* than bittorrent in this regard since the pages that list what files are available in freenet *cannot* be DOS'd like all the bittorrent tracker site.

Re:bull

[pv2b]

The goal of bittorrent is to distribute content quickly. Anonymity is not an issue, you can easilly get IP addresses of lots of people downloading, as well as find the source of the .torrent file of the tracker.

The goal of freenet is to distribute content anonymously.

What's your point? They are two different tools, with different issues involved.

Re:bull

[Anonymous Coward]

freenet fills all of the same goals of bittorrent plus adds many usefull features such as anonyminity and the lack of centralised point of failure. get off the "bittorrent is only for legitimate conent" line ... 99% of its use if for illicit content distrubution, and horray for it. i (and everyone else) fully understand what brahms intentions for bittorrent were, but his aims and the reality of its use are no the same.

Re:bull

[pv2b]

I was never on the "bittorrent is only for legitimate content line". The only thing I said was that it was not anonymous.

This makes it less of a problem to use out-of-band methods for distributing .torrent files, since there is no anonymity to protect in the first place.

The same can not be said about freenet.

Oh come on

[Anonymous Coward]

speed Freenet can easily saturate my 768kbit downlink on popular large files, like movies or isos. In some ways it's a better bittorrent.

usefulness Even for people that are only interested in "pirated" content, freenet has great potential. Imagine a warez group that have their freesite on freenet, and insert directly into freenet. It's definitely safer than IRC, and for the downloader, waiting for a slot on an fserve is a thing of the past. The more requested some new content is, the more widely available it will be.

Re:Oh come on

[Istealmymusic]

Interesting possibilities. Thanks, everyone, for their replies. I'm going to look into this more.

Freenet and Super-DMCA laws

[crymeph0]

Sorry if this seems offtopic, but as I'm sure you know, many states have been considering Super-DMCA style laws. Those laws usually have a clause prohibiting the hiding of the source or destination of a network communication. That would make Freenet illegal. Maybe your state senator is in the ??AA's pocket, but he can't be seen supporting the Chinese governement's censorship of it's citizens either, so you should make sure he knows that's exactly what he's doing if he supports those kinds of bills.

Quit it.

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU'RE my hero. After being fired from you aol tech support job, having the roof of your trailer park ripped off by the hurricane, having your son cut you off until you buy better lube, and walking in on your white trash wife being porked by the black mailman and yet you STILL find time and joy in consistently posting the same lame troll? you amaze me.

Re:Quit it.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no you're doing it all wrong! You see, when we speak of capitalizing the first word in a sentence, it is only the first letter of the first word, not the entire word!

Freenet == Zero Content

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been attempting to use Freenet for probably about a month and a half. It does work, it just takes a week before you can actually do anything. After waiting a week, you have access to about.. oh, maybe 50 pages of nothing. I mean really, is it just me or is there exactly zero content on Freenet? (aside from porn. but there is always porn.) I don't see all these political 'safe havens'... I see porn. As if we didn't get enough of that already.

As for doing any real P2P activities, Freenet is way to slow and clunky to provide the speed and ease of use that people have come to expect. I really don't see Freenet as a threat to the RIAA simply because even if you did, by some miracle, find content you wanted to download.. it'd take a week to complete.

While the idea of Freenet is certainly noble, in practice, its pretty crappy.

liberty or death

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't use Freenet much, but I leave my node on always. The way things are headed, freedom of speech is gettting more and more suppressed. I want to continue to support something that we may all need in the future just to communicate. We may all end up like the Chinese dissadents... just read some of the babelfished stuff on their site... can you imagine going through this?

I send you this post for your advice:

[Thud457]

I am the president of the Bank of Nigeria and have a problem I need help with. Cmdr Taco has frozen the government's accounts in an illegal effort to censor us.

Pleeze send me instructons how to be using freenet to pirate frist psots.

thanking you

probabilistic caching?

[Anonymous Coward]

did someone say probabilistic caching?

Bittorrent link?

[YetAnotherName]

I just have to ask ... anyone have a Bittorrent link to the Freenet download?

Re:Bittorrent link?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or better yet, how about a freenet link to download freenet?

there is a *ton* of content

[Anonymous Coward]

spend some time browsing the freedome engine... last i looked there were dozens-hundreds of movies and tv show episdodes available for download. i personally downloaded almost every episode of star trek enterprise from freenet. if you dont know what you are talking about, why are you posting?!?

Re:Guess I won't worry until the BSA kicks in my d

[forgetmenot]

I don't think it's as much of a problem with Software though, quite frankly. The problem with mp3's is A) they're small, B) The full CD is expensive and comes with 90% crap, and C)Very few CD's have anything else that make them an attractive buy.

Software is A) A lot larger B) Generally is either all bad (you ain't gonna play it if you don't like the whole thing) or all good (typically you'll feel bad if you don't pay for it)and C) LOT's of value added goodies for legit owners including access to web-sites for mods/upgrades, etc..

Now I don't feel bad about pirating music. Ok.. it has to be said.. my love for the artists do not outway my utter contempt for the industry in general and I refuse to buy a music CD at any price. But I only listen to music that's been dead for 20 years anyway... ;) Software is different. Most games I play I've tried as pirated version first (because of point B above) and if I like it enough to play it through, I buy it. I register it. And I take full advantage of all the value-added extras that come with a fully paid for and registered product.

I don't lose sleep over listening to pirated 70's-80's music. I DO feel bad about not paying for a good game though.

you proove your ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

i regularly download whole movies from freenet at 30-90k/s ... *faster* than slsk or bittorrent... what was your point again? jeez... these moderators...

Re:Huzzah!

[Abcd1234]

No. No less useful, however, neither one pass through, nor reside in my house....freenet kiddie-pron might...

That's a reasonable argument for snail mail, but what about email? If you run an SMTP server (or better yet, relay), it's entirely possible that people are sending PGP encrypted kiddy porn through your servers, which are likely caching that data...

Go back to zeropaid.com, then

[Anonymous Coward]

and wait for the RIAA to sue.

Re:Huzzah!

[cristofer8]

I disagree with you that free speech requires anonymity. If you have something worth saying, you should be willing to stand behind what you say.

Granted, in many places in the world that will cause bad things to happen to you, but the whole idea behind free speech (at least in the theoretical united states) is that nothing will. Since no one is legally allowed to persecute you for your speech, you should not have any fear of speaking your mind, and thus should have no need for anonymity.

go for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

distribute your closed binary only releases of GPL'd software in freenet... see how much we couldnt care less. and if you think freenet is about evading the RIAA you need to get your imperialist spoiled rotten american teenage head out of your ass and see how important anonymous speach is to disidents struggling for freedome in places like Iran, North Korea and China... this is not hypothetical, Chinese groups are using this *right now*.

all that ...

[Anonymous Coward]

AND THEN A COMMERCIAL FOR DITECH.COM CAME ON.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Re:Huzzah!

[Anonymous Coward]

No. No less useful, however, neither one pass through, nor reside in my house....freenet kiddie-pron might...

Someone could send an encrypted kp file via wireless, and if you happened to be walking by it would pass through your head. Or it could leak into your house. Are your going to start wearing aluminum foil on your head?

Anonymity?

[LesPaul75]

How can any P2P software guarantee anonymity when the RIAA can force your ISP to turn over your usage data?

Re:Anonymity?

[DeathPenguin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Freenet deals with this issue directly by making it virtually impossible to find which ISP any single piece of file content originates from. Don't ask me how, though.

Re:Anonymity?

[shatfield]

Easy. All communications in and out are encrypted. Your usage data just shows that you at IP [w.x.y.z] connected to IP [a.b.c.d] on such-n-such date and time, and transmitted some unintelligable data. It doesn't say what you did there, or every how you did it, aside from a port number that you used.
Without certain peices of information, they would have no case.

RIAA: "Your honor, we show here that said defendant connected to this other person at noon on the 15th. We suspect that they downloaded a copyrighted song file!"

Judge: "And which song was it?"

RIAA: "We have no idea, your honor, and they won't tell us!(stomps around courtroom and waves fist in the air)"

Defendant: "I'll use the Chewbacca defense! If it doesn't make sense, you must aquit!"

Judge: "The defendant has countersued you for his attorney fees. I find for the defendant on the grounds that you have wasted all of our time here today. His lawyer fees came to $5,000,000. Now pay up."

Re:Anonymity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if all requests are encripted and proxied by an unknown number of computers before it reaches it's destination, the ISP knows nothing!

back up

[pecosdave]

They all seem to expire "at the end of session" so those don't seem to dangerous. Unfortunately it's what appears to be random data, probably keys or unique IDs. Just very poorly done considering the number of them and the fact it seems to send them again after idle time.

have patrience, my son

[Anonymous Coward]

its not a finished product and things are shaping up quickly... the ease of use of .5 and .4 and is not comparable... .5.2 is miles ahead. as for sites not responding, much of the routing code is changing recently, which means there are lots of old inefficient nodes around... routing is set to get *much* better in the near future as these new changes propagate across the network.

Freenet vs. WWW

[mblase]

Freenet: Automatic encryption, total privacy. Ideal for sharing the kind of data that would get you fired, disowned, divorced and/or arrested in real life.

WWW: Ideal for everything else.

That's the difference, really, and the reason why Freenet will never approach the Web in popularity -- without popularity, no content; without content, no point.

Re:Freenet vs. WWW

[Joe Tie.]

Freenet does have some other advantages to the normal WWW. As I understand it, a freenet site should load faster as it's slashdotted instead of dying. It's also good for hosting large files that one dosn't have the money to keep on a real server. I could also see it growing in popularity as companies get more protective of their IP. I'm reminded of a pet supply company which sued people who were complaining about their purchases on a message board. I'm not saying it's a sure thing that it could ever get enough content to become popular, but I could see it happening with a little luck - good or bad.

Re:Freenet vs. WWW

[Jeremi]

That's the difference, really, and the reason why Freenet will never approach the Web in popularity -- without popularity, no content; without content, no point.

Nobody claims that FreeNet will replace the web. It might replace Kazaa at some point though, since much of Kazaa's content could conceivably fall into your "would get you arrested" category.

Re:Freenet vs. WWW

[Anonymous Coward]

This is yet one more reason why we need Freenet. Take porn (non KP). Lot's of adult men love porn. And it's been mostly legal in most places for a while now. But say you live in a small town. Before the WWW, how much access did you have to porn? Sure, you could go down to the 7-11 and get a Hustler. Except, of course, that your preacher buys milk there, and who knows what the clerk likes to gossip about. Same with wives. Many men can now use porn because they have no physical objects hidden around the home by which they may be caught. Given the set of things that would get you fired, disowned, divorced, and/or arrested: that set is not identical to the set of things that most people consider wrong. In fact, I suggest, there is a large discrepancy between the two sets. You think that if your boss fires you for looking at porn on your lunch break that it means he's against porn? He may be, but you're naive if you think that is always the case. Many things that people would like to be free to pursue are off limits to them, not because they are unanimously considered immoral and therefore made illegal or made subject to serious repercussions, but rather because they have a public stigma attached. I'm sure many will try to argue that those who don't want others to know what they are doing have already all but admitted that what they are doing is wrong. This is a poor argument. Most of us wouldn't want everyone else to know and see the details of our toilet habbits, but none of us feels that going to the latreen is wrong. The web has done as Freenet will continue to do -- free us all from the tyranny of the majority. Freenet will be abused just as the WWW is abused, just as the telephone and postal systems were before that, just as everything has been abused. Just as an aside, I am against KP. But I think the law enforcement community should go after people who take those pictures of children. Existing laws are adequate for the purpose. One of the things that I worry about is that law enforcement will use Freenet users as a smoke screen, thereby hiding the crimes that they don't impact. "Look," they will say, "We caught 1000 people with KP on their computers. True, none of them were actually looking at it and we didn't catch the folks who took the pics, but we're making your streets safer. Give us more tax money and more power to invade your privacy." It's all good and fine, the status quo, until you're the person who doesn't fit in, who's activities are not given the blessing of soceity at large.

Re:Freenet vs. WWW

[Anonymous Coward]

Smoke screen. Exactly. Because it's easier to go after freenet users than to go after the real bad guys.

Re:+Funny moderation is skewing /.

[Anonymous Coward]

but funny mods dont give you karma, so the whores dont have a reason to post them

have you actually tried it?

[Anonymous Coward]

On popular content, download speeds can easily fill my DSL downlink.

Re:+Funny moderation is skewing /.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unless Slashdot aims to become a crappy joke site, that is."

Or until you get an account and negatively weight the funny posts down.

great; now...

[pb]

I just have to wait for someone to implement a P2P network that uses FreeNet to store .torrent files... ...or do you freenet folks do this already?

Re:great; now...

[Anonymous Coward]

You could do this now. To make a freesite, you just make a normal html webpage and upload it, and then ask one of the gateways to link to you. You could put up torrents. But BitTorrent is not anonymous because some computer has to keep a list of all the IP's to give out so the clients can connect to their peers.

How it all works,

[Anonymous Coward]

..or Ignoring that Cognitive Dissonance

You may notice a large number of posts made on Slashdot concering KaZaA, or similar programs such as Gnutella or FreeNet. Often these will be posted under "Your Rights Online" (YRO), in order to show how the use of KaZaA affects your "rights". You may wonder what the hell programs whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright laws is doing on a conservative (yes, I mean it) site such as Slashdot.

Let me explain to you. In the back of their minds, most Slashdot readers ("Slashbots") know that they simply don't want to pay for anything which they can get illegally for free. Most people are exactly the same way. KaZaA et al allows them to get music for free, so they use it. They know that this is copyright violation, which is a bad thing to do. This brings them feelings of guilt which they want to do away with.

How do they do this? They rationalize it away. It's the copyright laws that are wrong, not them. DMCA needs to be rewritten. The MPAA needs to be destroyed. It's an expression of free speech. And those greedy record companies take all the money anyway. Never mind that with pirate mp3s the artist never sees any money anyway. This way, they are sticking it to "the Man", who exists to make life difficult for 31337 Linux users like themselves. Yes, it is flimsy, and yes, it allows them to take the moral high ground by robbing hard-working artists. Yes, many will say that modern popular music is all horrible anyway, and that their favorite music is the only worthwhile type, but then go on to slam others for being "elitist" in any discussion in which Gnome or KDE is mentioned.

And what about the United Linux beta? Didn't that violate the GPL by attaching a non-disclosure agreement? And remember the cries of the Slashbots that UL should be sued, destroyed. boycotted, etc.? All because they who were helping out the Linux community mistakenly added a certain clause to their beta, which violated the GPL. As you can see, the "community" is quick to cry foul when the copyrights on their software is violated, even by companies with good intentions. Our copyright good, yours bad.

It's called "hypocrisy" and if you read Slashdot enough, you'll have to get used to it.

Now ask yourself exactly why ther is coverage of KaZaA on a site obstensibly devoted to Free Software. KaZaA is proprietary as hell. Those protocol specs had to be reverse engineered. Isn't proprietary software bad? Isn't all free software superior? Isn't "open sourcing" a piece of software the best way to improve it?

These are all bleatings of the party lines. Here, we consider proprietary software Evil until Rob Malda tells us otherwise, or it gets ported to Linux. Then it becomes a special class of proprietary software which somehow becomes better than the rest. KaZaA is one example. UnitedLinux is another. Somehow, they are able to ignore this seemingly large discrepency by claiming that these companies are "helping" the "community". The only one being helped is VA Research^WLinux^WSoftware who gets to sell ads to these people after giving them free publicity on the most popular "Linux" site of them all.

Stop lying to yourselves.

Obviously...

[poptones]

you have never heard of Scientology, or its ethos of "sue everyone for anything." Or have never read about any of the cases of corporations pursuing "whistle blowers" or even just people who write true shit about them they don't like.

Anonymity is anathema to a corporate society, but it is mandatory to preserving a free society.

key indexes are a thing of the past

[Anonymous Coward]

Key indexes were used in the initial freenet versions, but already died while the 0.3 network was running. Content announcement has moved to be mostly in-freenet, via freesites + NIM (e.g. The Freedom Engine) and programs like frost. A lot of keys are also exchanged via IIP.

further, since you seem to be memory-deficient...

[Anonymous Coward]

let me quote you back atg yourself so you can keep it all in your head, i know its hard sometimes for you:

"What Freenet needs in order to be a viable platform for not only publishing content anonymously, but also for finding it, is a search mechanism built into freenet. Before that happens, there is no way that it will become any popular with the file sharing masses -- it's just too find to hard something to download."

bullshit. just like bittorrent, people are happily downloading terrabytes of data without a search engine on freenet.

Any use as a reference? Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

When you start porting freenet to another language, you probably don't do line to line copying.

You look what the code does / is supposed to do and implement that using the best way there is in your language.

Fred will be a working copy of a freenet daemon - others should be able to talk to it and implement the necessary magic (datastores, routing, en-/decryption).

hey you, comedy nazi

[JVert]

just shut up and let me enjoy my cheap laugh. I'm sorry if the entire concept of a pun is cliche in your book. If the fact that freenet hiding behing its privacy features to circumvent copyright enforcement is getting old then what are you doing here in the first place?

I was going to post AC, but I'll take the karma hit to prove i'm not the parent poster.

Re:hey you, comedy nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm sorry if the entire concept of a pun is cliche in your book"

I'm sick of puns. Lowest form of humour. Every single headline in every single newspaper is a pun - so are most tv programs. It's not funny - it just shows that both forms of entertainment are aimed at the under-educated masses.

Legal concerns...

[sterno]

Well, if you are concerned about the legality of it as opposed to the ethics of it, then the fact that it is on your machine without your knowledge or consent should protect you (IANAL of course). As for the ethics of it, would you hold yourself responsible if you manufacture cameras and somebody uses them to take child porn pictures?

Re:Legal concerns...

[JVert]

Poor example. Thats like saying I dont use dell computers because people have used dell computers to download porn. Piracy is a bending of your morals, its illegal but people believe that they should have the right to download certain things, and they support other people being able to access what they have downloaded. But it doesn't mean the have to throw out all morals becuase they dont agree with a few.

btw. A closer analogy would be refusing to buy film for your camera because if you develop the negative without taking a picture first, kiddy porn will appear... but you always take a picture first, right?

Re:Legal concerns...

[sterno]

Actually, the analogy I was using would be more like, "I won't manufacture dell computers because somebody might use it to make kiddie porn". The ethical delimma you face is the notion that you are indirectly facillitating the possibility of somebody else to use something for illict purposes . You don't know for a fact that somebody will use your computer for this, but by setting up freenet, you make it possible.

Re:Legal concerns...

[stratjakt]

Willfull blindness is not a defense in court.

Would you be responsible if you let anyone store whatever they wanted in your garage, and someone stashed a box of child pornography? Yes.

Techinally, anyone running freenet could be charged with conspiracy to distribute child porn if the feds ever wanted to shut it down.

Re:Legal concerns...

[sterno]

If willfull blindness is not a defense, then how come Sprint, AT&T, etc, haven't been prosecuted for carry child pornography? How is this any different than that?

Also, let's go with your theory that anybody could be charged. So are they going to go prosecute millions of people for what might be on their computers? Seeing as freenet has substantial legal uses, there's no way they are going to make the software itself illegal.

Re:Legal concerns...

[careykohl]

If willfull blindness is not a defense, then how come Sprint, AT&T, etc, haven't been prosecuted for carry child pornography? How is this any different than that?

The Feds:"We have reason to believe your service was used to transmit/facilitate kiddie porn and here's our warrant"

Sprint, AT&T, et al:"Here's his name, address, phone number..."

Re:Legal concerns...

[sterno]

Okay, I chose a bad example of companies for illustrating my point. I meant for these companies in the role of common carrier. They have huge data networks that are constantly streaming data that originates from thousands of networks. Some of that data, I guarantee, is illicity, but AT&T can't differetiate between what is and what isn't.

The feds: We have reason to believe your service was used to transmit/facillitrate kiddie porn

You: Really? How can you tell?

The feds: ummmm... err...

Given that the data on your machine is encrypted such that not even you can access it, there's only one possible way for them to know you had child porn going through your server, and that is to explicitly request it through your server. This is entrapment because that data may or may not have been there until they requested it from you.

Sure, maybe they could get into your system and decrypt the data, but they'd need a warrant to do so and that can only be achieved on a basis of reasonable suspicion. Why would they suspect you over any of thousands of other nodes?

The Feds: we need a warrant to search Joe's computer

The Judge: what evidence do you have?

The Feds: ummm... errr.

Re:Legal concerns...

[JVert]

Negative.

The whole construct of the issue is that you may be DIRECTLY transfering kiddy porn to another user. Althouth it is in an ecrypted state you still have possesion.

Maybe thats the difference in how we see it. Does the fact that the data you possess and transfer is encrypted aleviate you from all responsibility? Our examples continually contrast on the fact that in my mind I see myself as a direct part of the transfer beetween myself and another user, even if I dont know what the data is.

Re:Huzzah!

[Cpt_Kirks]

Start?

Re:Huzzah!

[Anonymous Coward]

1. You seem to be aware that not everywhere is the United States, then in the next sentence, you ASSUME that everyone is in the United States.

2. "If you have something worth saying, you should be willing to stand behind what you say."

You mean like this obviously worthless trash?

More jobs to india

[Anonymous Coward]

Progress has only been possible at this rate because, thanks to your donations, the project has been able to pay a full time developer for the bargain rate of $1500/month.

*sigh*

I didn't want competition when I signed up to be a programmer! I wanted stock options. I wanted to be white collar! Now, I find out that I'm just a schmuck like the idiots who work in the factory that used to beat me up in high school that I thought I was better than when I became a full-fledged adult geek.

Better go join the union.

Re:Huzzah!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I disagree with you that free speech requires anonymity. If you have something worth saying, you should be willing to stand behind what you say."

Sorry but your an idiot. Voting is private, the federalist papers written by the founders of America were written anonymously.

Why?

Because free speach cannot not exist if people must restrain their speech out of fear of reprisal.

P.S. Open your eyes and realize that is also why Slashdot allows users to post anonymously here.

Re:+Funny moderation is skewing /.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just as easy to toss out some obvious but seemingly intelligent comment which will be modded to +5 insightful in no time.

Hypocrite!

[jez9999]

Should a neighbor be allowed to amplify his voice outside my house and recite pornography at 120 db without restriction? I suggest that the answer is no. ...
--
I'm a pimp. Be my ho. [cheats4us.org]

Enough said.

Re:Hypocrite!

[whatch durrin]

Did you even check the link.

FYI - the link itself is dead...visit the domain. It's not as it sounds.

Correct me if i'm wrong, why not FreeNet-Napster

[pioneer]

I downloaded freenet a while ago and from a user-friendly standpoint it seemed like a nightmare. Why doesn't someone build a Napster-esque front-end to freenet to help catapult the network into a reasonable market??

The kiddies (read everyone) can get their movies/music while providing bandwidth and storage for the rest of freenet's uses as well...

If I'm way off base, please inform me why...

RIAA's going down, down. down. down.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not responsible any more than the creators of TCP/IP are responsible.

no really... its not a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

its the truth. the original post is a mentally deficient trolling chump, further, the moderators are pathetic cock jockeys. eat vag.

about the kiddy p0rn argument.

[Anonymous Coward]

I sell film to a kiddie pornographer. Am I responsible? After all, I know it's possible he could take that kind of picture.

I drive an SUV (not really). Therefore, some small fraction of my gasoline purchases funds Al Qaeda. Am I responsible for 9/11? I could ride a bike or buy a higher mileage vehicle.

Suppose a kiddie pornographer drives materials down a freeway. My tax dollars partially funded the construction of that freeway. Is the pornographer responsible for his behavior, or have I "enabled" his behavior?

I've noticed these types of issues have been blurred by recent legislative decisions. It seems to me that the end users/abusers are the responsible parties, not the conduits.

A little tip on priority numbers

[i_am_nitrogen]

Negative numbers are higher priority. Positive numbers are lower priority. 0 is the default priority. -20 is realtime, 19 is idle-only. So, if you set your freenet process to -15 or -18, it will take over your system. You probably want it at +19. Your CPU usage will probably still be at 100%, but when you want to do something else, freenet will be put to sleep and you shouldn't notice any sluggishness in higher priority processes, unless external requests are overloading your net connection.

Re:A little tip on priority numbers

[archen]

hehe... this reminds me of where I work where I told another admin that the backup should be niced to around 15 since I have to do one backup a week while people are still using the system, and I didn't want to drag people down. So the guy sets the nice level to -15. Next week I start the backup and man did I catch hell from irate users...

The moral of the story is to read the man page. Or if in doubt, just use nice with no argument and accept the default of 10 =P

Re:A little tip on priority numbers

[Realistic_Dragon]

Ack, yes, it's actually niced to 19. I'm suffering only from lack of sleep, not stupidity ;o)

Re:A little tip on priority numbers

[Qzukk]

Actually, some systems have nice numbers running one way, and some have them running the other way. Whenever I touch a platform I've never used before, I always check the manpages for common utilities I use. Thats avoided all sorts of wonderful things like using "killall" on Solaris.

Freenet in C

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a clone of Freenet that is written in C called Entropy. You can download it from their web site.

Re:Huzzah!

[Meffan]

Thanks for the 'Funny' mod, dodgy joke I know. To be serious, the kiddy pr0n really is what'll keep a lot of users away. Not because its on the network, because its on every network (Try searching any P2P for "Young").

The problem with Freenet is that because of how it works, a search engine is impossible. Therefore all material that is available must be sent to a pre-specified location (Such as "The Tower") for public viewing.
Imagine google had no results or search, just a description and link to every site it knew about. Including child pornography. Credit to the people at "The Tower", they certainly believe in freedom of speech, to the death.

The problem is that many people don't really want adverts for child pornography on their homepage. The solution? Censorship - which then defeats Freenet's stated goal. Opinions?

Re:Huzzah!

[Anonymous Coward]

> The fact is, the minute you guarantee anonymity (something which, IMHO, is required for free speech... after all, what's the point of free speech if you're afraid to exercise that right?), people will abuse it. However, if you truly believe in the right to free speech, you must be willing to take the good with the bad. Anyone who suggests anything else doesn't truly believe in free speech.

Problem is, things such as videos of child porn or snuff films are not speech - they're evidence of actions that have gone well beyond the boundary of "just talking about it".

People who dismiss the kiddy-porn rhetoric invariably fail to see the difference between speech and evidence of actions, and want to freely protect that evidence as well as free speech.

inform yourself first, then talk

[dh003i]

Having used FreeNet, the fact of the matter is that downloads are in fact very fast, once established.

Looking through the network and making initial connections is what is slow. Once that's down, downloads are very fast.

Re:Huzzah!

[Anonymous Coward]

do you have a mailbox? did you know the Government actually RUNS the USPS?
Your already an accessory to kiddieporn crime...

Re:Huzzah!

[dasmegabyte]

Actually, it will have your knowledge and your consent. You know that Freenet has, is, and will be used to deliver content you don't agree with. You consent to allow this, or you don't use freenet.

It sounds like you are not ready to be free. The first step towards freedom is the release of control. As long as somebody is able to make a decision affecting somebody else's use of the medium, then it is not free. It is censorship -- and it doesn't matter how righteous you want to get about it, it's absolutely anthithetical to Freenet.

"But Freenet could be used by pornographers, theives, or terrorists!" True. It can also be used by artists, musicians and governments. It is a tool of the oppressed, with absolutely no background checks. Hell, if I had the ability to censor Freenet, I'd stop every picture of Hitler, every hateful word, and everything pro-conservative and I'd refuse to serve requests for these things, either. In fact, self censoring scripts have been proposed to allow users to "ban" offensive keys. However, none of them would work. Because data flows over and around the machines that won't serve it. New keys will be created daily to lift the ban.

If you don't like it, use the WWW. Freenet is a big, scary idea. A big data bath of absolute freedom. I feel I'm responsible and patriotic enough to use it -- because if even one intelligent, oppressed thought floats to the surface amid the gallons of smut, it'll be worthwhile.

What???

[eclectic_echidna]

...Freenet is primarily used for the distribution of noncopyrighted material at this time. It is actively being used in countries like China by dissidents to distribute censored information...

...and offer superior anonymity in the process...

I though that it was anonymous. How do we know that Chinese rebels are using it???

Re:Huzzah!

[hendrix69]

the minute you guarantee anonymity (something which, IMHO, is required for free speech...

Well now, this is an interesting philosophical question, in'it? Why should free speech require anonymity?
Free speech protects the right of an individual to speak his mind in view of the public. If the individual is indeed protected then he should have no reason to hide his identity. It seems to me that anonymity is only required if freedom of speech is not guaranteed.

Re:further, since you seem to be memory-deficient.

[pv2b]

All right, it may be possible to find stuff on freenet, and if you read the other parts of this thread, I've effectively conceded the argument that it's impossible to post content on freenet anonymously and have other people find it.

The solution is called frost.

Also, there's a different between something being usable, compared to it being usable by the "masses". A system such as frost seems to have the potential to bring freenet to the masses.

On this point, I stand corrected.

Text only free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people have complained about the existance of kiddie porn with this freenet system. What about limiting the uploaded file type to text type documents?

Re:GNAA Jizz and Winecoolers!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Great - now the pedophiles have a new way to trade their warez without getting caught. I hope you open source people feel happy for supporting this. Thanks to you more perverts will go uncaught and more children are going to be sexually abused.

Censor air to stop KP !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stop Kiddie Porn" is just a more extreme form of the "Protect The Children" argument that governments are always eager to support as a catch-all, since you cannot argue with it for fear of social death or worse.

It can be used to justify practically anything. For example, do you realize that you are supporting kiddie porn by the fact that you are allowing those criminals to breath free air? Indeed a passing KP merchant is actually breathing the air from your own land, you should be ashamed that you are contributing to his welfare!!! I think this really needs air to be regulated ...

It's a bit like Godwin's Law. If you have a useful argument to contribute, don't mention the Nazis, nor KP.

MODERATORS

[Anonymous Coward]

please read the replies to a post before moderating it.

Freenet's main problem lies in its design itself

[burbilog]

It was developed to distribute UNPOPULAR content. But unpopular means unpopular, i.e. something that most of the people do not support. That means that content is rarely accessed. Now remember that Freenet as whole keeps POPULAR pages, dropping everything else...

That's why Kazaa, Gnutella and Co suck like hoover when it comes to rare music. I collect ballroom music, and it's very, very difficult to find ballroom music compared with dead Napster and AudioGalaxy :( The same will plague Freenet -- it will keep only popular "unpopular" files, erhm. Even if someone inserts ballroom files somewhere it's highly unlikely that I would find such a page beyond the typical p2p horizon...

I'll bite...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen british people. Trust me they NEED flouride in their drinking water.

Re:I'll bite...

[jez9999]

Do you have a clue? Silly question.

True, fluoride in drinking water can slightly improve children's dental health. Then again, so can them brushing their lazy-ass teeth with some fluoride toothpaste. On the other hand, fluoride in drinking water has been associated with several health *problems*, one of which happens to be tooth 'mottling' which causes teeth to get blotches on them. Great solution. Damage a large proportion of the nation's teeth to slightly improve the minority's.

Re:I'll bite...

[guacamolefoo]

Do you have a clue? Silly question.

[snippity-snip-snip-snip]

True, fluoride in drinking water can slightly improve children's dental health.

[...]

Damage a large proportion of the nation's teeth to slightly improve the minority's.
== Jez ==

Abolish the UK TV licence fee!
To join BBCresistance, e-mail: bbcresistance-subscribe@topica.com

Soooo...someone in England is lecturing the rest of the world about dental care?

GF.

You can't misuse the GPL with it

[sterno]

Well let's see, if you distributed the source of the file, you'd be in compliance. If you distributed the binary without the source, you'd be out of compliance, but who would want it? Yeah, I trust some version of software I downloaded over a P2P network that refuses to give me source code.

So what else would you do? Modify it? Okay fine, modify it. Then what? How am I going to know that this file even exists to download?

Ultimately something like Freenet doesn't really do anything to GPL software because the fundamental thing that freenet alters, distribution, is already completely kosher under the GPL.

Re:Huzzah!

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is, the minute you guarantee anonymity (something which, IMHO, is required for free speech... after all, what's the point of free speech if you're afraid to exercise that right?), people will abuse 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.

Thats funny. I don't see anything about anonymity in there.

Huh?!?

[Baki]

What is buggy: the API or its implementation?

Strictly spoken, an API cannot be buggy. One could say it is inconvenient, badly structured, not well thought out or whatever.

But a bug is an implementation error, something does not work as specified. The API is the spec, only its implementation can be buggy.

What did you mean to say: Does the current NIO implementation contain bugs, or are the concepts of NIO broken?

bittorrent within freenet?

[gladbach]

The only question I have, is would it be possible to do something like bittorrent from w/in freenet?

Re:bittorrent within freenet?

[Anonymous Coward]

BT isn't new. Kazaa, Freenet, and if you remember Swarmcast all did what BT does. BT just plugs into your browser which made its protocol more apparent.

IIP: The realtime chat complement to Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

Invisible IRC (or IIP) is the perfect complement to Freenet. It's a completely anonymous, distributed chat network that runs as a proxy on your system, to which you can connect any IRC client (just use localhost:6667 for server). If you like Freenet, join us on IIP!

Re:Huzzah!

[Abcd1234]

Umm... you completely missed my first point:

something which, IMHO, is required for free speech... after all, what's the point of free speech if you're afraid to exercise that right?

Free speech is useless without anonymity. If you can't understand that, you're missing something. Just look at the red scare of the 50's... how many people were persecuted because they privately supported communism?

Re:Huzzah!

[Famatra]

"If the individual is indeed protected then he should have no reason to hide his identity."

Nope they have no reason to hide their identity at all, except maybe:

-fear of being killed by the King of England(Founders of America/Federalist Papers)
-being beaten for voting "wrong" (Oh, thats why its anonymous ballot, silly me!)
-losing my job, and the ability to support myself for whistle blowing on Enron etc.
-Speaking out against pedophile teachers / priests / family members who threaten hurt, harm & reprisal (Oh look how ironic, Freenet is helping the children now!)

Anonymous speech is NECESSARY for freedom of speech.

Re:Huzzah!

[Anonymous Coward]

No-uh! Slashdot allows anony postings because they likes the trolls. Crapface.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck is this a troll? A thoughtful reply to the parent, AFAICS. Please reply, don't moderate if you just don't agree with a post.

Re:Correct me if i'm wrong, why not FreeNet-Napste

[Anonymous Coward]

you're definitely not off base...

UPS must be vigilant, it's required.

[Anonymous Coward]

Else druggies would use UPS to send stuff with no fear. UPS is required to do a token search for drugs. Of course they can't open the packages, but they sure aren't forbidden from trying to detect any molecules that have escaped the package.

So another argument shot down. UPS is NOT a common carrier.

Excelllent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you very much for the link, this is great!

Does the compile-to-native option *really* do that honestly, or is there effectively a JVM still lurking in there somewhere?

Re:+Funny moderation is skewing /.

[gfody]

goto your preferences and put a negative adjustment on funny, if you think our jokes are that bad.

I thought it was pretty funny, you probably think robin williams is funny

The KP problem...

[NotInTheBox]

Basicly the problem I see is that in the production of KP, childeren are being hurt.
In the distribution there is no one who gets hurt. The comsuption of porn will damage the user (addict) more then they already are, and they will loose every sense of reality.

Think of it: Images only becomes porn if someone uses it in that way. A bitmap is no more then a collection of numbers. -- one day you can make a tool the could generate the image you wanted -- No one got hurt in the process. Would you then still object to the images?
(I would object to you wanting to make these images...)

Regretably there are to many people in the world who enjoy looking at KP, imho they should be locked away for a very very long time. Regretably there are people how do anything for a buck, even rape childeren, imho they should be executed.

However: The only way to get ride of KP has nothing to do with distibution. The only solution is that we need beter people. People who value life, truth and people more then money or there own selfish impulses. Who would not think of childeren in that way...

Therefore: if this has nothing to do with distribution, then it has nothing to do with Freenet.

Re:The KP problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it that KP dammages the consumer and causes them to no longer preceive reality, while consuming regular porn wont?
I have sen a lot of regular porn in my life (thank you internet) and I have not been turned into a serial rapist or any wrose kind of criminal, how is it that porn of a different subject matter will cause that?

Re:The KP problem...

[NotInTheBox]

I'm sorry, I should have put that in a imho context.
I believe that people should not feed their minds with fantasies and illusions, porn is imho 100% fantasy.

As you point out correctly, I consider all porn to be damaging for the consumer's mental health. Which does not mean that they are turned in to a rapist or worse and which does not mean that I want laws againt porn in general. Which only means that it is not good, it is not making you beter.

Also note that I did pointed out that it is not the images which makes it porn, but the state of mind of the consumer.

I wonder however how much of the internet exists today thanks to porn...

Re:Huzzah!

[bobbozzo]

So, why don't you set the datastore size to 0?

Why is parent marked as a troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the most informative post in this whole subthread. The moderator that did that is either on drugs or downright dishonest.

Freenet Blocker - is it possible?

[waynemcdougall]

Would it not be possible to run a modified Freenet node that had a list of keys which it would not accept for inserting, forwarding or relaying on?

Then IF (a BIG IF) ou had a trusted list of say, the keys of the Kiddie porn, you could elect, on your own system, not to be a part, however indirect, of storing or passing through requests.

Is there any technical reason why this could not be done? I know the data is encrypted, but the keys must not be.

Obviously this would have wide potential for abuse and censorship, but the choice of what to block would be on each Freenet node. Furthermore, the blocking list would be an index of what the perverts wanted. Unavoidable I guess.

Also you might be held more liable if there was such a blocking list, and you weren't using it.

But I would certainly be more comfortable running my node if I had that option.

Re:Freenet Blocker - is it possible?

[dasmegabyte]

It has been done. It was pretty worthless. It may still be in process, but it is not a part of Freenet. It's a hacked client and you're welcome to use it.

But you should know that the reason it was worthless is that keys in freenet are so easy to create that the second one got blocked, and published to a block list, you could resubmit the same file with a new key. Which would also have a different file size and CRC.

So, no way to identify offensive files until they download and decrypt. So, no useful mechanism to censor them. But a very useful mechanism for filling your hard drive with a useless black list.

It doesn't help, besides. If your computer refuses to serve a file, clients will just request around you. And thanks to the ease of changing keys, you're still not protected from having offensive material on your PC.

Lots of work with no benefit always seems suspicious to me...

Absurd

[poptones]

Your argument is absurd - posting pictures in the front yard is not at all akin to hosting pictures where someone must request them - but even it if weren't ridiculous you should learn a little history (and some sociology as well). In many places nudity is illegal - you ok with that? In other places pictures of children "having sex" (simulated or otherwise) is not strictly policed - and, in fact, it wasn't even illegal in the US until the 1970's. It should be completely obvious to any thinking individual that this censorship has done nothing at all to "protect" children.

In fact it has arguably harmed both individuals and the greater of our society. Harmed not only directly from the heightened stigma associated with this behavior (which discourages open discussion of the problem, thus further isolating people from seeking treatment), but also because of the witch hunts this stigma has incited, leading to the destruction of a great many lives: (innocent) parents and the children of those parents whose lives were destroyed.

Yes, free speech is all about "shit you don't like." That you and so many others have been so completely brainwashed by the thought police running washington and the allegedly "free" press shows just how fragile freedom is. Polls in Singapore have shown that, by and large, the people think government censorship is a good thing; your comments are emblematic that same brainwashing right here in the good ol' "Land of the free."

What do you get for pretending the danger's not real?
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel...

Re:Correct me if i'm wrong, why not FreeNet-Napste

[paganizer]

There are a couple of good user interfaces for Freenet; the best is probably FROST, which includes messaging and searching.
look in the "tools" section of the freenet site.

Freedom of speech???

[64bitslut]

P2P filesharing is not about freedom of speech. It's about free movies, software, pictures and music. Hiding behind the right to free speech is both lame and flawed. I like free movies just as much as the next guy but I'm not going to try and convince myself that the world needs freenet in order that Chinese disidents can say their government sucks. I think a little honesty with ourselves in the P2P community is only fair. If I want to exercise my right to free speech, I can think of dozens of appropriate avenues that don't involve P2P filesharing.

Re:Freedom of speech???

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't used Freenet, have you?

Re:Freedom of speech???

[NotInTheBox]

Regretably most people do not create anything which has enough value to share. P2P is therefore mostly used to share the works of others. I however hope that this will not continue to be this way, I hope that people will in time become prosumers, and then P2P will be a great system...

For now, people cheat. They use the work of others to help them selfs to some positive karma points by shareing it with friends. I believe this is a development stage, in time we will out grow it.

Internet and such will kill the superstar, the whole idear of a superstar. Imho it is not good for people to have idols. There will nolonger be a massculture, except if you look at it as a metaculture of diversity. But without the superstar, whos work will you share?

Excuse me? Lack of index?

[Myself]

There are at least half a dozen reliable index sites within Freenet itself, and several of them are linked to from the gateway page.

Why would you want an index outside of freenet anyway? Holding such a thing on a regular web server means your access can be tracked and logged, which defeats the purpose!

There's plenty to look at in Freenet. I'd bet a significant sum that you haven't tried it recently.

Re:Correct me if i'm wrong, why not FreeNet-Napste

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a number of solutions in place, now. An external application known as 'frost' does a good job. Freenet itself has improved to the point where it's pretty much 'plug and chug', with very little user intervention required to start surfing the new medium.

Re:Mark my words: (Mod Parent Up!)

[Famatra]

Mod Parent UP!

Freenet is an insurance policy against government to ensure freedom of speach is here to last.

The only cost of this insurance is to download it for free. Its a bargain.

Re:Correct me if i'm wrong, why not FreeNet-Napste

[Tom7]

I think that people are waiting because the software keeps changing. But this should totally be the plan once the platform becomes stable enough to unleash onto the world.

Re:Huzzah!

[Sylver Dragon]

I disagree with you that free speech requires anonymity. If you have something worth saying, you should be willing to stand behind what you say.

Right, tell this to the people in China who disagree with the current govenment. Sure, they belive what they say, and they would love to be able to state that publicly. However, this type of statement tends to get people killed in China currently, so instead, they find ways to spread their ideas, and information, without being identified, which keeps them alive longer, and allows them to do more to help get rid of the current govenment.

Since no one is legally allowed to persecute you for your speech, you should not have any fear of speaking your mind, and thus should have no need for anonymity.

Tell this to the Communists in the US during the 50's and 60's. At the time they were persecuted, in the US, for holding a somewhat unpopular belief about economics. Also, look back at how people of Japaneese ancestry were treated in the US during WWII. Sometimes, it isn't a matter of what people/the govenment should do, instead its about what people/the govenment actually do. The ability for people to share and spread ideas/information without fear of persecution only truly ever comes through total anonymity.
Sure, Freenet can, and probably does, host kiddie porn and other such undesirables. And, those files may, in fact, be stored on my machine running Freenet. But, I see this as being part of the trade off for liberty, sometimes tools get misused and abused, but I refuse to give up my right to privacy in order to gain a false pretense of security. If, in order to retain my anonyminity, I must accept the possibility that some of the information on my computer would violate my ethical code, I am willing to accept that trade off. If you are not, that is your decision, but please don't whine when the DoD renames and fires up TIA, afterall, you don't need to remain anonymous, the government will protect you and never persecute you for your beliefs. Afterall, its only going to be used to catch terrorists, and you aren't one of those are you?

Re:+Funny moderation is skewing /.

[Anonymous Coward]

since when?

That's why the FAQ says to leave it running.

[Myself]

Part of how Freenet works is that your datastore (which starts empty) fills itself up with data that passes through your node. Your routing tables also continue to refine themselves as time goes on. A virgin node has an empty datastore and little knowledge of its neighbors, and will therefore have a hard time getting much at first.

Leave your node running for a while. Set it up as permanent, make sure it's got a publicly accessible IP, and after a few hours, use the node status interface to make sure that "local queries" is nonzero (i.e. your node is serving traffic).

The longer your node runs as an active part of the network, and the more you use it, the more relevant information your datastore contains. Your routing table also gets a better idea of where to go for certain types of keys. (That's probabilistic caching, it's weird but it works.) After your node's been up and active a few days, it'll become more responsive and usable.

This is a very unique property of Freenet. The more bandwidth you give it, and the more disk space you give it, and the longer you let it run, the better your user experience becomes.

Re:That's why the FAQ says to leave it running.

[pgrote]

How do you set it up as permanent? I looked and the Node Availability preferences are greyed out. It says to go to geek mode, but I cannot find what I need to set there.

Re:That's why the FAQ says to leave it running.

[Myself]

It's right there at the top of Geek settings: "Allow changes to node address, port, and availability settings (on Normal page)"

Just put a checkmark there and go back to Normal settings. Put your static IP in there, set it to Permanent, and watch your CPU melt! No, actually the NIO builds are much better about that. A month ago, it was bad.

usenet is text only

[Anonymous Coward]

lame lAme laMe lamE lame.

Re:usenet is text only

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but even if it is "text only" you can still traid files. Examples would be the binaries newsgroups or alt.anonymous.messages

-begin encoded document-
blah blah blah jibberish etc
-end encoded document-

I am surprised that google actually achieves that stuff. Then again, it is easy to access and store stuff this way.

Computer graphics and porn

[Anonymous Coward]

The VFX industry says that arbitrary human-indistinguishable computer graphic characters will be with us in under half a decade.

When that happens, "it is evidence of a crime that was committed in creating it" will no longer be necessarily true of child porn. I guess this is going to make this kind of content increase, since there is no law to say what combination of pixels may be generated on a screen or not, afaiaa.

Re:Computer graphics and porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the abstract "depiction of minors" law is back on the books again in the US, even after the supreme court tossed the old one. Congress threw in some extra mumbo-jumbo, but the core of the law is the same: If its Romeo and Juliet, or American Beauty, its illegal.

The people shown do not have to be minors and do not even have to exist, but if the purpose of the media is to depict minors sexually, then it runs afoul of the law. Someday, the SCOTUS will throw this law out too, and Congress will do it again. After all, even if you can't pass a single law that stays in effect forever, if you make something illegal for months at a time with only a few days break in between, thats just as good, no?

sure.

[pb]

However, it would help in that you would have a site for .torrents that wouldn't get shut down. The trade-off here is that you lose some privacy but gain a lot of speed. :)

Re:Huzzah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of the children! Oh god, won't someone please think of the children!"

Isn't this suppose to be a parents job?

Have to run on localhost? :(

[AGTiny]

I wanted to run a freenet node on my dedicated server with lots of bandwidth. However, when I tried to change the mainport.allowedHosts option to my home IP address so I could view the web interface, it still only accepted connections from 127.0.0.1. This sucks, so I guess I'll have to wait for a later version to fix this.

Also, I see a lot of links to freenet files that start with http://127.0.0.1:8888/KEY. This is no good; it should use something like freenet://KEY, similar to the way ed2k links work.

Re:Have to run on localhost? :(

[AGTiny]

My bad, I didn't RTFM. The % sign had to be removed from the mainport.allowedHosts option or it would ignore the value. I wonder why they didn't just use the standard convention of commenting out default settings with #.

Re:Huzzah!

[jazman_777]

However, if you truly believe in the right to free speech, you must be willing to take the good with the bad.

Property rights are more important than free speech. In fact, free speech (the free press in the USA) originally _derived_ from property rights.

Re:Huzzah!

[jazman_777]

Nope they have no reason to hide their identity at all, except maybe:
-fear of being killed by the King of England(Founders of America/Federalist Papers)

Which is why the Declaration of Independence is anonymous. Oh, wait, they had more guts than that--it's full of signatures! John Hancock, there's a man with nerve.

Freedom at last!

[b-baggins]

Now the Chinese can be free to protest their government without getting shot, and Americans can be free to steal music without getting sued. This is a great day, because we all know the RIAA suing theives is more horrible than the Chinese crackdown at Tianemen square.

Re:Correct me if i'm wrong, why not FreeNet-Napste

[pioneer]

There are a couple of good user interfaces for Freenet; the best is probably FROST, which includes messaging and searching. look in the "tools" section of the freenet site.

I'll check this out. But correct me if I'm wrong... we should be pushing frost to newbies not directly to freenet... If you send some novice to freenet and they don't get the intuitive interface then they'll leave freenet and not get involved.

this is very similar to mozilla and the problem with trying to convince laypersons that standards-compliance is good...

So, at least I know frost now and know what to check out and (hopefully, upon review) suggest to people...

RIAA's going down. down. down. down.

How to make Freenet suck less: Leave it running!

[Myself]

For the Freenet newbie: This is NOT your plain jane filesharing program! You don't just point it at files and say "let people leech these". Freenet is a transport layer. Most users access it through a browser, retrieving HTML and images stored within Freenet. It's also possible to use it as a messageboard, file repository, and more.

When you start up Freenet, you give it some disk space to use as a "datastore". This starts empty, and fills itself up over time as your node participates in the network.

When you click a link in Freenet, your web browser requests the key (sort of like a url) from your local node. Assuming your node doesn't have the key, it asks another node for it, which then asks another and another until the key is located. The data is then passed back up the chain to your node, and along the way some of the intermediate nodes keep a copy.

In this manner, popular content propagates in Freenet. By leaving your node running (and making sure it's actively participating in the network, serving requests) you'll allow it to store some of the keys that make up Freenet's content. When you use your node, it's likely that some of the keys you want are already stored there.

Routing is similar. When you first install Freenet, it has knowledge of a few "seed nodes", and that's all it knows about. As your node talks to the seed nodes, they tell it about other nodes, and your routing table grows. This makes you less dependent on the seed nodes (which are probably melting today).

A new system in Freenet called "probabilistic caching" results in a certain amount of specialization, and a significant performance improvement. It's based on keys (which are cryptographic hashes of content) and node IDs (which are crypto keys). Both are fairly randomly distributed, numerically. Here's how PCaching works:

If your node ID ends in 0x3F, then when your node participates in the chain for a piece of data whose key ends in 0x3F, it's very likely to keep a copy. When your node handles other keys, it might still keep a copy but it's not as likely. Likewise when you request a key that ends in 0xD3, that request will be passed, if possible, to a node whose ID also ends in 0xD3. This is a simplified explanation and I'm not a Freenet coder, but that's how it's been explained to me.

Obviously, the larger and more up-to-date your routing table is, the more easily your node can find the pages you request. Being an active part of the network is the best way for your node to keep a healthy routing table and a relevant datastore.

Freenet is unique among p2p apps in that your user experience actually improves if you contribute more bandwidth and space. (Bandwidth is much more important than drive space. 100 nodes with datastores of 1 gig each will make a much bigger impact on the network than 1 node with a 100 gig datastore!)

How the RIAA would finish the analogy:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Research has definitively shown that infant males get erections, and that infant females have vaginal secretions"...Should infants be killed because sex is bad? YES!!!

Re:Huzzah!

[Lord Kano]

However, if you truly believe in the right to free speech, you must be willing to take the good with the bad. Anyone who suggests anything else doesn't truly believe in free speech.

I don't see it that way. That is not the issue for many of us.

I believe that you have the right to be a holocaust revisionist, but I will not repeat, or relay your opinions on the matter.

I support your right to be a racist. I will not repeat or relay your opinions on the matter.

I support your right to be "pro-choice". I will not repeat or relay your opinions on the matter.

I believe in your right to access images on the internet. I will not be a party to your search for child pornography.

There is a difference between supporting the ideal of free speech and in being an active participant in someone else's speech.

LK

Re:Political calls are exempt?

[John Hurliman]

Do you mean host bittorrents in Freenet (easy) or implement the bittorrent protocol over Freenet? As far as the latter goes, Freenet has it's own downloading protocol that is similar to BT in a lot of ways.

Freenet: A lot of hype

[Eminor]

I tried it out a couple of weeks ago. It was slow and I couldn't find anything I wanted on it. Plus, I don't like the idea that it is a safe haven for kiddie porn.

I think I'll stick with mldonkey. Nothing beats Fasttrack at availability and speed. You have a better chance at winning the lottery than the RIAA sueing you.

RIAA and 30 years of permission to copy

[BlainetheMono]

What the RIAA hasnt shown to me is "just HOW is recording/copying music off the radio or LP that was done 30 years ago, ANY different then recording music off the net to my computer"????

They embraced the tape deck and VHS/Beta after intial complaints, when they found out how much money they could make, now when the technology is biting them in the ass they cry "foul". Cant have it both ways RIAA. You have spent the last THIRTY YEARS conditioning America thats it was OK to make recordings of their COPYRIGHTED records onto tape and you never whined......

Anybody willing to take a shot??

Re:RIAA and 30 years of permission to copy

[dasmegabyte]

They don't have to show you anything. All they have to do is prove to the jury that your file sharing harmed their industry.

Legislation is against human nature. If we weren't all naturally inclined to steal candy bars, shoplifting wouldn't be illegal. The RIAA is trying to tell the world that what you are doing is just as wrong, morally speaking, and as long as the people signing the papyrus and reading the verdicts believe what the RIAA is telling them, it's going to be illegal.

You know, a lot of murderers don't understand why what they did is wrong. This doesn't get them free.

Your recourse in this battle over the freedom of music is twofold: one, you can stop trading and fight tooth and nail in the courts and on the streets to legalize it. Or two, you can just make sure you don't get caught.

Ask the millions of Americans who smoke marijuana, drive over the speed limit and don't pay their fair share of taxes which of these two courses of action is most effective.

Re:RIAA and 30 years of permission to copy

[Joey Vegetables]

I am not inclined to steal a candy bar or anything else, even if there were no chance of being caught. I have known since I was about 2 that stealing is wrong and therefore no law is necessary in order to prevent me from doing it.

I think you'll find no amount or kind of laws are sufficient if we as a society truly are willing to steal (or lie, or cheat, or enslave, or rape, or murder) as long as "there's no law against it," or as long as "we won't get caught."

There can't be true freedom without morality, nor true morality without freedom, and this whole discussion is pretty powerful evidence of both of these facts.

I am wondering...

[zogger]

.. if there's a way around the KP issue by somehow being able to block all images? That would seem the easiest way to deal with the illegal and questionable content of the most concern by most folks still on the fence over running freenet-like me. I read further down though that all the files are somehow the same? No way to tell? This is confusing. If I could block images and audio files, I would consider running it. Plain vanilla text only would be nice, ascii maybe, no scripts, no nothing else but text files, help eliminate a lot of cooties that you don't want, but still allow communications to proceed. I love this idea, support free speech, but want to insure that no universally recognized immoral content like KP is shared. That would increase the "plausible deniability" aspect as well. Politics/news, etc is one thing, KP and some other stuff is another by my reckoning. My conscious is such that I would know there's a possibility I would be a facilitator, therefore, within my own sense of ethics and morality I couldn't allow it, it might classify as a somewhat legal plausible deniability, but to _ME_ I wouldn't have any plausible deniability, which is more important to me. It's a conundrum.

Re:I am wondering...

[Bryan_W]

You have the idea of freenet all wrong. KP doesn't just pop up in front of you. The web gateway (one of the main functions of freenet) is just like the regular web, you can go to some directory listing freesites but you have to click on the links to retrive the content that you want. Just like on the real web, you have to search for porn if you want it and if you don't then more then likely you won't have to deal with it.

Re:I am wondering...

[mink]

Your text only idea is useless one. Look up a little utility called uuencode.
Besides even written text can be KP as far as American law goes.

Deconstructing Oppenheim

[Anonymous Coward]

most artists spend a lifetime trying to sell the result of their efforts to record companies so that they may make a living making music

Uhh, sorry, big-O, most artists spend a lifetime creating art for the enjoyment and/or recognition, not to line the coffers of his record companies.

...otherwise artists would have a lot less time to create the music we all love.

Given what's pushed onto the airwaves today, the people keeping these "artists" from creating more crap are truly heroes. And thank you, Oppenheim, for redefining the collective "we" to mean just you.

Re:Huzzah!

[Guppy06]

Besides, I would imagine that most of the people involved in producing and distributing kiddie porn are in it to make money. While having the content available on Freenet would make it more available to pedophiles, they'd still be a pedophile even if they didn't have the content.

However, I don't think anybody's figured out a way to make a buck on Freenet. If anything, Freenet would hurt the kiddie porn black market, because pedophiles can now get their fix for free. There will probably always be people who take such pictures (and perhaps distribute them) for their own sake (and that won't go away without government mind control), but I'd say they're in the minority of those who exploit these kids.

ok... we see eye to eye

[Anonymous Coward]

now that ive had my lunch i wont be so pissy :) as far as *average* users freenet has miles to go, especially compared to kazaa, grokster, slsk, etc... but for the geeks its workin well right now... and considering the threat of the riaa looming right now, im sure many more people will be willing to put up with a slightly more crufty inteface to prevent themselves from getting slapped with an ugly laysuit... i sure am :)

Wrong reaction to kiddy porn possibility . . .

[Idou]

"It's one thing to steal songs and software, but it's another thing to host pictures of some 7 year old getting raped. I don't want to even have the possibility of that happening, so I think I'll stick with another distributed client."

I always thought the reason that kiddy porn was illegal was in order to destroy a market for a good that was created through an atrocious crime. However, as with the illegal drug market, simply making something illegal does not make demand go away and can create a lucrative black market. So it seems to me that if you really wanted the market to be destroyed for such a good, you would not give it the same protection that the RIAA and MPAA are trying to give their products.

Futhermore, it seems that as a society we might need to accept that child abuse is a problem that will not go away by agency enforcement alone. Maybe we should be giving parents and guardians less legal control over their children and investing money in alternative places for children to grow up?

I don't know . . . the kiddy porn issue always seems to be a scape goat for a more fundamental flaw in our society.

Re:Wrong reaction to kiddy porn possibility . . .

[duffbeer703]

Running kiddyporn sting operations was a major source for convictions of pedophiles. In the past, most of the easily locatable sources of child pornography were actually run by the police. The advent of services like freenet make it easier for global networks of these scum to continue.

Comparing child pornography to drugs is inane.

Bandwidth usage...

[pla]

10/5 on DSL adds less than 1ms to my ping on ut2k3

The biggest factor that keeps me from using Freenet comes from the bandwidth requirement. I have a nice fat cablemodem connection, on a non-saturated segment, so I get GREAT rates, both up- and down-stream.

However, I officially have a 2GB/month cap (fortunately my ISP has yet to enforce it, since I use 5-6GB in a typical month). As slow as it sounds, 10Kbps, continuously used, would effectively consume slightly over my monthly cap. That strikes me as a SERIOUS problem. Realistically, I would need to set it to 1kbps up and down to leave room for my "normal" net use, and that just doesn't seem either fair to other users or convenient for me, IMO.

Re:Bandwidth usage...

[Realistic_Dragon]

You can set a max data transfer for it. Once it's done, it just shuts down. Or you can run it when you use it, it just won't be as fast.

Re:Freenet's main problem lies in its design itsel

[DrEasy]

Your first sentence is wrong. As far as I understand, Freenet will mostly contain censorship-prone content as a result of its guaranteed anonymity. One could list all sorts of popular yet censored content, but I will leave it as an exercise to the reader... For such content, Freenet works just fine.

Now if the content you're looking after is both illegal AND unpopular (and I guess copyright violating MP3s of ballroom music would fall under that category), then you're just running out of luck...

From the Freenet FAQ

[jason777]

I love this one: Is Freenet legal? If by legal you mean not illegal, then yes it is. Of course, anything can be found to be illegal at some point in the future, and the law can be an ass sometimes, so we can make no guarantee about Freenet's future legality.

Plausible Deniability

[MyHair]

Since the content on your machine is encrypted, you'll never know for sure anyways.

FYI, and to be really picky, I believe it is possible to find out what is in your Freenet data store, but it is difficult to do. However, since it's encrypted and difficult to discover, you have plausible deniability if someone manages to discover something illegal in there.

Freenet content is referenced by public keys, and the keys can decrypt the content. I believe if you were to get the URIs (==links==keys) for the kiddie porn sites you would be able to determine if some of the data for that site is in your data store.

But I don't know precisely how to do it, and I could be wrong.

I've been trying to learn more about it since I set up a permanent Freenet node two days ago. I wanted to a long time ago but couldn't stomach the possibility that it would help the proliferation of kiddie porn and other disturbing material. However the political and corporate climate in the U.S. makes me--a law-abiding citizen--feel less free and more closely watched. So I'm doing this as my little way to help combat it.

Even if it is possible to identify content given a public key, it would be very difficult to determine the source of the content. It would require a lot of traffic analysis. It might be slightly easier to determine if someone is requesting content.

Another point: The best way to minimize the kiddie porn and other socially unacceptable stuff is to publish your own freesite(s). It doesn't have to be "naughty" to be on Freenet. I put out a Freesite with perfectly legal content but content that I wouldn't want to share nonanonymously.

Re:Plausible Deniability

[Lt Razak]

We also drive cars that that support the oil regime.

We all wear shoes that are made with slave labor in Malaysia. (Nike is just better at hiding that fact now)

We are at war right now because the presidentiary-elect has deemed it so. Thousands slaughtered for false WMD's. Or Oil. Or because.

Do you fertilize your yard with chemicals? Have you recycled 100% everything you could? Do you buy products tested on animals? Do you live in a city of cement that has wiped away the habitat? Do you own wood furniture that came from a rain forrest? Do you live in a country that herded the natives to the casinos? Have you ever kept your mouth shut instead of defending a racial joke?

We all do things that help promote the problem. However, through different levels of rationalization we live with it. Supporting FreeNet is not supporting the kiddie porn scene. The real scenes are a tight knit group of crazies with their own system of trading pictures, stories, movies, get-togethers, etc.

Re:Plausible Deniability

[MyHair]

Supporting FreeNet is not supporting the kiddie porn scene.

I can't argue with that, but it still took a long time of consideration before I could bring myself to run a Freenet node. I know it's not exactly supporting kiddie porn, but it was hard to accept that I might in some small way be helping the distribution of the pics and/or written material.

You make some other good related points.

Kiddie porn is just one of those things that's deeply disgusting to me. But I do realize that the trading or viewing of pictures is not the problem. The problem is how they get those pictures and the assumption that the children are sexually abused. (I don't think children can consent since they don't understand so much.) (Also, I've never seen kiddie porn, so I don't know if it's just nekkid kids or sex with kids or literature or the whole gamut just like 'normal' porn. And frankly I don't want to know unless it can somehow help me prevent it from happening.)

Re:Plausible Deniability

[HanzoSan]

I agree with you. Freenet isnt about good and evil, freenet is not going to change the world, if the world is evil, freenet will be evil.

Freenet is important just like the internet is important. Theres so many things on the internet that I'll never agree with, but hey I'm logged in right now.

If the only arguement against freenet is the questionable speech arguement, thats not enough to convince me to stop using it.

I pay my ISP, my ISP could be hosting hate sites and other questionable material for some evil person, what can I do about it? Nothing.

So, if the world is filled with decent people, kiddie porn will be limited to 1% of freenet, hate sites will be limited to 3%, etc etc, however if the world is filled with evil, freenet will be filled with evil shit.

Wouldnt it be better to know your neighbor is evil, than to have no clue?

Re:Huzzah!

[cpeterso]

If anything, Freenet would hurt the kiddie porn black market, because pedophiles can now get their fix for free.

Regular porn, too. I recently read an interview with Larry Flynt (in Eric Schlosser's "Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market") and he predicted that, in ten years, the commercial porn industry will be 1/10 the size it is today. With access to (practically) infinite supply of free internet porn, commercial porn revenues are decreasing significantly. Eventually, the profit incentive for creating and distributing commercial porn could be too low for anyone except hobbists.

Commercial porn has strange economics because there is nearly infinite demand AND supply. Who sets the market price then?

Re:Huzzah! a voice of true reason

[riprjak]

The fact is, the minute you guarantee anonymity (something which, IMHO, is required for free speech... after all, what's the point of free speech if you're afraid to exercise that right?), people will abuse it. However, if you truly believe in the right to free speech, you must be willing to take the good with the bad. Anyone who suggests anything else doesn't truly believe in free speech.

Hear! Hear! I coundn't agree more. Freedom, true freedom means that some nutbar can choose to hijack a plane and crash it into a building and there is damn little you can do to stop it. The act is terrible, the freedom to do so is wonderful. Before you label this flamebait, read... IMHO, education and ethics are the missing thing (I have views on how religion and politics create such educational and ethical shortfalls I will leave out). Give people freedom; and anonimity... these are good, these are human rights... it is then the responsiblity of those in power to provide sufficiently enlightened education so that people will then choose not to abuse their freedom.

To wax lyrical on the music trading issue (tho arguable offtopic) Is it illegal to lend a friend a CD, no... if they copy it, this is wrong; but is it my responsibility to police?? So, if I send a friend an MP3 to tell them how great an album is instead; well, this is technically wrong but instead of that same friend having a copy of the whole album if they choose not to buy it, they now have one song... so, which is worse..

In short summary; the use of a technology for "evil" (read kiddie porn, racial hatred, terrorism) purposes is not the fault of the developer, it is the fault of the leaders of the society which allowed such "evil" people to develop in the first place.

that was well more than my 2c worth... let the negative mods fly!! :)
err!
riprjak

Dynamic IP, router...

[Rob Simpson]

Does anyone have instructions on how to set up a Freenet node for a computer on a broadband router through a dynamic IP address? Their FAQ isn't very clear on how to do this, and I didn't even know of the problem until I looked at the logfile (no warning messages show up):

"There was an error determining this node's physical address(es). Please make sure (ipAddress) and (listenPort) are correctly set. Note that you may put a host name in the (ipAddress) field if you have a dynamic IP and are using a dynamic DNS service."

Re:Dynamic IP, router...

[thebigmacd]

I don't see what is so unclear...for it to work you must have a dynamic dns service so you can supply a hostname instead of an IP addy. What is in that field is static, so you must supply some sort of address for your computer which doesn't change. With dynamic IP, a dynamic dns hostname is the only such address that will not change when you reconnect.

There now, I just repeated what the FAQ said.

Re:Dynamic IP, router...

[Rob Simpson]

That isn't from the FAQ, it's a little note hidden in the middle of the logfile. The FAQ just gives a bit of info on using a firewall/NAT. Mentioning it in the FAQ, mentioning the steps needed if you use both, and providing a link to somewhere where one might acquire a dynamic dns hostname, and how to set it up - that might be helpful.

How about this? [Re:Good idea, bad content]

[saitoh]

> The question is this: if you can technologically censor some speech, you are technologically capable of censoring any speech. If you can find a way to determine what's on your hard drive, you can be held accountable for it - and freenet's entire raison d'etre as a failsafe protection for free speech is destroyed.

> In other words, one of the costs of ensuring free speech on FreeNet for Chinese dissidents is that it also gives a channel for child pornography and snuff films.

I agree, I took a class in Modern China and we studied this (the chinese dissidents), and freenet is one of those utilities which even after I have finished the class, I find it interesting to see what is happening and how that related to classroom discussions.

I also agree with the general idea that child porn is exploitation over freedom of speach, but (and this is a very large but), why if the above holds true of censoring. Why can there not be the option to censor yourself?

Say for instance if you didnt want to take part in the child pornography, or the KKK's discussions. Why must I help distribute it when I dont support that? Its irrelevent when working with the theory that the message is what is important in freedom of speach to say that it doesnt matter since you dont know what your handing arround. That is comparable (in some ways) to saying that an illiterate person handing out propoganda in China isnt hurting himself even though the message on the paper could be one that the government has constructed to suppress the people, thus suppress him. Its shakey at best, but what I'm getting at is that if I didnt want to be connected to child porn, then why cant I say "I want none of this content on my machine, nor do I wish to be able to ACCESS it at all" am I harming *their* freedom of speach by preventing myself and only myself from accessing it? I dont believe so, but some may. Thoughts?

Re:How about this? [Re:Good idea, bad content]

[fenix down]

Why can there not be the option to censor yourself?

Because that defeats the whole purpose. If you can censor the kiddie porn, then the big Mao poster outside your window can pretty reasonably ask why you're not censoring the dissidents too. Half the point of Freenet is the unified front. If you force people have the option of accessing dissident propoganda and kiddie porn if they want the Debian ISOs and Matrix rips, then the dissidents and pedophiles are protected from anyone who believes that you should be able to upgrade or watch mad-crazy fight scenes in a country the MPAA hates too much to sell DVDs to.

If you dissagree with that, then you probably shouldn't use Freenet.

But if you host?

[zogger]

You see, I'm not a leech, I would be more than willing to help out and host others files, to be a full participant. I appreciate that part as well, I just want a way to at least block images/multimedia content, which would eliminate 99% of any possibility of hosting KP. I know it can still be written, but that's the best I can think of, and it's obviously a concern to a lot of other people as well judging by every thread we ever have here on freenet and other such progs. Obviously people can choose what to search for and download, that wasn't my point, and I think a lot of other folks points, I (we) just don't want to anonymously host KP. Perhaps I'm not understanding this correctly, but I think this is setup so you have no idea what you are storing or sharing on your own drive. Buy eliminating images/movies, you could be almost assurred of having little to no KP onboard. If I am understanding that incorrectly, excuse me, I can be educated on it.

Re:But if you host?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, fuck you, freenet doesn't want your apethetic kind.

Freenet good. Freenet with WiFi, Game over

[Gnaythan1]

People... what happens when Freenet or something like it is modified to work over a wifi network, or ham radio, or ultra wide band packet radio?

The ability to connect to other people anonymously, share any information whatsoever, and do it without even talking to an ISP, is going to be the way to go. This may not look like much now, but I think it will be the future.

China will have no easy way to even tell its being used at that point, let alone what its being used for.

Re:Huzzah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech is useless without anonymity

Bullcrap. You can say whatever you want in any country on this planet as long as you are anonymous- that is not free speech. The whole point of the 1st Amendment is that in the United States, you can say whatever you want without being anonymous.

Directly?

[sterno]

My thinking is that you can be considered directly responsible if:

1) you intentionally contribute to an act
2) you knowingly allow an act to help that you could prevent

I don't consider hosting a freenet node to apply in either of these cases. #1 is an obvious close and shut case. You post kiddies you download kiddies, they throw you in a dark prison cell, no problem.

As far as #2 because of Freenet's intentional design, if you host a node, you cannot possibly choose what content you allow or disallow. If you host it in the interests of giving dissidents a place to post anonymously, you risk kiddie porn and terrorism plans being served as well. It has substantial positive legal benefits even if it does has some potential illegal use.

Re:+Funny moderation is skewing /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligent? You have to look elsewhere for that kind of behaviour. This is /., home of trolls and dupes

Just an idea..

[jetmarc]

> Freenet's about PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY

What about this idea to increase the deniability: Imagine a trojan
that installs Freenet on the infected machine and makes it part of
the network, then erases all traces of itself. This trojan could be
put up on a web site, with a notification to the usual anti-virus
companies.

Later, when someone gets under legal pressure for running a Freenet
node, he could claim that he didn't install it. He didn't know he
was running that "Freenet thing". Most probably it was installed by
a Trojan, and in fact there is one known to do just this (reference
to anti-virus company press release).

That would be even more plausible deniability, wouldn't it?

Marc

Re:Huzzah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, tell this to the people in China who disagree with the current govenment.

Um, you are not the brightest kid on the block I guess. There is no first amendment in China- China does not guarantee freedom of speech and is therefore irrelevant to our conversation about free speech.

Got it?

Re:Huzzah!

[dirk]

The fact is, the minute you guarantee anonymity (something which, IMHO, is required for free speech... after all, what's the point of free speech if you're afraid to exercise that right?), people will abuse it. However, if you truly believe in the right to free speech, you must be willing to take the good with the bad. Anyone who suggests anything else doesn't truly believe in free speech.

While I agree with you in part (people must not be afraid to speak for free speech to be useful), the flip side of that is that people should be held accountable for what they say and do. There is a difference between being able to say something truthful and being able to tell lies and not be held accountable. Free speech is "free" in that it can't be restrained, not "free" as in there are no consequences. With any liberty comes responsibility, and that is what is removed with complete anonimity. Having freedom without consequences isn't good for anyone, because it then becomes a haven for the abusers and they drown out the true users.

wondering why...

[Anonymous Coward]

...they can't figure out how to provide a link which actually works. the previous release had the same problem. took quite a bit of messing around to get it to work.. had to manually download the individual pieces.. oh well.. they haven't fixed that for this release either.

mod parent up

[akb]

this is the best point made in this discussion

Re:Huzzah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, tell this to the people in China who disagree with the current govenment.

Um, China does not guarantee free speech. Thats kind of the whole point here. Try to pay attention more. Your response is the equivalent of this:
- "Its perfectly safe to point this gun loaded with blanks and somebody and pull the trigger"
- "But if they are real bullets it will hurt the person"

Duh!

Tell this to the Communists in the US during the 50's and 60's. At the time they were persecuted, in the US, for holding a somewhat unpopular belief about economics

No, they were persecuted for belonging to the Soviet backed communist party (which, btw, was proven to be giving aid to the Soviet Union during the time when they were a sworn enemy of the United States, according to CIA documents released in 1995).

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/22 /225916.shtml

It is speech.

[HanzoSan]

Just like if someone leaked info about a government or corperation its speech.

Pictures are 1s and 0s, sent over a communication device. Thats speech.

Now, the act of taking that picture is not speech and should be illegal. You however didnt take the picture, you just distribute the 1s and 0s.

1s and 0s are speech, binary is speech just like source code is speech. In a free world you cannot be picky about which freedoms you want to accept. Theres going to be questionable speech, I myself wouldnt want nazi speech on my node, but in a free world, nazis and pedophiles do have a right to speak.

The internet already helps them. Get offline!

[HanzoSan]

Your arguement doesnt work, the internet already helps bad people.

This isnt about pedophiles, I think hate groups and terrorists are far worse than pedophiles, should we not use freenet because a terrorist or nazi group might form and spread their hate?

IF you truely want free speech all speech must be protected, even hate speech.

As much as I cant stand neo nazis, I believe freedom of speech on the net is too important to give up just because a few evil people want to abuse it.

Re:The internet already helps them. Get offline!

[Golias]

The expression of ideas, even by terrorist nut-jobs, must always be protected in a free society, but that's not what we are talking about here. In the case of terrorists, we are talking about the exchange of data, software, plans, designs, target information, etc. by groups who are actively making war on the western world.

In the case of pedophiles, we are talking about the sale of photos of children being abused for the sake of said sales.

Neither case could be considered "free speech" in any sense, except to an anarchist. None of this is what Voltaire was talking about.

Yes but not all freedoms harm people.

[HanzoSan]

Harmless Freedoms should be legal. Terrorist attacks are harmful, but creating a terrorist website or hate group in itself is not directly responsible for harm.

Yes you can debate that it could be a cause, but if you truely believe anything which could cause harm is bad, you also have to outlaw the gun, outlaw hate groups (no more KKK, Nazi, etc), perhaps outlaw the church and many other groups.

You see? Its a slippery slope, first it starts with kiddie porn, mainly because the average person doesnt care for kiddie porn, then it spreads to hate groups like the nazis and kkk, then it spreads to groups like the communist party and socialist groups, eventually it will destroy free speech.

Free speech is an issue of absolutes, you can either have free speech or not have it, theres no in between on this issue. You want freedom or you dont.

Look, I dont want to assist a hate group, terrorist group, murderer, or child molestor, but as I see it I'm not, because anything they write on freenet we all see, its not private.

The kiddie porn pictures themselves arent what causes or commits the crime, its the guy who took the pictures. So you get no where by blaming the data, blame the guy.

I see it like this, I want freenet to happen, mainly because it allows a social experiment. All of these people who claim that humans are so good, all of these optimists and people who live in sheltered worlds, should have the ability to go on the internet and see how bad people truely are.

If we are to change the world its time we stop ignoring all the problems, I cant wait to log into freenet and see all the terrorist and hate groups, pedophile groups and murderers, just so I can see how humanity truely is. Even if these guys dont commit crimes we can learn about their thinking and understand them.

Re:Huzzah!

[Anonymous Coward]

You may not have posted AC, but cristofer8 is as good as anonymous to me. You don't even have your email address listed. Seems pretty hypocritical. Please give everyone your name, email, and address. Then, if you ever get busted/sued for posting/saying something, we can all have a good laugh.

You have a job? Know of anything at your workplace that's not right? Well, here's your chance, big man, post it all here on /. -- your name, employer, greivance, etc. 1000 people will forward your post to your boss. But you have nothing to fear, right? No one in a position of power ever tries to fuck the little guy for speaking the truth, do they?

Hate groups, Terrorists, Bomb Making Kits

[HanzoSan]

Drug Lords, Crime rings, and other bad guys exist in the world. Hiding yourself from the real world is no way to deal with it.

Kiddie porn is bad, but I can think of a million things worse, like murderers making snuff films and putting it on freenet, or hate groups spreading their hate via freenet.

The reason I find freenet acceptable however is because freenet is the one place that we can see the truth about humanity. IF humans have absolute freedom of speech and expression they will say things which would never be said in the real world.

This is very useful if you like sociology, psychology, philosophy or any of these academic issues.

IF theres alot of bad content and criminals using freenet, its because most people are bad. when we finally cannot ignore or hide the fact that most people are bad, we then can better cope with dealing with bad people.

So you dont like kiddie porn? Join the millions of others who dont, so you dont like hate sites? Join the millions who dont. There is no real way to control freenet, perhaps a moderation system could help, but thats all I'd support.

If we dont reflect the real world, whats the point? You cant have half freedom, you either are free or you arent, you either are real or you are fake.

Freenet is an extention of thought, its expression of thought to be exact, expression of thought in itself is not a crime and its not what causes the harm, its the actions involved which cause the harm and which are the crime.

The terrorists and hate groups who go and harm other people, those people are criminals.

The kiddie porn producers who make the pictures and who rape children, those are the criminals.

The murderer making the snuff films, they are the criminals.

Freenet does nothing to prevent or encourage the acts, it just spreads the knowledge of these illegal acts around the net.

Re:Hate groups, Terrorists, Bomb Making Kits

[Anonymous Coward]

so Freenet is representative of all people? Wouldn't it just be representative of crypto-obsessed nerds with freenet access and nothing else?

Re:Hate groups, Terrorists, Bomb Making Kits

[drew]

IF theres alot of bad content and criminals using freenet, its because most people are bad.

not really. it just means that so-called good things (like, for example, linux ISO's) are currently much more convenient to distribute via traditional methods. right now, freenet is mostly used to share or retrieve things which people would prefer not to have other people know that they are sharing or retrieving. this is not to say that everything on freenet is illegal or objectionable material. but it is most definately not a reasonable cross-section of human nature either. the real conclusion you could draw from freenet traffic right now is that there are a lot of bad people out there. however, in order to do any real statistical analysis on "good" vs. "bad" people and what type of information people want to share, freenet would have to be the most convenient and defacto method for sharing ALL kinds of data, regardless of whether people cared who knew what they were sharing or not.

Re:Huzzah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's your chance to prove yourself. Just tell us where you work. Together, we can find some dirt on your employer that's worth blowing the whistle on -- be it your boss sexualy harassing someone, your company cooking the books, whatever. Then we'll come back here, give you the news, and see if you have the balls to post it with your real name. You think you can speak the truth about your employer and not get fucked out of your job? Come on, tough guy, pony up.

It may be speech of some kind, but...

[i_am_nitrogen]

Child pornography in any form, whether encrypted ones or zeros, or the decoded png file itself, cannot in any logical way be described as a right. Pedophiles have no right to speak, as their words infringe on the rights of children to NOT BE ABUSED. All these slashdot morons seem to think they can do whatever they want without consequence. Guess what: your rights only extend as far as they don't infringe on those of another. There are some things that are just plain morally wrong, and exploitation of the defenseless is one of those things. Yes, no matter what anyone says, there are absolute truths.

Re:It may be speech of some kind, but...

[evalhalla]

Pedophiles do have the right to speak, they don't hurt anybody by speaking (well, unless they speak to young vulnerable people, but that's another matter). What they do not have the right to do is to take those pics, when by taking the pic they abuse a children.

Strictly speaking, by downloading those pics you don't infringe the rights of anyone, only you support those who make the pics, so I agree that the act of downloading and watching those pics should be restricted, but if someone pushes that pic on your computer you're not doing anything "evil" or "supporting some evil activity".

Also, the casual pic downloader doesn't do that much harm, while real pedophiles either act also, or look for pictures through other channels and they can be found that way, regardless of the existange of freenet.

Re:It may be speech of some kind, but...

[HanzoSan]

How does downloading the pics support the person who created them unless you paid money for the pics?

I dont believe the flow of data on the net should be restricted under any situation. I do believe we should restrict people from uploading certain data to the net in the first place.

The real pedophiles are the ones who are taking the pictures, just like in the situation with snuff films, the real murderers or rapists are the ones who make the films. The information isnt whats evil, its the person who created it thats evil.

Re:It may be speech of some kind, but...

[AceM2]

How does downloading the pics support the person who created them unless you paid money for the pics?

I have no studies to back it up, but I would assume the poster means that it increases the volume of pictures taken. In a way, it creates a market for the pictures and encourages the pedophile to take more pictures of more kids. I'm not saying the person wouldn't do it on their own, but you must realize that when people like your work, it certainly encourages you and creates sort of a demand for you..

The information isnt whats evil, its the person who created it thats evil.

Parable of the fig tree..

Re:It may be speech of some kind, but...

[HanzoSan]

How? The market already existed. We know that.

The question is, how does more people viewing the pictures encourage the picture takers to take more pictures? The picture takers dont take the pictures for YOU to view them, they take the pictures so THEY can either view them or sell them.

If they back them up on freenet, it doesnt matter if no one views it but them, or if everyone views it.

When people like your work? You consider taking pictures of nude children work? Its not art, its not work, its porn.

I dont think a distributor of porn, especially porn of this type can consider themself some kinda artist. This is a person who is selfish, rapists by nature are selfish, so its illogical for someone like this who doesnt give a damn about the child they exploit and rape, to suddenly care about all these viewers of their work, which by the way on freenet you never have any idea who or how many actually view your work.

It just doesnt make since, theres no logic. I mean sure its logical for someone like us to share, but murderers, rapists and thieves are selfish, they are doing these things because they only think about themselves, they want to get off and they dont care about you, me, the kids, or anything else but themselves.

Music is totally different, people who share music and who create music may not be selfish by nature, because music is art, music doesnt harm anyone, music brings joy to the world etc etc, everyone benefits from music and no ones hurt, so when someone shares music they can feel its morally right.

Kiddie porn is not the same. Neither is snuff films, rape films, or any other material.

But I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, if you can find some evidence proving that some pedophiles actually believe its not harmful to the children which they are abusing, then we can come back to this debate. The only way I can see someone sharing these kinds of files and feeling good about it, is if they are some kinda cult member, or something.

Re:It may be speech of some kind, but...

[AceM2]

It just doesnt make since, theres no logic. I mean sure its logical for someone like us to share, but murderers, rapists and thieves are selfish, they are doing these things because they only think about themselves, they want to get off and they dont care about you, me, the kids, or anything else but themselves.

Murderers, rapists, and thieves are seriously messed up, I know.. Their selfishness is exactly what causes them to enjoy popularity. I mean, haven't you ever heard of serial killers and other high profile murderers and such trying to get caught so they can have the fame? To us, it's sick and disgusting, but to them it truly is their work.. They do want to be appreciated for it whether you think so or not.

But I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, if you can find some evidence proving that some pedophiles actually believe its not harmful to the children which they are abusing, then we can come back to this debate.

Ever hear of NAMBLA? I'm serious, just because you and I see it as an evil disgusting thing, it can seem very normal to a person who's screwed up in the head..

Perhaps I'm missing something in this debate though.. I'm just against both the provider and the viewer of this kind of trash.. I don't want Freenet to die or anything, I'm just arguing that one point.

Re:It may be speech of some kind, but...

[HanzoSan]

Ever hear of NAMBLA? I'm serious, just because you and I see it as an evil disgusting thing, it can seem very normal to a person who's screwed up in the head..

Yes but we shouldnt outlaw the knife just because a crazy person might get a hold of it. Theres so many useful things a knife can do in the hands of a sane person.

Perhaps I'm missing something in this debate though.. I'm just against both the provider and the viewer of this kind of trash.. I don't want Freenet to die or anything, I'm just arguing that one point.


The viewer is not always "BAD", the viewer might view it by mistake while looking at normal porn. You know how the net is, its too easy to accidently view stuff.

So the viewer is debateable, the producer however is not debateable, anyone who creates this stuff is evil.

But I cant really say the same for the viewer, I know people who view stuff at rotten.com and who might look at a snuff film if it were on freenet, but this person isnt creating it, they just look at it because its there.

So if you put something on freenet and people look at it, its like leaving a dead body in public, people are going to look at it, but if you think you can track down and arrest everyone who looks at it, you are wasting your time.

The only way to solve this is to prevent it from being created. In Japan for example, about 80 percent of the porn seem to be young girl/older guy type porn. While this porn is only anime and you cannot say any real harm is done, the viewers of this are not automatically evil, weird maybe, but not evil.

Kiddie porn will be viewed by weird people, but I dont think its wise to say every weird person is automatically "evil".

I think we both agree mostly, I just dont agree with ANY form of censorship. I think distribution on the net should be something no entity has control over, I believe if something is put online that no one should be able to remove it.

That includes me, if someone puts me online without my permission yes I want to sue them, but I'm not going to sue every single person who views or distributes it.

I just dont agree with the whole information ownership concept, and I dont agree with the copyright or censorship concept.

Re:It may be speech of some kind, but...

[AceM2]

Sadly this will my second time posting a reply, the first time I think it was just Windows telling me my post was too long or something.. This time I'll try for some shorter responses so I can go to bed.

Yes but we shouldnt outlaw the knife just because a crazy person might get a hold of it. Theres so many useful things a knife can do in the hands of a sane person.

Of course not! However, a knife serves multiple purposes, from the cook to the surgeon to the average household. Child porn really does not serve any purpose does it? To a psyche evaluating a pedophile perhaps, but obviously someone like that is different from the weirdos and would have an acceptable reason to view, to an extent at least. I never said we should go out and ban Freenet because people can use it to transfer porn, for the same reason I don't want gimp, xview, paint, or cameras to be banned. This is not an all or nothing situation, we as a society are generally capable of banning one thing without a million others. What I will give you though, is that politicians sometimes try to disguise other motives by saying please think of the children. We have to stop these kinds of politicians by not voting (or voting) for them, making their true motives known, and of course by mailing the hell out of them with complaints and signed petitions.

The viewer is not always "BAD", the viewer might view it by mistake while looking at normal porn. You know how the net is, its too easy to accidently view stuff.

I really feel that the investigations into these things should be handled case by case rather than by the book. I mean seriously, in real life if you buy a laptop for 25% off and it turns out to be stolen property the cops don't lock you up on the spot. On the other hand, if they have reason to believe you knew it was stolen and bought it anyway, you go to jail. I believe that the same policy should be applied to child pornography cases. Obviously if you've stumbled on five or six ads that show hints of child porn, a webpage that wasn't what it should have been, or if you downloaded a cheerleaderxxx file that ended up not being what you thought.. It shouldn't be hard for authorities to figure this out, especially if they're a task force specifically targeting these types of offenses.

But I cant really say the same for the viewer, I know people who view stuff at rotten.com and who might look at a snuff film if it were on freenet, but this person isnt creating it, they just look at it because its there.

It's been a while since I've seen rotten.com type stuff, but I'll agree that it doesn't make them evil. However! It's much different to see something only slightly more graphic than I can see in an 'R' rated movie compared to child porn. These things might be in the same league, both CAN be horrible atrocities, but you have to analyze closer since as I said it should NOT be an all or nothing ban/censorship. If you or I or anyone else does a search for death/murder/whatever on google and then view the results that does not mean that we are getting any sort of graitification from it. It also does not imply that we want people to be hurt, to be killed, or anything of the sort.. It doesn't even mean that the person searching even LIKES what they're viewing anyway. As I said before even, someone that stumbles upon child pornography should not be instantly persecuted or prosecuted. If someone has been abused as a child and then goes on google or newsgroups to search for 'child abuse' and sees pictures of abused people, that person has a legitimate excuse for viewing in my opinion.. An excuse that should be easily uncovered by anyone doing a full investigation which includes logging and interviews.
A second point I wanted to make about that comment was just about the support factor, since I know I'd be called on it later if I didn'

Re:It may be speech of some kind, but...

[evalhalla]

How does downloading the pics support the person who created them unless you paid money for the pics?

If you download from an ad filled website you're supporting them, but that's not the case with freenet, of course.

Some pic (even found on freenet, this time) may have some sort of informations on where to find other more, this time either with ads or a pay for view.

I don't believe either that the flow of data should be restricted, either by legal or technical means, I believe that they should work on the two ends of the flow: those who voluntary download such pics in ways that support such market and expecially those who produce them.

And as for freenet, if you want to have lesser chances to get porn in you node you just have to add and request "good" and useful content: if enough people do so "bad" content will be but a minority.

Re:It may be speech of some kind, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're equating child porn or NAMBLA with a knife?! Tell me, fucko, what legitimate use does child porn serve? Do you cut your food with child porn?

Re:It may be speech of some kind, but...

[HanzoSan]

Of course not! However, a knife serves multiple purposes, from the cook to the surgeon to the average household. Child porn really does not serve any purpose does it? To a psyche evaluating a pedophile perhaps, but obviously someone like that is different from the weirdos and would have an acceptable reason to view, to an extent at least. I never said we should go out and ban Freenet because people can use it to transfer porn, for the same reason I don't want gimp, xview, paint, or cameras to be banned. This is not an all or nothing situation, we as a society are generally capable of banning one thing without a million others. What I will give you though, is that politicians sometimes try to disguise other motives by saying please think of the children. We have to stop these kinds of politicians by not voting (or voting) for them, making their true motives known, and of course by mailing the hell out of them with complaints and signed petitions.



Freedom of speech is all or nothing. If you censor childporn you dont truely believe in freedom of speech.

You cannot have freedom with censorship. Its all or nothing.

Also there ARE people who like viewing dead bodies and who actually get sexually excited from it.

You have to understand, that you cannot protect all of humanity by banning something on freenet. In fact it will do nothing to stop kids from being abused, freenet is just a place where abusers will store their images.

Anyway I dont feel your censorship method is the way to stop child abuse. You can hide the world from the abusers, but abusers will trade photos and movies in the real world and you'll have an even harder time of catching them.

Re:It may be speech of some kind, but...

[GenSolo]

If you censor childporn you dont truely believe in freedom of speech.

Why the hell not? Childporn isn't speech. Speech is verbal/vocal (look it up). Childporn is rape and abuse. Please note, viewing isn't the issue anymore than hearing is the issue with speech. Storing childporn ANYWHERE should be illegal because possession is illegal. If you think that's about freedom of expression, you're insane. You said yourself it isn't art. The government's job is to protect its citizens, especially the young ones who can't protect themselves, and quite frankly, I'd gladly accept censorship in order to ensure the safety and welfare of my future stepdaughter.

Re:It may be speech of some kind, but...

[AceM2]

Freedom of speech is all or nothing. If you censor childporn you dont truely believe in freedom of speech.

You cannot have freedom with censorship. Its all or nothing.

Why?

Also there ARE people who like viewing dead bodies and who actually get sexually excited from it.

Okay.. Well like I was saying, viewing dead people after the fact is legal (provided you aren't violating some privacy laws) and looking at dead people isn't harming anyone.. As I said before, it's only when you're in knowledge of an act being committed that you're in the wrong. Viewing crime scene photos and fake pictures aren't worse than watching most violent movies out lately. I honestly believe that if that stuff gets you off, you need to see a psyche therapist because you have a problem that needs to be addressed. We do not need people running around that are mentally programmed for random acts of violence against others.

Straight people look at straight porn, gay people look at gay porn, and pedophiles look at child porn. A curious person may take a glance at something different once or twice, but it takes a lot more than a curiousity to view mass amounts of child pornography. You view it because you like it, it's MENTAL DISORDER.. We are not talking about sane, rational people.. The bridge from viewing to creating is not a big one! I mean, I'm sure there's some model or actress.. or just any other person in particular out there you'd love to have over for a few 'personal pictures' right? You don't/can't because obviously, there's some reason why that person is unattainable.. You couldn't force them to take off their coat, let alone strip.. Why? Because they're an adult, and you aren't a hypnotist. When it comes to a pedophile and children however.. A lot of them are very trusting, they're easily tricked and influenced by an adult, and the pedophile has a mental disorder which is literally overriding all other common sense. If you can find a reason why child pornography would be used for a reason OTHER than enjoyment by a pedophile, I'd feel you'd have a stronger case as far as keeping it from censorship..

Anyway I dont feel your censorship method is the way to stop child abuse.

I don't propose it'll stop child abuse entirely, but the fact is.. By getting these freaks off the streets, punishing them for their crimes, and then putting them on treatment for their illness while alerting those around them.. I'd bet my life that more children will be saved. This is called a pre-emptive strike against child abusers. This is the worst kind of crime and does not need any type of protecting. I know that one day if you do have children you'll understand.

You can hide the world from the abusers, but abusers will trade photos and movies in the real world and you'll have an even harder time of catching them.

I don't want to hide the world from anything, I want the pedophiles to get treatment so they don't commit atrocities against young children. Which in my opinion can be a fate worse than death, having to live with that garbage for the rest of your life. I also don't believe for one second that it's harder to catch them in the real world. You go ask a cop that's on a taskforce specifically made for combatting this sort of thing, they'll tell you the internet has made it HARDER to get these people since they can trade it so anonymously. It's generally easier to follow local leads on this sort of thing, nail everyone you can and then flip them so you can find the sources and nail them harder. When you do it online it's hard to find the source. In any case, it's better to deal with this things by erradicating every trace of it you can, and the only reason you can give me why not to erradicate it is because of your all or nothing statement that doesn't

Re:It may be speech of some kind, but...

[HanzoSan]

I keep telling you, you cannot have partial freedom. If this is what you want, you are no different than the chinese,the soviets, the iraqis, sure they had MOST of the freedoms we had, but not true freedom. The Iraqis cover their women up, they dont believe in taking pictures, and so on, people in other countries actually believe that by covering women up (censoring them), that it will prevent women from being abused or raped.

However

I'm not saying we can have true freedom in the physical world, in the physical world people get hurt when you have true freedom, but we are talking about the metaphysical world. The internet is not the physical world and should not be treated like the physical world. The internet is a world of expression and speech, a world where thoughts are shared. When you attempt to regulate mass conciousness which is the internet, it begins to go down the slippery slope, what next? when we create the brain to computer interface will thoughts be illegal?

I don't propose it'll stop child abuse entirely, but the fact is.. By getting these freaks off the streets, punishing them for their crimes, and then putting them on treatment for their illness while alerting those around them.. I'd bet my life that more children will be saved. This is called a pre-emptive strike against child abusers. This is the worst kind of crime and does not need any type of protecting. I know that one day if you do have children you'll understand.

Yes but the abuse happens in the physical world not on the internet. Why should we try to apply the offline physical rules to the internet when you know it cant work? You know we cant track down every person who ever views a kiddie porn picture, its impossible and its pointless to even try. The best we can do is prevent people from putting it on the net. I treat the net as a zone where there is no government, because this is how the net was intended to be when it was designed. It was not designed so a government can censor it, take it down or control it. Theres only really two options, you must choose one, you support government control of the internet, or you support anarchy on the net.

I support anarchy on the net. I think the way to stop people from sharing mp3s, or putting kiddie porn on the net, is to prevent people from uploading it to freenet or on the internet in the first place, have ISP's scan stuff for all I care, but its not possible or realistic to think you can sue people for possession of bits, 1s and 0s, its impossible and you know it.

I don't want to hide the world from anything, I want the pedophiles to get treatment so they don't commit atrocities against young children. Which in my opinion can be a fate worse than death, having to live with that garbage for the rest of your life. I also don't believe for one second that it's harder to catch them in the real world. You go ask a cop that's on a taskforce specifically made for combatting this sort of thing, they'll tell you the internet has made it HARDER to get these people since they can trade it so anonymously.

The internet is just a communications device. Restricting communication does not make it any easier or harder to capture criminals. If you take away bin ladens cellphone he will use something else and then we will have no way to even know h e exists.

Online we know pedophiles exist and to what degree they exist, we can watch them and at least attempt to figure out how their operations work so we can set up traps and sting operations.

Offline theres no way to catch them if they for example move into the deep forest or rural town and rape their daughter or cousins and trade the pictures, how are you supposed to catch them? Driving them underground does not make them easier to catch or stop.

. It's generally easier to follow local leads on this sort of thing, nail everyone you can and then flip them so you can find the sources and nail them harder. When you do it online it's hard to find the source. In any ca

Freenet is *not* risk-free.

[autopr0n]

All Freenet does is spread around the liability. If I own a copyrighted peice of information, and I find you sharing a copy of it, I have every right to ask you to stop, and take you to court if you refuse.

With Freenet, all I need to do is record the IP address of people who I got the data from. It doesn't matter if they were the ones who posted the key in the first place. If I can verify that you were serving my IP, you're liable for it.

Re:Freenet is *not* risk-free.

[pdawson]

Except it doesn't work that simply. You request a key (file) from node A. Node A takes that request and sends it to B, C and D. B sends it to E, F, and G. G happens to have a copy of the key in its cache, so it sends the response to B, who forwards it to A who forwards it to you. You have no idea which node actually sent you the data, the only node you talked to directly, node A, was blindly routing packets. Node A doesn't even know if you were the original searcher, or if you're just going to pass the result along like it just did.

Re:Freenet is *not* risk-free.

[naasking]

Except for the fact that freenet nodes do not and *cannot* what data they are storing. Thus they cannot enforce any restrictions on what goes on their computer, and they achieve "common carrier" status. The telephone company is not liable if it routes terrorist phone calls is it?

It is, however

[HanzoSan]

It is, and it does hurt children, but so does hate sites like Al Qaeda, the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi sites and others.

Alot of evil people will do evil things when they have free speech. However we shouldnt give up on the concept of free speech just because theres evil people.

Yes kiddie porn harms kids, and the assholes who do that should go to jail for it, hate groups however are no better, alot of kids join these and do stupid things.

Theres alot of things which harm kids, hell you can even make the statement that the internet harms kids. However while the internet has bad elements, it has good elements, freenet could develop a filter or a way for people to censor themselves from these bad elements, but these bad elements cannot and should not be removed.

IF you dont want to see kiddie porn you should not be forced to see it, it should be deep within the network so only those who seek it will find it, same goes with nazi and hate sites, let the user protect themselves from content they dont want.

No one forces you to click the kiddie porn link, now if the kiddie porn link is on the front page, thats freenets fault, but if you go searching for all the bad on freenet, dont be surprised to find stuff like that.

You have a good point that kiddie porn harms children, hate groups harm children as well, the columbine kids were into neo nazism, should neo nazis be banned from the net ?

Questionable or harmful speech in my opinion should be closely monitored but not banned.

I dont like hate groups, how can we stop them? We can watch everything they talk about on the net. Before they had these websites it was all in secret, now we have anti-hate groups which watch and monitor hate groups.

I guess theres no solution to this problem, but I think freedom of speech is too important, I fear what would happen if we lost our freedom of speech more than I fear the harm which can be done by it.

Given the current trend, our freedom is being restricted. Freedom of speech is important if we are to have democracy.

Re:Huzzah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should I be held accountable for what I say? There is a big difference between saying and doing. As long as I don't shout fire or slander or such, why can't I say what I want? Why not put the burden of proof on the listener to adapt some common sense and decide for herself if what I say is true? Especially today, when it doesn't matter whether what I say is true or not -- when a huge corporation can threaten to take away everything I have if I don't retract what I said. Even if what I said was true, I'll still lose everything I have in legal costs. Besides, corporations are now claiming the
right to lie.

Here's an offer for you to show us what a he-man you are. Post your real name and employer. We'll research some good whistle-blowing material on your employer, give it to you, and then watch to see if you have the balls to post non-anonymously. You would be able to look up the information yourself, determine that you are right and you're employer is wrong. What negative consequences would there be for posting with your name? None, right? Your bosses would never fuck you for speaking the truth, would they. Come on, hero, what's your name and employer?

Hmm..

[autopr0n]

On the one hand, I think distributing kiddy porn does continue to harm the child after it's been produced. I mean, imagine knowing that there are freaks out there jerking off to your most horrible memory? Never knowing who those pervs are, if maybe someone walking down the street will recognize you on the street and get some 'ideas'.

some victims of child sexual abuse who grow up not 'bothered' by what happened, and joining NAMBLA or something like that. There was one dude on K5 named 'snowlion' who had this attitude, and felt that all the stuff was 'loving' and all that. Do you think it would still be morally wrong to propagate pornographic photographs of this person that had been taken when he was a kid, if he gave his consent? I mean, what if he wants people to see those pics?

Or how about Traci Lord's old shoots from before she turned 18? Would it be morally wrong to, say, distribute the penthouse where she appeared when she was only 15?

Oh well, personally I don't really care. I think it's reasonable to go after people who distribute kiddy porn for the reason outlined in the first paragraph in general.

Re:Hmm..

[HanzoSan]

Well thats not the question though.

Hate speech could be considered harmful speech, and far more harmful than kiddie porn. I mean look at what Hitler did with his speech.

I think we should go after the producers of kiddie porn, the ones who abuse the kids, if you go after the distributors its a waste of time because you cant catch them all. GO after the ones who actually take the pictures and rape the children.

Thats not going to be easy, but when the evidence is all over freenet, people dont just recognize the kid they also recognize the rapist unless faces are completely blurred out.

Its a complicated issue, I dont really think theres any way to stop distribution of anything on the net and i think its pointless to try. What you can do however is do a better job preventing it.

This means take down the crime rings, and child slavery rings which actually make money off stuff like this. Keep this disorganised and make it impossible for them to profit. Thats the best you can do really.

With hate groups the same thing, keep from from being organized, keep them from profiting. I dont want to see people selling Nazi hates and shit like that, making money off hate.

But theres nothing we can do to stop people from hating, and theres nothing we can do to stop children from being abused. Freenet is not going to cure the world of evil, but freenet also is not the cause of the worlds evil.

Just like the gun was not the cause of evil.

Well neither do hate groups!

[HanzoSan]

Whats the difference? Both groups are evil, both groups harm children.

There's ALOT of things on the net already that I dont agree with, how is freenet any different?

All these slashdot morons seem to think they can do whatever they want without consequence. Guess what: your rights only extend as far as they don't infringe on those of another. There are some things that are just plain morally wrong, and exploitation of the defenseless is one of those things. Yes, no matter what anyone says, there are absolute truths.

I completely agree with you, this is why I dont support abortion!

However, when you create something like the internet or freenet, there is NO way to keep evil people off of it. You know this and I know this, murderers will create snuff films, hate groups will swarm freenet, terrorists, pedophiles, rapists and others will be on freenet, how do I know this? they already are on the internet.

So when you pay your ISP, think about what you are paying for.

Re:Well neither do hate groups!

[Anonymous Coward]

All these slashdot morons seem to think they can do whatever they want without consequence. Guess what: your rights only extend as far as they don't infringe on those of another. There are some things that are just plain morally wrong, and exploitation of the defenseless is one of those things. Yes, no matter what anyone says, there are absolute truths.

Yes, but your "morality = protection of the weak" is not one of them. It could be just as easily argued that they should be destroyed to let the strong prosper more, thereby giving the human race as a whole better odds for survival, instead of weakening the strong and in consequence the human race as a whole. I'll give you an absolute truth: Nature gives not one shit about children.

Freenet Works

[Anonymous Coward]

Be nice, it works. I've been around since the beginning, and the 0.4 dark ages are over. The network is pretty secure considering hat we're doing, and there is useful and interesting content available. Go pick up a copy of the software, run it, and publish a site of your own!

You failed to address the point

[autopr0n]

Okay, let me ask you a question.

Lets suppose you were arrested for something simple, like possession of weed for example. You got thrown in jail for the night. That night, 3 huge dudes held you down and repeatedly raped you in the ass while degrading you with apropriate racial profanities. They also took pictures with one of those disposible cameras.

A couple weeks later, you found out that those pics were being sold on gay-prison-ass-rape.com.

You would be OK with that?

Re:You failed to address the point

[HanzoSan]

Lets suppose you were arrested for something simple, like possession of weed for example. You got thrown in jail for the night. That night, 3 huge dudes held you down and repeatedly raped you in the ass while degrading you with apropriate racial profanities. They also took pictures with one of those disposible cameras.

A couple weeks later, you found out that those pics were being sold on gay-prison-ass-rape.com.

You would be OK with that?

Freenet isnt about me. Freenet does not exist because of me, I'm not the center of the world or of the internet. Just like I dont have control over anyone off the net, I dont have any control over anyone on it. Anyone can decide to shoot me, or do anything to me and there isnt much I can do, just like people couldnt do anything about the evil sniper, terrorists and other people who want to attack us.

So if I were raped and it was put online, how is this new? I could have sex with a girl willingly, and she could sneak and record it and put it online. I could have random people taking pictures of me because I'm cute and then have that put online so gay guys can jack off to it.

Face it, we do not have any control over distribution of information and its pointless to waste resources trying to control it. Its like trying to control the weather!

Cameras keep getting smaller and smaller, pedophiles will be able to legally take revealing pictures of kids using spy cameras and put them on the net, or even do live feeds. There is absolutely nothing you or I can do, the camera was already invented.

So if people decide to take pictures of me and put it on the net, so be it, I cannot stop it. If a gay person is going to jack off to my picture they will find some way to do it.

I'm more worried about hate groups spreading through freenet, training snipers to kill us than I am about what some gay person does with my picture or pictures.

Now, you did have one key arguement which I am with you on, while I cannot stop a person from jacking off to free pictures on freenet, I SHOULD be able to attempt to prevent my image from being sold.

We CAN trace and track down sales of images, so by killing the economics involved we CAN attack the issue. While I cannot stop anyone from trading my picture around, I can and should be able to sue anyone selling it, and no I wouldnt want to put them in prison, I'd want them to pay a million dollars so I can use that million to set sting operations and catch people who try to pay for my pictures.

Re:You failed to address the point

[Chaswell]

That would be very sad and I would have a nice list of people to sue. No, not the thugs, the city, county, state, people in charge, etc. But that is all beside the point.

Saving me from having my ripped ass on the net is not worth refusing oppressed people's a conduit for uncontrolled communication. Our own country (USA) is getting pretty scary and I want to make sure there is still a "digital hideout" for us to go discuss how we are being oppressed. Sure, you can call me paranoid.

People just don't seem to get it, if you want free speech, you have to want all of free speech, otherwise it is a slippery slope. Sure, kiddie porn, that's an easy one right? What about Marquis de Sade? Ban him? That is kiddie porn, oh not your kiddie porn? How about the bath pictures of my son being seized at the photo lab? Oh those were too nasty? Free Speech is or is not...period.

The firing squad

[DoctorFrog]

This is the same scenario as the firing squad -- everyone knows that one gun contains a blank, but noone knows which one it is... therefore each person has a lingering hope that they were the one with the blank.

Not exactly. The blanks prevent anyone else (such as the deceased's buddies) from knowing who fired the fatal shot. The soldier firing the blank knows it; blanks mostly just make noise, firing a lead slug at high velocity makes the gun kick back against your shoulder with unmistakable force.

The analogy does work for the originator, though; the non-paedophiles (deceased's buddies) won't know who fired the shot (put the kiddie porn on Freenet). The one who did fire the shot (the pervert) will know it, though.

What Freenet's anonymity offers is the ability to leave moral choices (in the manner of its use) completely up to the individual conscience. The price of that is that you have to leave the manner in which others use it up to their individual consciences.

thanks for the diatribe . . .

[Idou]

but I hardly think we are winning this war through traditional strategies, no matter how emotional we get over it.

I personally know about 10 people who were sexually abused in their childhoods. The majority were abused by family members or friends of family. The majority of those incidences were never successfully brought to court and none of them appeared to have a connection with kiddy porn.

Most of those incidences occurred when these kids had reached puberty, in which case "regular" porn could also be seen as contributing to the problem (why aren't we banning that!?).

The fact is, this issue is much too pervasive than people are willing to admit. The majority of it is opportunistic (not premeditated) and effects a wide and diverse group of individuals (making profiling nearly impossible). And, if you did some research, you would know that drugs/alcohol are often associated with all forms of child abuse. To really address the issue the state would need to intrude even further into "family territory."

I think it is great that the really sick people who spend their time looking up kiddy porn are getting busted, but this is a small percentage of the actual problem. However, since such sickos usually have few friends and are already outcasts, there is the tendency to stereotype them as the typical culprit. Meanwhile, the opportunistic types that make up the majority get by simply because the measures necessary to bust them would mean making serious changes that would make too many people unconformtable.

But go ahead, condemn freenet. Just remember, the real reason you are against it is because it threatens the traditional view of how things work and condemning new technology is always an easy way to lull oneself into a state of complacency.

Diatribes are inane.

Re:thanks for the diatribe . . .

[duffbeer703]

I don't know if I am for or against freenet.

The concept of a completely anonymous publishing method sounds great in print, but I fear that accountability and liability are needed in a civilized society.

Consider the Federalist papers in the days of the American Revolution. People like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, who were facing the gallows if caught, printed the papers on pamplets and in newspapers under pseudonyms to avoid the wrath of the British crown's officials.

While authors of the papers were anonymous to the public, they were known by and accountable to a core group of revolutionaries.

Freenet allows anyone to publish anything without any form of accountability or attribution. All you have to do is visit a Yahoo or AOL chatroom or watch a mob to discover how people behave when they feel anonymous.

End murder?

[jeti]

The government could theoretically end murder with current video surveillance technology.

This is a pretty absurd idea. Even if the government installed surveillance cameras in each of your rooms, you would still have enough time to grab a knife and stab your wife or something.

Probably most murderers intend to commit suicide after killing someone else anyway.

How is freenet different than the internet?

[HanzoSan]

What? You pay AOL? Dont you know AOL has nazi chatrooms?

Re:Guess I won't worry until the BSA kicks in my d

[hsidhu]

If THEY want to, they can go after the people running the Freenet servers. They run on certain port, i'm sure there is a way to distinguish Freenet traffic from rest of the traffic on the network. But that is in the extreme case to wait a few years or decades before this thought is fully realized.

Oppenheim quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Indeed, most artists spend a lifetime trying to sell the result of their efforts to record companies so that they may make a living making music. At the end of the day, that is a great thing for music lovers--otherwise artists would have a lot less time to create the music we all love. "
That's funny... I thought that artists spend their lifetimes trying to sell the result of their efforts to the Consumers, so that they may make a living making music. (Of course, it would not be the same profit...err..music that the RIAA loves)

Check UP2GO.NET ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Just gotta check www.up2go.net, they've got thousands of applications referenced ... and most of them will run on OSX with a single click ;-)

Just test JDiskReport for instance :o)

Think about TCPA!

[file-exists-p]

Well, my friend, you will certainly love TCPA and other trusted-computer stuff. Basically they will be able to dialog with your computer in a totally encrypted maniere, and you would have no way to even known what it is about. From the beginning it has been my main concern about TCPA: with such an architecture, corporations could transform customers PCs into storing nodes for data they completely disagree with (child porn of course, but we can imagine other examples related to politic, religion, etc.) The good news is that it would upset all sort of people, not only the leftist-geeks. I wonder what a creationnist would think of such a situation in wich he may be forced to store articles about darwinism on his PC ?

Slowness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I'm trying it out. I'm using a dial-up connection, and it's like way too slow. It took over 3 hours to load "The Freedom Engine" page.

It's called Mnet

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out Mnet which does almost exactly what You suggested above. Except the porn-bit.

Is "anonymous" really ...

[C.M.B.D.I's.]

equivalent to "free". Do anonymous people using FreeNet have anonymous rights? I understand the use of anonymity to protect freedom, but if your content becomes anonymous as soon as you use something like Freenet, does it cease to become yours? On the otherhand, PRC would probably agree that dissidents are free to say what they please inside of their jail cell....anonymously...to themselves...

cut it into pieces

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't freenet cut all files into pieces of 10 kb or so. And distribute these parts of files over many clients. That way, nobody owns anything, and you still can get everything.
Nobody has to be afraid of owning illegal content that way.

now, as for the implementation....

Not Anonymous, Not Deniable?

[zero_offset]

Do yourself a favor and carefully read the security section of the Freenet FAQ. The two big draws for Freenet are anonymity and plausible deniability, and both have issues people need to be aware of.

One highly relevant quote about anonymity:

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).

And another quote highly relevant to plausible deniability (which is effectively what Freenet relies upon to store potentially controversial content on any connected node, hopefully without exposing that node's owner to prosecution for hosting that content):

Hashing the key and encrypting the data is not meant a method to keep Freenet Node operators from being able to figure out what type of information is in their nodes if they really want to (after all, they can just find the key in the same way as someone who requests the information would) but rather to keep operators from having to know what information is in their nodes if they don't want to. This distinction is more a legal one than a technical one. It is not realistic to expect a node operator to try to continually collect and/ or guess possible keys and then check them against the information in his node (even if such an attack is viable from a security perspective), so a sane society is less likely to hold an operator liable for such information on the network.

They are clearly moving in the right direction, but are they really there yet? Would it be possible, for example, for the RIAA to say, "Hey everybody, this free application will help you decrypt your Freenet node so that you can ensure you're not infringing," and then they're free to nail if you if you're "trafficking" in illegal files? Obviously there are other hurdles (such as identifying you and the content you're hosting), but I suspect the basic idea still describes a potentially unpleasant scenario.

Also, I saw a slashdot reply to another article recently (somebody help me here?) which quoted a legal decision (somehow involving Sony?) which pretty clearly stated that you're still considered guilty if the prosecution can prove that you were intentionally trying to avoid having knowledge of what you suspected was illegal activity for the sole purpose of using that as a defense later on. (At least, that's how I interpreted it... I wish I could find the citation.) Freenet seems to fall flat on it's face in this respect.

Don't get me wrong, I've been fascinated with Freenet and I think they're trying to do a Very Good Thing, but these are two points that I think are important which a lot of people overlook.

Heh, ironically, slashdot is currently showing me this quote: Be careful how you get yourself involved with persons or situations that can't bear inspection. :)

Isolationism always sounds so good...

[jlusk4]

it is entirely within the power of the Chinese people to settle their problems with the government, WITHOUT our intervention, and so I leave it to them to do so.

What, they're gonna vote? Hold demonstrations in Tienenman square? Quietly petition the government? Engage in a long campaign of civil disobedience? Rise up in armed rebellion? With what weapons?

John.

Re:Isolationism always sounds so good...

[zangdesign]

With fists if necessary. We are talking about a civilization that transmitted entire philosophies of martial arts for two millenia despite each emperor trying to stamp them out by burning extant books.

I did not say it would be easy, but it is within their power. The United States did the same thing 200 years ago against a better funded, better organized and better armed enemy. I did not say it would be easy or without cost, but it is possible.

Some other things to consider:
1. Do we have the right to intervene? I would say - no, this is a problem for the Chinese to sort out. This comes from my belief that we can only really accept responsibility for our own actions. Each person must settle his or her own issues and while help may be asked of another, it is entirely the right of others to refuse that help (without a reason, no less - courtesy is a social convention, not a rule).
2. How effective is the method of intervention? Freenet sounds like a good idea, but is there a measurable method of determining that effectiveness aside from whether or not the Chinese government changes? That's a pretty damn big yardstick and one that we're not likely to see the end of, in my opinion.
3. What is the cost to me? If it was just a matter of installing the software and assuming everyone outside the area to be intervened in was perfect, then I'd be all in favor of it, but it is definitely not. This software will be used for illegal purposes whether you or I like it or not (and it's not the software or the writers fault) and it is entirely reasonable to assume that the burden of punishment will fall on those who had nothing to do with the original illegal acts, since the information storage is anonymous. Authorities can only go after those who actually possess the illegal information.

Consider: certain pornographic materials are already not only illegal, but like way, seriously illegal. Society has deemed that one is not worth saving for possession of those materials, and certain other portions of society will KILL you if they find out (i.e., other prisoners). They have considerably less consideration for burden of proof that we have in the outside world. It is entirely likely to assume that you will die if you wind up in prison for having such materials on your computer and it is found out. I cannot imagine that they would care whether or not the material was encrypted - the mechanics and philosophy of information storage and retrieval are probably not something convicts would stop and listen to unless you were REALLY, REALLY persuasive.

Yes, it is a rationalization, but it is something we do everyday as an unconscious act, and here it is merely more exposed. I wish you luck if you choose to participate, but remember that you signed on freely and must be willing to accept whatever consequences may arise.

I am not, and so I choose not to participate.

In closing, the concept of child pornography is repugnant in the extreme and I, for one, do not wish to face prosecution just because someone else cannot control their own impulses.

Re:How to make Freenet suck less: Leave it running

[Anonymous Coward]

On a side note, if you get a couple of pr0n sites into your datastore (loading them a couple of times will do the trick), your node will become connected ~very~ quickly... 8-)

Re:Guess I won't worry until the BSA kicks in my d

[Anonymous Coward]

...and by that point, they'd be putting thousands of folks in jail.

Re:+Funny moderation is skewing /.

[jonnyfivealive]

right. so what does it matter? is karma important to you?

OSX

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang I can't get Freenet going on OSX.

Odd.

[arafel]

It doesn't strike you as contradictory that your government is championing free speech by jailing people for exercising it?

conspiracy

[autopr0n]

Sorry, being part of a conspiracy does not sheild you from liability even if you don't know what the other parts of the conspiracy are doing.

Re:conspiracy

[naasking]

Please look up the definition of conspiracy as you are misusing it. People running freenet nodes do so to promote and protect freedom, not necessarily to pursue evil/unlawful ends (which would make it an actual conspiracy). That freenet can be used for "evil"/illegal purposes does not automatically offset this.

You really don't understand this at all.

[twitter]

"Freedom of speech, but with responsibility"

What is the hell is "responsibility"? This kind of talk can be used to stop any kind of publishing that may be anonymous. The limit is to have a state gaurd at every copy machine in the country, as in the former USSR.

Freenet is about more than just freedom of speech, it's an attempt to get freedom from accountability.

NO! This is an attempt to insure anonymous speech is possible. Anonymous speech is an important part of free speech and is well established in Constitional law. It is freedom from reprisals for upopular opinion. People who commit crimes have no such fears.

When someone breaks a law using Freenet ...

When someone breaks a law with Freenet, that's their bad. It has nothing to do with you anymore than when someone breaks a law with a normal printing press and leaves the result on your front doorstep. Neither you nor the maker of the printing press are to blame for somone's misuse of that tool. If you are really worried about someone serving kiddie porn on your computer, stay off the internet, and whatever you do, don't run software from Microsoft.

Re:You really don't understand this at all.

[Sloppy]

What is the hell is "responsibility"? This kind of talk can be used to stop any kind of publishing that may be anonymous. The limit is to have a state gaurd at every copy machine in the country, as in the former USSR.
[snip]
When someone breaks a law with Freenet, that's their bad. It has nothing to do with you anymore than when someone breaks a law with a normal printing press and leaves the result on your front doorstep. Neither you nor the maker of the printing press are to blame for somone's misuse of that tool.

I am not suggesting that anything should be done to "stop any kind of publishing that may be anonymous." I am very much opposed to the persecution of toolmakers, or measures to prevent the misuse of technology, if those measures would also hinder people who intend no harm.

I am saying that you shouldn't run a Freenet node and let your node connect to the nodes of strangers who are not accountable to you, because it will get you (the user of the tool, not the toolmaker) into trouble. Your computer is going to transmit kiddie porn to a cop's computer, and he is going to have the logs to prove it.

You don't want to be the non-anonymous middleman in anonymous publishing, because from The Man's point of view, it isn't anonymous at all: you are the publisher.

Freenet is about more than just freedom of speech, it's an attempt to get freedom from accountability.

NO! This is an attempt to insure anonymous speech is possible. Anonymous speech is an important part of free speech and is well established in Constitional law. It is freedom from reprisals for upopular opinion. People who commit crimes have no such fears.

How far are you willing to go, to protect someone else's anonymous speech? Suppose I slip this note into your pocket when you're not looking, and you don't discover it until later and you don't know where the note came from:

Dear Friend,

Please inform everyone that you think may be interested, that President Taco's brains will be blown out, the next time he drives by the book depository.

Oh, and pass this photograph around as well. [Enclosed photo: Some old guy (face not shown) having sex with 8-year-old-girl.] BTW, you know what's great about having sex with 8-year-old girls? Afterwards, you can turn them over and pretend they're 8-year-old boys!

Your friend,
Anonymous Coward

Would you distribute the death threat and kiddie porn, knowing that you'll never be able to point at someone else, if/when humorless men come to discuss the situation with you?

That's the kind of thing you're doing when you run a Freenet node. You're putting yourself in the line of fire for someone you probably don't even know. I might be willing to take some heat for a friend, but not for Anonymous Coward.

If you are really worried about someone serving kiddie porn on your computer, stay off the internet, and whatever you do, don't run software from Microsoft.

Ten years ago, even though I was already a seasoned Microsoft-hater, I didn't blame Microsoft users for the stupid things their computers did. I considered ignorance to be a good-enough excuse. Microsoft atrocities were well-known among techies, but not well-known in the mainstream. But nowdays I do blame the users, because even people who live under rocks, knows the risks of running that stuff, just as well as they know to not buy a 1973 Pinto. I just don't believe the ignorance excuse anymore. It's not credible. If someone chooses to run that stuff anyway, then it's willful negligence, not an ignorant mistake. And it doesn't apply to OpenBSD users, because when(if?) their machines fuck up, it really is just a mistake. In between those extremes, are many shades of gray.

So, no, you don't need to stay off the Internet if you're worried about becoming a kiddie porn server. Just don't totally irresponsible and negligent things, like run Microsoft products or Freenet.

Re:Huzzah!

[hendrix69]

pony up?

Every Damn Time Its On SlashDot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously...who's dick over at SlashDot is getting sucked to get FreeNet on here all the time.

FreeNet is HORRIBLE!

Every time its posted here I try it...its slow...you can't connect to anything...you find an index of other sites that don't work...or are SOOOOO SLOOOW to load that its not worth the wait.

I read somewhere you have to wait and let your connection "branch out" or some hooey so I let FreeNet sit and run on my linux box for 24 hours...tried again...same results. Slow to load (like...300 baud slow), halting, or non-existent sites.

Why does SlashDot CONTINUE to promote this terrible terrible product?

Someone explain it to me because I just don't get it (unless the mods just think its a "cool" idea without really trying it for themselves).

test

[ErikZ]

ignore

hahahaha

[autopr0n]

People running freenet nodes do so to promote and protect freedom, not necessarily to pursue evil/unlawful ends (which would make it an actual conspiracy).

Wow! I'm glad you were able to divine the intentions of all freenet users. I'm sure most of the users feel this way, but not all of them. Anyway, the definition I looked up is as follows

An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

Subversive means: Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established government: "Sex and creativity are often seen by dictators as subversive activities" (Erica Jong).

If the people running freenet believed the government, corps, or whoever makes up the man were in favor of freedom and privacy, there would be no reason to run freenet. Freenet is subversive to it's core. Freenet is definitely a conspiracy.

And anyway, you're knowingly allowing randomly selected and anonymous individuals to use your equipment, and it would surprise me that much if the courts found that there was some responsibility there.

Re:hahahaha

[naasking]

I'm glad you were able to divine the intentions of all freenet users. I'm sure most of the users feel this way, but not all of them.

I was speaking of the goals of the freenet project. Whether users wish to use this technology for ill, then it is their decision but the benign users should not be punished.

If the people running freenet believed the government, corps, or whoever makes up the man were in favor of freedom and privacy, there would be no reason to run freenet. Freenet is subversive to it's core. Freenet is definitely a conspiracy.

Well then this just gets silly. Any action which runs contrary to the goals of any group is subversive to its goals and thus is conspiratorial. Open source is subversive to closed source software. Independent music labels are subservise to the RIAA cartel. Specialist certifications are subversive to university educations. Freenet is subversive to invasion of privacy. If this is really your intended meaning, then the "conspiratorial" and "subversive" nature of freenet is not all that sinister.

Not to mention the surcharge

[Anonymous Coward]

on each blank CD sold, which goes to the RIAA
--whether on not copyrighted music is recorded on it or not.

nasty and cursing must be the freenet "way"

[zogger]

I am far from apathetic, I've posted my desire to use freenet-or something similar. I find it interesting that freenet supporters seem to be universally nasty to people on these threads, people who have some legit questions about it. Is that the "official" freenet mindset? I was just wondering if it was possible to not host/transfer images and video, etc, to cut down on the possibility of hosting stuff that is universally regarded as illegal and immoral. I have no problems with helping legit freedom fighters around the planet, or helping whistleblowers get the information out while helping protect them, and things of that sort. If that rates a "fuck you" from the freenet "community", why don't you reply non anonymously as an official freenet developer to verify that. That isn't the way to win converts, the way you come across. In fact, most likely that's the main reason YOU use freenet, your use of immoral "files" no doubt. I'll have naught to do with such goings on. I agree with the stated purpose I have read about freenet, but if one isn't allowed to inquire or ask a question, well, bad luck to you then, you are right, freenet probably isn't for me, I'll keep looking for another project along similar lines but with decent people involved with it who don't get upset just because someone asks some questions.

Re:nasty and cursing must be the freenet "way"

[Anonymous Coward]

what makes you think that that person is anything other than an AC troll that has nothing todo with the freenet project?

I don't

[zogger]

--I _don't_ know obviously. I can see,though, whenever we have freenet threads that current supporters are quick to dis and rank anyone not using it, telling them they "don't 'get it' on free speech" or whatever. It's a major turn off, and I can also see it's not only myself that feels that way, several posters have been dissed when they brought up some legit points for discussion and/or questions.

To repeat, I support most of the basic ideas of freenet, what I don't support is the notion that you have plausible deniability, because anyone sophisticated enough to install and use freenet must also be aware that there's a good chance that your sharing will be used for not very nice purposes, and I'll predict that eventually court cases will back that up. It's not a possibility, it's a high probability. You can't be sure it won't be, you can't be sure it will, but you KNOW that it's possible and that bad guys could be using you. And my original post was to inquire if there was a way to limit file types,in order to lessen the chances, to show you have been proactive as much as possible, that you have tried to be a good netizen. I mean it was that simple. A simple, basic question, with the reason behind it. Why is this wrong or deserving of dissing? I don't automatically assume every AC is a troll, people need anonymity on occassion posting here (or anywhere), what I don't understand is why every reply I got was nasty or close to nasty. It's like I never had any legitimate point of view or right to even question, which is absurd, anyone has that right. And isn't it ironic that freenet supporters (a lot of them, not all) here don't like it when someone uses free speech?

Anyway, that's it for me with anonymous replies on this thread, either an official of the project can answer my original question, or I am done on this subject, I'll look elsewhere for better quality (more features and selectability of files, etc)software. I know that the net is threatened with massive big brotherism, anyone who reads a fraction of my stuff will know it's a major concern of mine, government power grabs and official corruption, etc,and has been since the early 60's, I have huge involvement in freedom issues and have walked the dangerous walk along with the talk for decades now, so I recognize that "the people" need a secure way to communicate. But so far, although it has promise, I am turned off by the bulk of the freenet users responses to myself and other posters, it's just.... too much arrogance, elitism and outright hate to pique my interest in their product. You are known by the company you keep, ergo, sayonnarah "freenet".

1s and 0s.

[HanzoSan]

I never said childporn was "speech" I said the pictures are speech.

When you take the physical pictures and abuse children this is not speech, when you put these pictures in the digital form it becomes speech.

1s and 0s are speech, binary is speech, source code is speech. Everything online is 1s and 0s.

Childporn is rape and abuse. Please note, viewing isn't the issue anymore than hearing is the issue with speech. Storing childporn ANYWHERE should be illegal because possession is illegal.

Yes but thats not a very realistic law for the online world. I can understand you saying possession of physical pictures is illegal, you can track them down and destroy them, the internet is not the same. You cant even stop people from storing mp3s, you can forget about trying to sue everyone who looks at kiddie porn. And yes anything you look at online you posess, so you can see already how fair the possesion law is.

If you think that's about freedom of expression, you're insane. You said yourself it isn't art. The government's job is to protect its citizens, especially the young ones who can't protect themselves, and quite frankly, I'd gladly accept censorship in order to ensure the safety and welfare of my future stepdaughter.

The protection in the real world I agree with, online is not the physical world, I do not believe online should have a government.

I will not accept any censorship on the net, I want absolute freedom of expression online, this is why I'm for P2P, this is why I support open source, and this is why I support freenet.

Child Porn is bad, but you must understand that if you are going to take the position that freedom of speech is right, and that censorship online is wrong, it must be absolute.

Despite what you say, binary IS speech. Its the number system, its written language. The speech should not be outlawed, the physical objects should be outlawed, meaning whoever took the pictures should be arrested and their pictures should be destroyed.

Re:1s and 0s.

[GenSolo]

Excuse the out-of-order clipping of stuff. If anything is out of context I apologize.

1s and 0s are speech, binary is speech, source code is speech. Everything online is 1s and 0s.

Despite what you say, binary IS speech. Its the number system, its written language.

Again, speech is verbal/vocal. If you don't believe me, click the dictionary.reference.com link in my previous post and see. Binary is NOT speech unless you literally say, "one zero zero zero one one zero one". If I write the number 10001101, 0x8D, or 141, it's still written. It's not spoken and therefore not speech. I really don't see why you're having such a problem with this.

you must understand that if you are going to take the position that freedom of speech is right, and that censorship online is wrong, it must be absolute
I think censorship of speech is wrong, and I think censorship of natural-language writing is wrong, but I don't think censorship of photographs is wrong. If you oppose all censorship, what do you think about a guy who hides in the bushes and looks through a window and takes a picture of people having sex. The people find out and sue to have the site shutdown. Do they not have a right to prevent pictures of themselves from being distributed around the world? Of course they do!

you can forget about trying to sue everyone who looks at kiddie porn.
I don't want to sue anybody. I want people who are hosting it intentionally to be arrested and people hosting it unintentionally to be forced to get rid of it.

The protection in the real world I agree with, online is not the physical world, I do not believe online should have a government.
I'm not talking about some internationall Internet government. I'm talking about existing governments enforcing things within their own borders. If the server is in the US, it's subject to US law. If it's in Germany, it's subject to German law. If there's an American involved, the FBI should track them down and castrate them with a blowtorch.

I will not accept any censorship on the net, I want absolute freedom of expression online,
There, you finally used the right term! The problem is, there is no guaranteed freedom of expression anywhere I've ever seen. If I'm wrong, feel free to provide information, but I don't know of anything guaranteed but free speech, assembly, petition, press, and religion.

this is why I'm for P2P
Such high ideals. I tend to think you're for P2P because you're a socialist with an overinflated sense of entitlement, but maybe I'm wrong. Who knows?

Oh and I forgot to address part of your arguement

[HanzoSan]

Straight people look at straight porn, gay people look at gay porn, and pedophiles look at child porn. A curious person may take a glance at something different once or twice, but it takes a lot more than a curiousity to view mass amounts of child pornography. You view it because you like it, it's MENTAL DISORDER.. We are not talking about sane, rational people.. The bridge from viewing to creating is not a big one!

Ok so your arguement is, vast amounts of childporn are bad? How much is vast amounts?

The bridge from viewing to creating is not a big one! I mean, I'm sure there's some model or actress.

This is debateable. You view straight porn, have you raped any women lately?

The difference between children and adults, adults can legally sign a contract to allow you to take these pictures, the pedophiles however are taking pictures of kids who cannot sign such contracts. These pedophiles are like the people who put cameras in bathrooms to spy on people, and who record rapes.

The pictures are wrong, but what gives you or anyone the right to try to control the internet just to stop some pictures from being viewed?

You have a good arguement here but once again no proof.

Re:Oh and I forgot to address part of your argueme

[AceM2]

Ok so your arguement is, vast amounts of childporn are bad? How much is vast amounts?

Any amount that can easily be considered more than investigative or 'stumbling'.. As in.. If you have the remnants of ads and and maybe still have a handfull of pictures, it'd just be too hard to decide if you're someone who has a problem or not.

This is debateable. You view straight porn, have you raped any women lately?

No, I haven't raped any women lately.. However, you could just ask my girlfriend and she'd probably tell you how much I hit on her and talk about sex. The thing here is, she's an adult woman capable of making informed decisions, and I'm rational, fairly mentally sound, and respectful of her so I know when to back off. My point was that people view what they want to to, as I'm sure a rapist would probably enjoy rape porn more than something I might like. Don't forget either, pedophiles are *sick* and are not capable of rational decision under circumstances when they might possibly have the chance to assert authority over children.

I don't believe eradicating child pornography is going to eliminate all child abuse any more than removing alcohol would make all car wrecks go away, but I do believe that people with a problem should be located whenever possible and receive treatment for the benefit of society.

I don't feel as if there is any good reason to protect these people in the name of free speech. No, the internet doesn't teach them to be pedophiles.. What I'm saying is it's like.. Cops pulling people over for a minor violation and finding out that the person is in a stolen vehicle or that the person has outstanding warrants. Even if you don't want to incarcerate someone for viewing child porn, do you not understand that getting a mental disturbed person help before they can harm anyone will do good?

We can agree to disagree I suppose, I just can't imagine you being okay and excusing people's actions in the name of free speech instead of being for getting them help.. (if nothing else..)

Re:Oh and I forgot to address part of your argueme

[HanzoSan]

No, I haven't raped any women lately.. However, you could just ask my girlfriend and she'd probably tell you how much I hit on her and talk about sex. The thing here is, she's an adult woman capable of making informed decisions, and I'm rational, fairly mentally sound, and respectful of her so I know when to back off. My point was that people view what they want to to, as I'm sure a rapist would probably enjoy rape porn more than something I might like. Don't forget either, pedophiles are *sick* and are not capable of rational decision under circumstances when they might possibly have the chance to assert authority over children.

I'm all for punishing people who actually commit crimes, the ones who lack self control must be put in prison because they lack self control. Looking at pictures however doesnt prove they lack self control and in my opinion just viewing it shouldnt be a crime. Actions should be a crime. IF you put the pictures on the network this is an action, if you view it, thats not really an action.

I don't feel as if there is any good reason to protect these people in the name of free speech. No, the internet doesn't teach them to be pedophiles.. What I'm saying is it's like.. Cops pulling people over for a minor violation and finding out that the person is in a stolen vehicle or that the person has outstanding warrants. Even if you don't want to incarcerate someone for viewing child porn, do you not understand that getting a mental disturbed person help before they can harm anyone will do good?

We arent protecting pedophiles, you think pedophiles care about free speech? Pedophiles are going to rape and abuse children either way.

. Even if you don't want to incarcerate someone for viewing child porn, do you not understand that getting a mental disturbed person help before they can harm anyone will do good?

Yes but I'm not the one to judge someone as mentally disturbed just because they view pictures which I think are weird.

I think it takes more than just viewing the pictures to be labeled a pedophile, you need a history of ACTIONS toward children.

We can agree to disagree I suppose, I just can't imagine you being okay and excusing people's actions in the name of free speech instead of being for getting them help.. (if nothing else..)

Either you support free speech or you dont, just like the taliban and china are selective about which free speech they support, so are Americans I guess.

I think hate groups are as bad if not worse than kiddie porn, should they be banned from the net? Should people who view the websites be put in jail? whats your opinion on this?

Hate has done more harm to society than any other form of communication. Hate is the cause of all wars, millions of deaths, and could be responsible for humanities self destruction. Its responsible for 911, columbine, slavery/racism, etc.

Theres alot of things on the net right now which most people dont agree with but its legal. If you ban kiddie porn because its something you dont agree with, can I then ban hate speech because I dont agree with it?

Re:Oh and I forgot to address part of your argueme

[AceM2]

I hate my dsl connection whenever I'm posted to slashdot.. Anyway.. To make a long story short.. What you don't seem to acknowledge is that pedophiles have a mental disorder. This mental disorder is the same in both the people that take the pictures and the people that view them. Of course, some people are going to have various different secondary afflictions that others may not have.. It's still the same basic thing and the potential for violent acts against children is very likely. By definition, pedophiles cannot really control their urges on their own. They have a disorder that makes them feel the way that they do, a lot like how some serial killers have been known to do various mutilations and rituals as part of their killing.. The way they function forces them to be this way. You don't wake up one more and say hey I bet that child porn is interesting, I'm going to download everything I can find! No, people that do that have mental disorders and need the assistance of a psyche doctor. I mean it's weird to me in some cases you acknowledge pedophiles are evil selfish people, but then at the same time you want to treat them like normal sound people as far as assuming they can fight urges and make rational decisions when placed in positions where they may be able to take advantage of children. I mean, if you don't want to give them jail time, fine.. If having a disorder is their only crime, send them to the psyche ward to be evaluated. You can have free speech all you want, but the fact is it's a disorder that's generating this "speech", which to me.. Isn't really speech at all.. I mean it's like an NRA member saying they should have the right to carry a loaded shotgun around in the mall because they have a right to bear arms.. I mean come on, no one's going to agree with that.. Besides maybe Denis Leary and a few friends, but in general I mean.. it's not acceptable.. Why? Because there's a massive potential for violence.. Same thing goes for free speech, I want free speech, I want freenet, but I don't want pedophiles to be able to avoid treatment by hiding behind P2P. I know blocking "13yo" "preteen" etc in p2p software isn't going to stop children from being abused, I'm saying though these people if they can be tracked down.. *Should* be tracked down and forced to seek treatment for their illness. As far as hate groups and such, I'm not really going to go into that too far because we could go on and on for years..but anyway I mean I agree that hate groups are evil and everything, the cause of so many atrocities, but the fact is 'hate' is a human emotion that most everyone feels at some point in time.. If we didn't, it wouldn't be such a big problem. A KKK or Neo Nazi member CAN in fact resist the urge to kill people of other races, because just because they're in a hate group it doesn't mean that they're mentally impaired (other than stupid). A pedophile (child porn producer and view both) is the way they are because of a mental disorder, they have only limited control over their actions without therapy and proper medication. I don't suggest you ban questionable material, I suggest people that have mental disorders which would cause them to cause harm to people be treated for those disorders because they do not have full control over themselves to make the decision to seek treatment on their own or hold back urges 100% of the time. This is the same reason we have a mental ward in the hospital and a section in our prisons for the insane, there are people there so screwed up in the head that if we let them out who knows what they'd do to themselves and other people.. I mean there really are people in mental institutions that have not committed a crime YET.. They're just a bit..well.. 'weird' as you say.. Do you suggest we let out Johnny Psychopath so he can murder his first family?

Re:Oh and I forgot to address part of your argueme

[HanzoSan]

What you don't seem to acknowledge is that pedophiles have a mental disorder. This mental disorder is the same in both the people that take the pictures and the people that view them.

Because thats like saying gays have a mental disorder.

Just because I dont understand you, doesnt mean you have a mental disorder. Now, if you have no self control and you rape kids this DOES mean you have a mental disorder. Just like if you are gay and you rape people in prison or whatever you do have a mental disorder. My point is I dont judge people based on what pictures they look at or their sexuality, I judge people by their actions. I cannot label someone a criminal before they actually commit the crime, just because they thought about it, or looked at a picture.

Of course, some people are going to have various different secondary afflictions that others may not have.. It's still the same basic thing and the potential for violent acts against children is very likely. By definition, pedophiles cannot really control their urges on their own. They have a disorder that makes them feel the way that they do, a lot like how some serial killers have been known to do various mutilations and rituals as part of their killing..

Yes but not all people who for example think teen girls are attractive, are suddenly a pedophile. It takes actions, if you rape a teen girl then you are a pedophile. I know guys who have gfs who are teenagers, but who havent and dont have sex with them because they know its wrong. I judge people based on actions.

The way they function forces them to be this way. You don't wake up one more and say hey I bet that child porn is interesting, I'm going to download everything I can find! No, people that do that have mental disorders and need the assistance of a psyche doctor.

Theres alot of people I dont understand, but that doesnt give me the right to say they have a mental disorder. I think people who hate are impossible for me to understand, I dont know how people can hate, but I dont want to say they have a mental disorder either. I mean people who are nazis and who join the KKK, whats wrong with those people?
I dont honestly know, but unless they actually murder, beat up or harm soneone I cannot really judge them as a bad person.

I mean it's weird to me in some cases you acknowledge pedophiles are evil selfish people, but then at the same time you want to treat them like normal sound people as far as assuming they can fight urges and make rational decisions when placed in positions where they may be able to take advantage of children.

Pedophiles are bad and selfish people, I'm saying you cannot label people a pedophile until they actually commit the crime. You cannot just point out, "Ok this guy likes younger girls, hes a pedophile!"

Pedophile is a strong word, its like rapist or murderer, you have to be very precise in who you label a pedophile. Just like I'm not going to assume all gay people are going to hit on me, I dont assume all people who look at younger girls are instantly pedophiles. I judge by actions not by what they think about.

I mean, if you don't want to give them jail time, fine.. If having a disorder is their only crime, send them to the psyche ward to be evaluated.

I'm not sure whats wrong with them, Jailtime may not solve their problem, rapists, pedophiles, serial killers, psychopaths/sociopaths, and other people who I do not understand may need to be evaluated, but I'm not going to label them crazy just because I personally dont understand them.

Theres ALOT of people who I dont understand, so theres no way I can start judging people like this.

You can have free speech all you want, but the fact is it's a disorder that's generating this "speech", which to me.. Isn't really speech at all.. I mean it's like an NRA member saying they should have the right to carry a loaded shotgun around in the mall because they have a right to bear arms.. I mean c

Re:Oh and I forgot to address part of your argueme

[AceM2]

You are being a hypocrite. If I can have control and not go around raping women because I'm horny, and a gay person can have control and not rape men , and a hater can have enough control to not go and kill everyone they hate, why do you assume that all people who look at childporn are suddenly going to go rape children?

I'm not being a hyprocrite if you listen to what I say.. Pedophiles have a mental disorder. Some people in hate groups do I'm sure, but not close to all of them. Horny guys do not have a mental disorder. Homosexuals do not have a mental disorder, they're just like straight people except they like people of the same sex. When I speak of pedophilia, you'd have to be crazy to think I mean 19 year olds liking 17 year olds or something.. Or really, any consenting, physically mature female is going to turn on a guy no matter what the age.. Pedophilia has to deal with unconsenting partners that are being abused and cannot possibly control the situation no matter how much they want. You don't wish to acknowledge that it's a mental disorder like practically every doctor practicing in the field today.. So this discussion isn't going to go any further I suppose.. Interesting fact to know though about your opinions. 'night

Re:Oh and I forgot to address part of your argueme

[HanzoSan]

Because you have no proof its a mental disorder. we can prove somethings a mental disorder by watching a persons actions, you cannot prove they have a mental disorder just by guessing.

I'm not going to play doctor even if I may have taken classes, I'm not a doctor. You arent a doctor.

Even if I was a doctor, Its not easy to tell the difference between a "crazy" person, and a normal person.

There are alot of normal people who have crazy attributes,

Anyway its not up to us to decide whos crazy and whos not, we should leave that up to the doctors, but we shouldnt mess up the whole law system just to stop one specific crime.

Thats as silly as giving up freedom to stop terrorism.

Re:Oh and I forgot to address part of your argueme

[GenSolo]

Because you have no proof its a mental disorder. we can prove somethings a mental disorder by watching a persons actions, you cannot prove they have a mental disorder just by guessing.

Actually, I do. You don't have to be a doctor to have proof. It's called doing a little reasearch: ASK A DOCTOR!

"Mental health professionals agree that pedophilia should never be considered normal, because it is truly a disease. None of the things that make homosexuality a normal variation of human sexuality apply to pedophilia."
-WebMD