Slashdot Mirror
Freenet Project More Stable, In Need
An anonymous reader writes "The Freenet Project is asking for donations to help keep their main programmer, Matthew Toseland. After a long time, finally Freenet, software which 'lets you publish and obtain information on the Internet without fear of censorship' is working fine (and fast) again, since their overload problems are almost completely fixed. They even plan to write a paper about the overload problems. If you want to try, be sure to run the latest stable or unstable snapshot."
Welcome to the new world of Open Source, courtesy of the GNU Manifesto.
Freenet is what the web was before big-business began to gather it in its claws - a true forum for free speech. Well worth donating to.
"If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments." Earl Wilson
Many may, and probably will, complain that Freenet is slow, doesn't work, etc. This is why Freenet needs your donations. Matt has brought Freenet's speed back up to where it used to be before all the routing problems. I remember when you used to be able to DL movies off of Freenet at reasonable speeds. And it's a given the 'child porn on my computer' argument is going to be brought up with the Free Speech for everything but that! vs the Free Speech Perdiod zealots fighting it out.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
What about the Communist dissidents in countries like China where their government won't let them publish their views? Should they also be deprived of their freedom of expression?
--
Adobe's anti-counterfeiting softw
I agree. The trouble is we do not all live in countries which draw a liberal line at law enforcement. FreeNET is a great idea spoiled by the rotting compost in our society which puts so many off.
BTW - if you are unaware - unlike most P2P systems, on FreeNET you do not choose what material to share, rather it gets stored (and served from) your computer according to the network-wide demand. So if someone uploads kiddie porn to the network it may be stored on your computer for others to download. Because of its anonymous nature (well, nearly) it is very attractive for people who may want to bypass local law enforcement - i.e., those that wish to engage in unlawful activities will be disproportionatly drawn to it.
I'm glad that they claim to have fixed those issues, because I seriously love the concept, and I'm jumping at the chance to try it again.
The inverse is also true. What if YOU had something you needed to say but couldn't?
What if it was YOU that had your personal information dragged all through freenet from an Ex-Wife or Disgruntal banker? I bet then you would wish for some control to the service.
No, I would be going after my ex-wife or banker, not complaining about freenet.
...but I don't believe in freedom of speech as an absolute right.
Why? When is it ok to silence speech? When it goes against something you belive in? I personally don't agree with your post
but that doesn't mean that I think you shouldn't be allowed to speak your opinion.
"The road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think." - Picard
It did help, I for one value the freedoms I have and believe freenet is one of the things required to protect these freedoms.
In short I donated $20.
-- You can be a geeklord too
The version on the download page is ancient. If you read VERY CAREFULLY to the bottom of the download page then you might end up running the "upgrade.sh" script which might actually give you performance. Then after about a day of struggle you may stumble upon the "Nubile Tutorial" so that you actually know how to use Freenet.
It had always seemed that Freenet leadership is obsessively interested in getting press, yet at the same time embarrased enough by the actual system that they make it impossible for anyone but the most dedicated techies to get started using it. Considering that at startup some of the first content encountered is (quite unfortunately) child pornography collections, I wouldn't be surprised if this is almost intentional to keep the Press talking about the high ideals without seeing the current reality. Maybe it's even best for the project at this stage.
If freenet is to succeed, and we all desperately need it to, it's going to have to make itself both USABLE and RESPECTABLE. That means new potential users should not be confronted with stomach wrenching content even if such things are available by the nature of the system.
-braddock
Is a fact of life. There is NO way to prevent it when people want it.
Be it on freenet, the open web, or the US-mail.
If that offends you then dont contribute time/energy/resoruces/money to freenet.
Oh, and dont buy stamps, or buy gas or anything else.. As there is nothing in this world that isnt tainted somehow..
Just get used to it, and move on.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
> Freenet contains NO spyware or adware , it's Free
> Software!
But it requires the Sun JRE, which is proprietary bloatware.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
After installing FreeNET and trying it out , I couldn't care less about its claims to be a conduit for freedom of speech. Along those lines, I also couldn't care less about poor, oppressed people in communist countries who aren't allowed to express their views, if they try to express them via FreeNET
FreeNET claims to provide an safe haven for people to exchange information without fear of oppression or censorship. What FreeNET is (whether or not by design) is a "harbor house" of sorts for child pornographers, terrorists, and other criminals.
You may argue (as the FreeNET team does), that a few bad apples are just spoiling the bunch, but next time you log on to FreeNET, count how many of the afforementioned links are available (and towards the top of all the lists).
As far as I'm concerned (and I am not a lawyer, but I have studied the U.S. Constitution in-depth), free speech extends to speech. It does not extend to breaking laws revolving around child endangerment and molestation and civil rights violations and hiding behind it by claiming it's protected by the right to free speech.
In fact, having something like FreeNET tied to the open source community could have a harmfully negative impact upon it. Imagine the FUD campaigns if people started pointing to the material available on FreeNET (sure, they'd be baseless arguments, but they'd be playing on people's emotions). Rebuttal to the FUD might be that such material is freely available from other sources, however that argument would fall short in the eyes of the public because FreeNET is forever tied to the open source community
Just some things to think about before you consider donating (time or money) to the FreeNET project
My lack of God, it's Trotsky!
Wait a sec...
Are the dissidents communists, or are those oppressing them communists?
Your statement makes very little sense. Communism is an economic system - and an economic system has very little to do with freedom of speech.
(Actually, communism may have more of an effect upon freedom of speech, but in the case of communism as an economy, it actually HELPS it)
China's government is communist (though it's becoming arguable with the humungous amount of foreign trade going on). However, it is also a dictatorship (and a somewhat fascist one at that) - a dictatorship certainly supresses civil liberties.
India is communist by popular election. No system of government which supresses personal freedoms as China does would be acceptable to the masses. And you certainly don't see these violations of civil liberties in India today.
Looks like you're still feeling the ill effects of Senator McCarthy (America's worst politian. Ever)
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
What checks does Freenet have in place to preserve privacy, and yet prevent the distribution of illegal material?
That's kind of the point. Illegal != immoral != harmful. It's up to each individual user to determine whether what they're doing is "right" or "wrong". Is it wrong to wail against communism? The Chinese government thinks so. Is it wrong to spread child porn? The U.S. government thinks so. But, what does the USER think. It's THEIR responsibility to do the right thing rather than the government forcing them to do it. I must say, I don't participate in freenet because I'm not convinced that the benefits of using my computer to help spread democratic propaganda away from the prying eyes of the Chinese government outweights the negatives of some sick fuck using it to spread kiddy porn, but that's MY decision, not the governments.
When you rely on the government to hold people to certain standards, you're just asking for trouble. Look at the gay marriage thing. Does it hurt anybody? No. Still, there are people who say it's right and people who say it's wrong. The government wants to stick it's big nose in the mess now and that's just begging for trouble. They'll try to legislate morality which is just plain nuts. The government is hear to PROTECT and SERVE the public, not be a self-appointed moral watchdog. Freenet is an interesting experiment in putting the power of deciding one's own moral course back in the hands of individuals.
Unlike the screwball grandparent poster, I like Freenet in principle, I'm just not convinced that I like it in practice...
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
What I want to say is free anoynomous speech has it's draw backs.
And this free anonymous speech can be filtered, since it is free, and it is anonymous. Filtered in the sense that I'm more likely to trust something my mom says than some voice I hear whispered in a subway. We've gotta teach our kids to moderate that free speech and figure out if it's trustworthy or not, before they let it convince them to become teenage sluts building pyramids for alien-worshipping monkey gods, or whatever it was you alluded to. Anything you read on Freenet should be treated as an unfounded rumor. Which doesn't do much good for our Chinese dissidents, I guess.
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.
Personally, I think the only way to stop kiddie porn is at the source. Removing the transport medium will only lead to those involved seeking another medium, and there's always SneakerNet.
> What FreeNET is (whether or not by design) is a "harbor house" of sorts for
> child pornographers, terrorists, and other criminals.
You mean `the internet is...`. So why are you using it. Perhaps you should stop using the phone, postal system, visiting libraries etc.
You can only make the world a better place with information. Ultimately, it is better than ignorance, even if you can pick a few examples of the downside.
I'm still at a loss as to how the internet can help terrorists. What can they now do that they couldn't do before with phone calls? Likewise for "criminals" in general.
I think the internet is a godsend for police and other agencies trying to track down child pornographers.
And who gets to determine what speech 'promotes freedom'?
Seriously.
Nearly all of the posts i'm seeing talk about how horrible freenet is because it may be used for child pornography or other illegal things and then go on to say that freenet should not exist and how terrible they must be etc. etc. I've even seen posts saying (to paraphrase) 'everyone should have free speech except kiddie pornographers and nazis'.
get a clue and go fuck yourselves! If you want to filter what someone says because you dont agree with it than it's not really free speech, is it?
Further, these morons arguing against freenet are using the same argument i see used so fervently in defense of DeCSS or any other tool that allows them to pirate music or do something 'cool'...
'Hey! you cant make this tool illegal! Just because I have a card programmer doesnt mean I am stealing. i have rights, man! Free speech!'
So, which is it?
(a) Tool X can be used for illegal things and therefore should be banned.
(b) Tool X can be used for illegal things. It does, however, serve useful, legitimate purposes. Keep it legal.
I vote for option B myself.
It's impossible. If an authority can declare a file illegal, it will be abused. We cannot make the system safe for chinese dissidents publishing files that happen to be illegal locally (most political or religious texts, for example), while being able to censor it in the West.
Stick with your decision, but know that child porn isn't exhalted or even condoned on Freenet, and it isn't even specifically accepted as a necessary evil. Freenet merely redistributes in-demand files (as collections of bytes like all others) across a network in a way to prevent the ability of any party to suppress them or know their originator. This is to guarantee freedom of speech and expression. That some combinations of bytes form graphics that any responsible and/or balanced person would find repugnant, doesn't change the fact that they're still just bytes which freenet can't distinguish from "Das Capital", a treatise on democracy in China, a mirror of RIAA subpoenas or the latest episode of Enterprise.
If you want a system that can censor a particular kind of data, it would require a central authority to make that judgement -- and the entire point of a decentralized network of expression is lost.
where'd my typewriter go?
Let us say that I'm a member of a organization that is strict Constitutionalist, or in other words, believes in a LITERAL interpretation of the Constitution of the U.S.; Or I was a fundy Mormon (Polygamist). Or a member of ELF.
That would make me a terrorist to the current administration.
Let us say also that the Administration was making use of advances in Science to monitor dissidents communications, purchases, library visits, how many times you go the bathroom each days, etc.
Freenet is a neccesary evil, much like lawyers.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
By the most sensible definition of location of data, the child porn is not on your computer.
What you have on your computer is indistinguishable by all known statistical tests from random noise. The sum of this pseudo-random data on all nodes, viewed in a particular way, i.e. through a suitable client, is the Freenet network. The child porn is there, all right - if you're sick enough to seek it out. But the nature of Freenet means that no mapping can be found between data in it, and encrypted data on nodes. That's the whole point. So why worry? If there was a scheme by which you mailed your hard drive to some island and they added it to a pool of storage anyone could access, would you have the same qualms about your disk being possibly contaminated?
Don't shoot the messenger. Really.
I hate child porn as much as humanly possible. But that doesn't make me hate cameras. Or freenet. It makes me hate child pornographers. They should be found and shot dead. If it is hard to find them, I don't blame the largeness and complexity of the physical world. Or freenet.
I don't have a solution to child porn, but I don't want restrictions on useful technology because of the sick actions of a few.
Cheers.
What good is a node whose CPU and memory are hardly used, but fullfills no requests because the network is screwed up?
Priority 1: Create secure, anonymous, decentralized network
Priority 2: Get network reasonably functional
Priority 3: Get resource usage reasonably low
Priority 4: Get network running very well
Priority 5: Get resource usage way down
Right now, I'd say they're working towards 3 and 4, and doing a damn fine job at it. When you can design a functional, anonymous, secure, scalable, and fault-tolerant network, and have each and every node use minimal resources, feel free to let the Freenet team know. Until then, either run a node, or don't run a node - donate, or don't. But don't sit there and complain with no useful suggestions, corrections, help, or ideas to offer.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I believe in the principles of Freenet.
I am willing to dedicate disk space
I am on a broadband connection where I can affort x GB / week.
I have tried freenet carefully setting the supposed bandwidth controls. At first everything was fine, but as days and weeks went by my node got more and more popular. Eventually it was way above the limits I had set and I could find no way to throttle it back to a reasonable rate, so I was forced to remove the service. This was far more problem than even it's slow speed -- it made it impossible for the average user to use. Normal users get into trouble if their bandwidth usage keeps going up without limit. I also run web pages that eventually become unusable if they get too much competition. That is the make-or-break feature for me. I must have bandwidth controls that put a real cap on bandwidth.
"I couldn't care less about its claims to be a conduit for freedom of speech."
"It does not extend to breaking laws revolving around child endangerment and molestation and civil rights violations and hiding behind it by claiming it's protected by the right to free speech."
Personally, I think you're totally crazy. A digital camera and a CD burner might seem like ideal tools for publishing child pr0n. Should they be illegal? Should I say that I couldn't care less about their non-infringing uses? You're just another hypocrite who hates the DMCA for it's effects on non-infringing uses, but at the same time is more than happy to kill a project like FreeNET because it can be used in ways that are in violation of your laws and morals. I don't want to start a war here, but what is wrong with you people!?!?
I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
" Freenet will blatantly be used for child porn, and probably already is."
;) The problem is that if you or I can remove child pornography, then the Chinese government can remove dissenting remarks, a corporation can remove documents posted by a whistleblower, and a politician/other important person can remove damaging facts posted about them. Freenet is an all-or-nothing venture.
They state as much in the FAQ. The downside of an uncensorable system is that some people will use it for things you and I would prefer to censor.
Aside from that, the same can be said of the internet itself. The same can be said of the real world, as well. Shall we destroy the internet and the real world to prevent disgusting things from happening or being posted? Or should we address the problems behind the content, such as the abuse of children? We can continue to ignore the problems that are out there by censoring them away, or we can recognize that there exists a major problem, and then go on to solve it.
"While I'm sure there are lots of chinese people who will find value in it, "
Well, yes... considering the fact that it saves their lives . Quit living in your tiny little world and open up a little bit, just for once, hmm? Just recently, a Chinese dissident was jailed for posting "subversive" materials on the internet. Had this person had access to, and used Freenet, they would still be promoting democracy, instead of wondering how many times the guards will be back for torture sessions this week. People in China and other places DO use Freenet to communicate safely with one another. In places like China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc, speaking out means you're going to die. How it is you can simply brush aside the fact that Freenet saves peoples' lives every single day is beyond me.
" there are lots of child pr0nographers rubbing their dirty little fucking hands with glee. "Oh look, something free and uncensored! Better puts some child porn on it! (uploads)."
Again, the same can be said of the internet. How many sites have been busted for selling access to child pornography? How many years did those places operate with impunity? How many others continue to go undetected by law enforcement? How many others pop up on the regular internet every single day? Obviously there are those who use Freenet for things that disgust most of us, but those people will find ways to distribute that content regardless of Freenet's existence. The capture of one, or ten, or a hundred, or a thousand does little to stem the tide. Until we address the underlying problem, the content will always exist.
"Yeah, free speech is nice, but at the same time providing free speech to child pornographers and Nazis is both hypocritical and wrong."
Your definition of hypocrasy is flawed. Hypocrasy is to pretend to be or believe something which you are not, or do not believe. It would be hypocritical of Freenet to advertise free speech, and then censor that with which it does not agree.
What you mean to say is that you don't like those who would produce or distribute child pornography, and you don't like Nazis, and you wish that they would be quiet and go away. Guess what - I wish the very same thing. The difference is, I'm not willing to call for the downfall of something that saves lives every single day simply because some people use it to say or distribute things that turn my stomach. It's people like you who think that censorship stops at things with which they disagree. In fact, there will always be someone wanting to censor the very things you hold most dear, because they find it offensive. Do you believe in God? There will always be an athiest who doesn't want you 'indoctrinating' their child, and thus wants you banned from saying the word under any circumstances. You don't believe in God? There will always be someone who finds the very thought so utterly repulsive that they want you jailed for even menti
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
" Full Disclosure: I've never installed Freenet, but I've been following its development closely since its inception. I'm subscribed to the notification of new releases from Sourceforge ..."
"I've never driven, or for that matter seen, the 2004 Jaguar XKR, but I looked at it on a website. I've got to say, the thing is a total piece of junk. The radio looks like it probably doesn't give good sound, the seats don't appear very comfortable, and I seriously doubt it rides very well either. Plus, judging by the way the engine looks, it probably doesn't have any power at all. I don't understand why anyone would even bother considering to buy one"
"The last release on that page is dated July 17, 2003."
The last major release was then. That being said, the very fact that we're not even at 1.0 means that major changes happen all the time. Had you bothered to look further, or perhaps subscribed to the devl list, you'd see that stable receives updates about once a week on average, and unstable is updated almost daily. Each 'minor' update contains numerous bug fixes, and often contains new routing features or additions to the protocols. The current stable release is 5070, which was released today. The last stable release was put out about 3 or 4 days ago. The rapid, sustained development of Freenet continues to be the fastest I've ever seen, of any project I've ever followed.
"And by Clarke's own admission in his 'State of the Freenet' letter, it doesn't work very well. He *thinks* this new algorithm will solve the problems, but nobody knows that for sure."
You're taking the letter very much out of context. Again, reading the devl mailing list would provide you with far better understanding of the issues surrounding Freenet's development, problems, and solutions.
"Is Freenet so hard that this many programmers can't deliver a working version in close to a year?!"
This, you discern, without even having tried it? That's incredible. Listen, put down the 3-way call with Kenny Kingston and Ms Cleo, and ask some people who actually run Freenet. Or, wait a week or two for the Slashdot-Freenet overload to die down a bit (takes a little while for the network to adjust to massive influxes of new people), and *gasp* download the program so you can try it for yourself?! In case you're wondering, Freenet has worked to varying degrees since I started using it about a year ago. As the protocols and code is adjusted, things either get really good, really bad, or somewhere in between. When you're doing something this brand new, and making major changes all the time, there's nothing else to be expected. As of right now, stable is working fairly well (was working outstanding a few weeks ago), and unstable is working even better.
"The goals of Freenet are lofty, and for that maybe they deserve more patience, but when does the community just cut and run?"
I would assume that most 'cut and run' within a few days of downloading the program at this point. Why? Because it's not a simple AOLesque installation. It requires some configuration, some manual configuration, a bit of knowledge, and a lot of patience. There is a large group of die-hard Freenet users, such as myself, that would need to have serious, prolonged problems with the software before thinking about giving up on it. Most of us have talked with Toad and Ian enough to know that we're not being jerked around, and that this thing is going to move forward to the benefit of many, many different people. They're open and honest about progress and problems, and they both make themselves available all the time. Toad, especially, has gone the extra mile with me on a few different occassions to make sure that I was able to solve problems I was experiencing. I didn't get a 'RTFM', nor a non-response, and I certainly didn't get ignored. My mail to the support list has always been answered with much help from numerous people. I couldn't possibly fault any
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Yeah! And I'd rather not have kiddie porn travelling by mail. If we need to end the postal system, so be it, it's for the children. Come to think of it, those vile kiddie pornographers are using encryption to hide their behavior. Let's ban encryption too. Some are even using the Internet, let's ban that. And they're using cameras to take those pictures, time to ban cameras.
Hmmm, now that I think about it, human beings are a common threat in the sexual abuse of humans. We better get rid of people ASAP.
Ultimately your argument is, "But what about the chiiiiiildren!" There are lots of tools used by criminals. Yes, child pornographers use Freenet. It's unfortunate, but it's not the fault of the tool. Terrorists use airplanes and box cutters, but no one is trying to ban them.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Unstable is a much smaller network, so it's easy to make it work well. Stable is not yet working "well", although it MAY have improved a bit recently; it may work better in the near future, as we get rate limiting sorted out.
Small works well. Then, every time there's something that spurs a lot of interest, the performance is abysmal. Now I'm sure the same excuse that this is just temporary growing pains will come up again, but I for one have lost faith in that.
To me, it looks like Freenet has got fundamental scaling issues, as it would appear from the circle of people I know, that Freenet regains its past performance about the same time that the numbers using it are back to where it was.
It's very easy to make something work well on a small scale - small enough, and even a dumbfire search (pick a route at random) works. Rate limiting, load balancing and getting the most out of each node is good, but I don't think it'll solve the real problem.
I'm not saying I have the answers to make it so that it *does* scale well. But I think I've understood enough of what Freenet does to realize it *won't* scale well. Ah well...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Guess what? Before you ask or accuse, I don't like the idea of child porn. Duh. Does anyone other than the small minority of people who have some deep seated issue? Quit parroting every politico seeking reelection.
Just because you find ponography (to you) of any sort, doesn't mean that something like Freenet is bad or not needed. There is an ever increasing inabillity to exercise free speech every day. Read your ISP's TOS. Try and get a letter to the editor printed that is critical of the paper. Try to buy an ad during the SuperBowl.
Why isn't this figured out by now? I kill someone with a hammer. Oh, outlaw hammers! Nevermind that with that same hammer I could help fix a poor family's house. I know, "But you still killed someone with the hammer!"
It's rather obvious to me that those who would filter free speech are the world's biggest pussies. Frankly, I enjoy and use my human! (NOT GOVERNMENT GIVEN) right of free speech every day.
Those who would filter it miss the whole point, and miss the irony of the fact that they are encouraging the removal of any personal responsibility, free action or speech.
Yeah! Freedom of Speech is great as long as I like it! You can recite that over and over, when you're in prison for saying something that your new leader didn't like.
I don't think Freenet is about 'avoiding responsibility', I think it is about protecting yourself from those who find your opinions 'distasteful'.
Yup. Sadly, that may include pictures of porn. And it may include photos and reports of people getting killed for going to a democratic rally.
Porn will be made and distributed with or without Freenet. What about censored, unpopular, unjust information?
It's easy to sit back in your Aeon chair and say, "Well if they can't be bothered to run over to the local AP wire office, then their story must be false."
That's exactly what the government wants you to think, no tinfoil hat needed.
I figure I'm about as culpable as anyone running a router on the regular public internet. My node will route any requests it recieves, regardless of content; in the normal course of operation, I can't even tell what is locally stored on my hard disk. I'm no lawyer, so I don't know the ins and outs of common carrier status; I have no idea if this line of argument would hold up in court. It's basically the legal theory that the whole freenet project rests upon, though. And, yes, if the feds decided to crack down on freenet, I would be happy to stand up in court and argue for free, anonymous, uncensorable communication.
Just trying to open someone's head! I mean "mind!" Open someone's mind, um, to the possibilities! With explosives!