Slashdot Mirror


P2P News Syndication?

Buggernut writes "According to an article at BBC, news may be the next major item to be passed around through P2P networks, thereby escaping the grasp of the censors' attempts to control the spread of forbidden information."

266 comments

  1. One Word: by Baricom · · Score: 1

    Weblog.

    1. Re:One Word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hooray for trusted news sources.

    2. Re:One Word: by Angry+Toad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Problem is that I no longer trust the "trustworthy" news sources. CNN tries to sound balanced but just ends up repeating whatever the US administration said today. FOX is so absorbed in jingoist dogma that they repeat whatever the administration said today and then gush about how wonderful it is. ABC/CBS/NBC/whatever don't cover enough actual news to be worth noticing.

      Honestly, for all their faults I'm finding weblogs of various sorts more directly valuable than TV news (too politically charged and beholden to advertisters to be truly objective) AND print news (too late, and too beholden to advertisers to rock the boat).

    3. Re:One Word: by GAVollink · · Score: 5, Informative
      Excuse the dumbness here, but
      ...can't web site's be blocked (by places like China, and work networks)? Distributed news through P2P is unstoppable. Even if you run P2P on some of these campuses, you'll never be noticed if you never share but a single news feed.

      The only reason why Music sharing has slowed down is that it's static (the same 100,000 songs are shared over and over again, and are easy to write programs to search for). News is different every couple of days. So as long as people find a way to look for news, then there's little chance it will be able to be blocked and stopped.

      Speaking of news feed, USENET is also difficult to trace and block as well. It's been around for much longer than P2P, and has not yet been campaigned against on a large scale. It's problem is awareness and a total lack of decent (neat) client programs for USENET.

    4. Re:One Word: by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

      4 words: DMCA

    5. Re:One Word: by a+whoabot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's okay to read mainstream American or otherwise Atlanticist news. But don't read just it. That's how you fall victim to the propaganda. Read some news from other countries. Try reading some from India or Germany. The stuff's not poison people. And just because it says things that contradict what you hear on CNN and the BBC doesn't mean you should stop reading it just to keep your cognitive dissonance low. It was former CBS president Richard Savant who said:

      "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."

    6. Re:One Word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's because if they did start exercising free speach, they might be shut down like the news paper described here.

    7. Re:One Word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... one interesting thing in that article - In one way Bush seems to be the greatest peacemaker of all time - Noone else has ever been able to unite both the Shiites and the Sunis in Iraq as effectively as Bush just did. Not to mention how he united Germany and France.

    8. Re:One Word: by DietVanillaPepsi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Problem is that I no longer trust the "trustworthy" news sources. CNN tries to sound balanced but just ends up repeating whatever the US administration said today. FOX is so absorbed in jingoist dogma that they repeat whatever the administration said today and then gush about how wonderful it is. ABC/CBS/NBC/whatever don't cover enough actual news to be worth noticing.

      I don't consider any news source trustworthy. I simply have to gather the "facts" from as many news sources as possible and then formulate an opinion. I may watch Fox (although I try to avoid doing so at all costs, the people I live with love it and I hear it in passing), CNN, and BBC News; read the Guardian, Le Monde, NY Times and The Daily Mail or Telegraph (UK) in order to examine an issue.

      Each newspaper has an agenda. American journalism aims to be objective which makes for dull reading. I love to read the Guardian because of its blatantly left-leaning nature, for example. The agenda is always there, even in so-called "objective" news sources, it is just not as blatant.

    9. Re:One Word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of news sources outside the US borders! Such as:
      http://www.thelocalpapers.com/by_country.html
      www.cbc.ca
      www.bbc.co.uk
      they aren't all towing the US line!

    10. Re:One Word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Not to mention how he united Germany and France."

      Germany and France have been united long before Bush in corruption in the food-for-oil program.

    11. Re:One Word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you avoid Fox News but read the NY Times? The NY Times has a liberal agenda, so if you're going to avoid Fox you should avoid the NY Times as well to make things fair and balanced.

    12. Re:One Word: by jb_davis · · Score: 1

      Speaking of news feed... Mmmmmm, feed.

      --
      "Well, it took an hour to write, I thought it would take an hour to read."
    13. Re:One Word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "CNN tries to sound balanced but just ends up repeating whatever the US administration said today."

      That's because what the US administration says is news. CNN doesn't claim it's the truth. They are only reporting what is said.

    14. Re:One Word: by Microsofts+slave · · Score: 1

      Which is why you look to foreign new sources. The national ones in Canada (CBC) and Britian(BBC) are among the best.

      --

      Tragek

    15. Re:One Word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well there's slrn. I started out with 'pine' and then went to 'tin' but slrn is much nicer!

    16. Re:One Word: by br0d · · Score: 1

      Wow, what a turd comment by Savant. Definitely an Idiot Savant. Makes me glad I hit TVs with sledgehammers on a biannual basis.

    17. Re:One Word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...a total lack of decent (neat) client programs for USENET.

      Sheesh. I feel that way about the web. I'd write my own browser if I were more ambitious.

      I use (and like) Forte Free Agent. I am told that the Pan newsreader is a clone of Agent, but then again, some dorks call vi a clone of EDIT, so who knows?

      And now, we will all SHUT UP about Usenet before everyone finds out about it, and spoils it :)

    18. Re:One Word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that were the case, they would make an effort to report countering views. Since CNN rarely if ever does that, they are indeed reporting it as truth.

    19. Re:One Word: by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1

      That's because what the US administration says is news. CNN doesn't claim it's the truth. They are only reporting what is said.

      Well that's fine, as long as they acknowledge that. Oftentimes they serve as little more than government propoganda. And they could certainly question the veracity of the government's claims a little more strongly and often - the various US news organizations pretty much gave the White House a free pass on the whole "Iraq has WMDs, really!" thing before we invaded.

      --
      There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
    20. Re:One Word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, I think he meant united in their opposition to the U.S. Now that the USSR is gone, shrub is doing an excellent job giving the world a new country to hate and fear. Nothing brings people together quite like a common foe!

    21. Re:One Word: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you avoid Fox News but read the NY Times? The NY Times has a liberal agenda, so if you're going to avoid Fox you should avoid the NY Times as well to make things fair and balanced.

      He said he reads the Telegraph. That's more than enough to balance out any amount of left wing tendencies. Plus the Telegraph is right wing but serious. Fox is right wing but ludicrous. You might as well suggest that he reads the Sun.

    22. Re:One Word: by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      I believe the correct spelling is Freenet.

      www.freenetproject.org

    23. Re:One Word: by SB5 · · Score: 1

      USENET is the world's largest forum. It's also run using 386's, so it is also incredibly slow.

      --
      If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
      it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
    24. Re:One Word: by odll · · Score: 1

      Absolutely true. Slashdot likes to censor users that don't fit into their political correctness/expedience guidelines.

  2. Remember the article troll? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Remember the poster(s) not too long ago who would post the "complete article text in case of /.'ing" and then subtly replace/add words in the actual text? How'd you like to get your news that way, and not even know it?

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    1. Re:Remember the article troll? by Raindance · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One might say that's not terribly different than what some news organizations already do.

    2. Re:Remember the article troll? by UnknownQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      GPG signing. Problem solved.

      --
      Wherever you go, there you are!
    3. Re:Remember the article troll? by gfody · · Score: 1

      we pretty much do already

      --

      bite my glorious golden ass.
    4. Re:Remember the article troll? by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What we need is a system with PGP signatures. That way, a reporter can build a reputation over time. If a news article is signed by a source reporter that you trust, you can warrantedly more secure of its validity. Just ignore crap that is unsigned, be cautious with stuff from a newbie, and give as much credence as warranted from someone who hasn't steered you wrong in the past.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    5. Re:Remember the article troll? by gfody · · Score: 1

      PGP
      (pretty good protection).. for second I thought you were talking about GPGP (gordon's pretty good protection), a proprietary scheme I developed for one of our apps

      --

      bite my glorious golden ass.
    6. Re:Remember the article troll? by anotherone · · Score: 1

      I think he's talking aboug GPG, the Gnu PGP workalike.

      --
      Username taken, please choose another one.
    7. Re:Remember the article troll? by platipusrc · · Score: 1

      Or he might have been talking about Gnu Privacy Guard (Free program similar to PGP)...

      Well, maybe not! I bet he was talking about General Purpose God!

      --
      And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
    8. Re:Remember the article troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But how does this reporter know the source is trustworthy? A real web of trust always has leaks..

    9. Re:Remember the article troll? by benna · · Score: 1

      That's Pretty Good Privacy

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    10. Re:Remember the article troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty tricky to prevent altering the article and then re-signing it. Needs a lot of trustworthy infrastructure...

    11. Re:Remember the article troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BBC have covered reputation schemes for online news media in the past.

    12. Re:Remember the article troll? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      There's too many reporters in the world to keep track of.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    13. Re:Remember the article troll? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the BBC... anyone remember that Linux thing they did while back. I don't really, but I remember it was so error ridden that it made Slashdot. The problem with the "trustworthy-ness" idea is two fold. 1) Respected reporters can plain get it wrong. 2) Respected news media companies get bought out. 3) People lie.

      It's better than the current system, but it's really just a collectively identifying gossip mill. And while it'll be useful, the masses probably won't know about anyway.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    14. Re:Remember the article troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One might also be wrong.

    15. Re:Remember the article troll? by Kent+Recal · · Score: 1

      No, I think he was talking about the gnu privacy guard.

    16. Re:Remember the article troll? by DarkHelmet · · Score: 1

      What we need is a system with PGP signatures.

      Even better, what about a system where the original news content is md5 hashed? Why have a "web of trust" when the validity of a document can be checked in a straightforward manner?

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    17. Re:Remember the article troll? by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      what's stopping me from changing something then recalcing the md5 sum to suit?

      Remember , the original news content is only available via p2p and could be anywhere. There's no one definitive source.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    18. Re:Remember the article troll? by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      But then how would you reliably distribute the md5 sums? Say you distributed news.txt and news.txt.md5, anybody who would edit news.txt can trivially re-generate news.txt.md5, so there's no point to that. With the Web of Trust, anybody could still edit news.txt, but they wouldn't be able to regenerate news.txt.gpg, so you'd know that news.txt had been tampered with.

    19. Re:Remember the article troll? by jwkane · · Score: 1

      P2P file networks would sure benefit; once the trust web is designed and established it could just as easily be used to authenticate "official" binary content. I'm thinking Gentoo/Debian apt-get heaven.

    20. Re:Remember the article troll? by dj245 · · Score: 1

      You're telling me i have to check an md5 every time I read a news story? who has the time for that? If I had that kind of time to waste, I would wade through a website or (gasp) watch 24/7 news for half an hour.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    21. Re:Remember the article troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, if "one" = you.

      There are two documented cases in which wire services inserted paragraphs slamming RPGs into otherwise neutral articles without even notifying the journalists who wrote them.

      Harmless? That's what the comic book industry thought about its detractors before the creation of the Comics Code Authority.

    22. Re:Remember the article troll? by crashoverride025 · · Score: 1

      Actually what you might think as credible (democrarcy is 100% right) is not always what is credible to someone else (democracy is 50% right).
      I just released the newest version of my web browser today, which includes a RSS Agent where you can rank the artcles from one to five, as the articles are scored the source begins to play a role in the overall score of the item. I.e. have a rss feed that you like the articles (read them and gave most of them 4 or a 5) well the news source score will improve and it will place that story higher in the page.
      404Browser

    23. Re:Remember the article troll? by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      " What we need is a system with PGP signatures."

      Konspire2B

      Subscribe yourself to a 'channel' and you'll get a copy of the channel author's public key. Anybody can setup a channel -- choose one which is transmitting the news, data, or media that you're interested in, and mark it as "subscribed".

      Each time the channel author puts something on the network, you'll get it, if and only if it's validly signed by the person who created a channel. Someone will advertise a file on particular channel, and if you're subscribed, your computer will request the file and check the signature.

      People can build up reputations for the trustworthiness of their channels, just like websites, TV news, or radio shows can. Pseudononymously. Ownership of a channel is simply a matter of holding it's private key.

      The network is distributed, and it's a combination of freenet-like deniability (nobody knows if you're downloading something for yourself, or just for the benefit of the network, and it's done automatically on your behalf) and BitTorrent-like speed (everyone who gets a file starts advertising its availability, so the original author disappears into a sea of other people publishing his file, while the available bandwidth increases with each person who downloads the file)

    24. Re:Remember the article troll? by tomatensaft · · Score: 1

      Here comes the software. :-) You know, it was originally meant to automate things... :-)

    25. Re:Remember the article troll? by bigberk · · Score: 1
      What we need is a system with PGP signatures. That way, a reporter can build a reputation over time.
      Oh man, this is an excellent use of public-key crypto (PGP/GPG signatures)! A well-respected reporter, such as Dr. Gwynne Dyer could post his PGP public key on his web site. He could then syndicate his own articles that are PGP signed; no matter how many news 'outlets' these pass through, including Internet-based, the end use could ultimately check the signature and verify that the text has not been modified and that it has originated from the author they expect.
    26. Re:Remember the article troll? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      A reporter can be a source, you know. They can witness events. In this scheme, we make every person their own journalist. If you see something, write about it, sign it, put it on the net. A reporters job is to then triangulate a collective story based on those signed accounts.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    27. Re:Remember the article troll? by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      Fine, but you still have to PGP sign the hash itself so that you'll know the right one. Oh wait, a PGP signature is already an encrypted hash.

      I normally don't like to post such a simple flame, but: your statement was quite moronic. Learn what PGP is, before you make claims about lower tech upon which PGP is built, as being "even better."

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  3. Your one-stop source for news... by some2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Naked News. Now showing on your local P2P network. :)

    1. Re:Your one-stop source for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's one service that is definitely worth every penny!!!

    2. Re:Your one-stop source for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, I get that on my regular TV. You prudish americans dont know what you're missing. Over here in Yurrup, us peons get to see naked chicks every day ;D

    3. Re:Your one-stop source for news... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I believe that's already on (cable and satellite) TV, is it not?

      Which raises the issue, what is censored now? Anything? I can already visit Al Jazeera to see all the bloody babies and anti Bush views I might care to read.

      The barrier to individuals broadcasting news isn't censorship, it's credibility. The problem is, no one person's view constitutes "the news," even if they were there firsthand. Reporting news well requires access to the places and key figures, that's what news agencies offer.

    4. Re:Your one-stop source for news... by Saeger · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Remember back a year ago when CNN and the rest refused to show "unhelpful" footage that Al Jazeera shot of the POW's in Iraq? Sure, the networks eventually showed it, but before that it was available on p2p (specifically, it was on one of the very first BitTorrent sites that I can't remember the name of... had a black background).

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    5. Re:Your one-stop source for news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over here in Yurrup, us peons get to see naked chicks every day

      So do we in Amerka, now. What do you think Al went to all the trouble of inventing the Intarweb for?

    6. Re:Your one-stop source for news... by cornjones · · Score: 1

      The barrier to individuals broadcasting news isn't censorship, it's credibility

      A few points there are debatable. First off, even so called free world press is censored to portray certain views. A recent example, the dragging of american civilians ambushed in iraq wasn't shown on american network stations. I understand the reasons, but that was censorship.

      In places w/ decidedly less freedom of press (Big Red, I am looking in your direction) this is much more of an issue. You can configure many p2p apps to run on selected ports and get around most firewalls. Masquerading as web traffic or even DNS traffic wouldn't be that hard. What would be hard would be for the censorers to try and inspect all the traffic to see what to block. So yeah, there is a good use there.

      The credibility point is a real one. I think in addition to PGP signing, some sort of web of trust will be necessary. It is great if I know who the news is coming from but if it is coming from many sources I expect I would quickly lose sight of who is who. (sort of like here on slashdot.) I would want to get a feel if anybody I trust trusts this guy. Follow me? Maybe some sort of guild structure where people join news guilds and I trust their organization to weed out the gross factual inaccuracies.

      And of course, I will always remember that everything I read from the internet is always 100% true. Why else would somebody put it there?

    7. Re:Your one-stop source for news... by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      "Remember back a year ago when CNN and the rest refused to show "unhelpful" footage that Al Jazeera shot of the POW's in Iraq? "

      That was hardly censorship. It was "let's not humiliate our soldiers."

  4. credibility? by gradedcheese · · Score: 0, Redundant

    and how does one know this "forbidden information" is from a credible source rather than just placed in there by someone who made it up?

    1. Re:credibility? by d3m0n_11ama · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Equally, how does one know this "media sanctioned information" appearing on the T.V. screen is from a credible source rather than just placed in there by someone who made it up?

    2. Re:credibility? by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

      Use an OpenPGP signature to validate it, and its web of trust to determine if the key's good. You'd need to modify it to use credibiliy instead of accuracy of identification, but the principle's the same.

    3. Re:credibility? by zaphod8829 · · Score: 1

      I'd buy that for a dollar.

      Seriously, though, this is a good idea.

      --
      .sig
    4. Re:credibility? by Angry+Toad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the sins of the news media today are mostly ones of omission, rather than active misinformation.

      Most news reporters still like to think of themselves as objective seekers of the truth - but they also know what is "appropriate" or "practical" to talk about and what "crosses the line". This is the real ghost in the machine - the unspoken areas of omission. They're often pretty critical to understanding context.

    5. Re:credibility? by TyrranzzX · · Score: 4, Informative

      Over time news sources build credibility. For example, I don't trust CNN to give me the whole truth about the Iraqi war, so I also goto AlJazeera. I tend to trust more for that kind of news since they're local and since the US has bombed them a few times for not helping the US's media and reporting what they're told. I don't see our US officials bombing CNN now do I? I wouldn't trust Aljazeera for technical advice since theirs is horrible (they said mydoom took up over half of the internet traffic).

      Not only that, but large reports and scienfitic reports, video's, and recordings are extraordinarily difficult to counterfeit. Many documents reach over 1000 pages if not more and many recordings are hundreds of hours long. Much of what's reported by thememoryhole.com , for example, can be trusted. Other things, like documents of Bush's or Kerry's service records are difficult to determine since they're much shorter and much more easily fudged with.

      Not only that, but anyone with $100 US can pick up a cheap digital camcorder. You can photoshop images, but it's far more difficult to photoshop a video of some Iraqi kid videotaping a bunch of americans blowing the crap out of their parents or police searching through a house with a search warrent to consficate your computer and then consficating all the electronic equipment in the house. Go onto a P2P app and type in "UFO", there are lots of home video's I doubt are faked (although some are, and it takes a keen eye to see it). Cameras and portable flash memory is getting cheaper, so much so that soon cameras the size of a minimaglite will be available with 12 hours of recording for a couple hundred bucks.

      And as some of the DRM technologies get incorperated into P2P apps (such as measures to ensure someone throwing something up is throwing that thing up has a name and an address and is the same person who can be trusted before) people can build trust relationships on websites and accounts.

    6. Re:credibility? by empaler · · Score: 1

      Fox News.

    7. Re:credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jayson Blair

      http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/15/nytim es .meeting/index.html

    8. Re:credibility? by Gyan · · Score: 1

      I think the sins of the news media today are mostly ones of omission, rather than active misinformation.

      Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Jack Kelly: HA HA HA!!!

    9. Re:credibility? by kubrick · · Score: 1

      I think the sins of the news media today are mostly ones of omission, rather than active misinformation.

      Well, you're a glass half-full kind of guy, then. :)

      The majority of the news media don't have the time (deadlines to meet), money (shareholders to appease) or inclination (troublemakers don't get hired) to actually investigate any real issues, all they tend to do is reinforce marketing messages for whoever has decided to spend big that month, no matter which governments or business interests those are.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    10. Re:credibility? by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can photoshop images, but it's far more difficult to photoshop a video of some Iraqi kid videotaping a bunch of americans blowing the crap out of their parents

      But it IS pretty easy to just clip off the beginning where the parents shot at the Americans. I'm just saying. This rush to trust "anyone else" is a foolish thing. To each their own I guess.

    11. Re:credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >since the US has bombed them a few times for
      >not helping the US's media and reporting what
      >they're told

      Al Jazeera is based in Qatr, dude. So the US bombed the news network of one of the only countries in the region to let us keep a base there?

      Yeah right. The only news source I can think that'd print such an inflammatory piece without checking the facts is... oh wait...

      Al Jazeera

    12. Re:credibility? by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Memoryhole is weak. The vast majority of stuff on there is stuff that's not "covered up" or is just plain not accurate at all. He also likes to deceive by providing tons of documents that will draw one conclusion, but omit documents counter to that conclusion. There is some good stuff there, but frankly, the operator is a biased crank. I'd say 30% of it isn't remotely "suppressed" information at all, but just serves as a clearinghouse for public documents that support his opinions on current events.

    13. Re:credibility? by mr100percent · · Score: 1
      The US bombed Al Jazeera's Afghanistan bureau, perhaps one of the first things targeted according to some. The US got some criticism for that. They also bombed their Baghdad office, killing a reporter, which they claimed was accidental, despite being in a residential area.


      Al Jazeera is about as credible as CNN or Fox News, they claim to be secular and objective in journalism.

    14. Re:credibility? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      I disagree, they have shown some plenty interesting stuff, videos, documents, and stuff otherwise difficult to find. No, the stuff uncovered is not classified, but hidden anyway. Where else can you find photos of the mutilation in Fallujah? I didnt see it on CNN or Fox News.

    15. Re:credibility? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      DRM technologies get incorperated into P2P apps (such as measures to ensure someone throwing something up is throwing that thing up has a name and an address and is the same person who can be trusted before)

      DRM IS USELESS FOR THAT.
      You can do that without DRM.

      I don't mean to yell at the parent poster, it's not his fault that DRM advocates have been feeding everyone missinformation. The whole DRM nonsense is so frik'n frustrating because all of the supposed examples of 'good' DRM that don't actually require or justify DRM at all. Pure smokescreen in support of DRM. It's especially bad in the case of Trusted Computing. There are NO benefits to the owner of a Trusted Machine that you can't do just as well with a similar but NON-Trusted system.

      Perhaps the distinction between DRM and normal cryptography/signatures is somewhat subtle, but it is a CRUCIAL difference. Cryptography and signatures are good and usefull things. DRM is malicious, absurd, and it is ultimately impossible.

      Cryptography is about keeping secrets from 'unauthorized' people. Once someone 'authorizes' you and lets you access the data then encryption does not and cannot restrict what you do with the data that you now know. Once they let you know the data you could always process it purely mentally, though it would be slow and laborous. It's impossible to restrict what you can think, therefore it is impossible to restrict what you can do with data once they GRANT you access to it. DRM is an attempt to hide the data and/or key where you can't easily see it, but as the owner of the hardware it's impossible to stop you from ripping your property open and looking at it under a microscope.

      Cryptographic signatures is about someone having a key and being able to sign or not sign anything they like. It's about being able to look at that signature and knowing that only the first person could have created it, that he chose to create it.

      Trusted Computing attempts to rely on such signatures by giving you a key locked inside a chip, and that chip restricts what it will sign with that key. Trusted Computing relies completely on the assumption that you don't know your key, that you can't sign anything except what the chip chooses to sign for you. However you are again the owner of your property, and it's impossible to prevent you from ripping open your chip and reading your key with a microscope. Then you signing anything you like. Then the entire Trust system falls apart, you have god-level access and control over your computer.

      Note that all of the problems I listed are problems of DRM and Trusted Computing. They are NOT problems for cryptography and signatures. With normal cryptography and signatures the people who know keys are free to use them however they like. Anyone who doesn't know a key obviously can't use it. In normal cryptography and signatures give someone have a key and then attempt to restrict what he can do with it.

      If you know a key you can use it, if you don't know a key you can't use it. Easy, simple, logical, all good.

      In the P2P example you gave there is no need for DRM at all. You simply write P2P software that chooses not to download unsigned files. Sure, someone running that P2P software could alter his own copy so that it will also download unsigned files. That's his choice, but YOUR software will still continue to reject unsigned files no matter what anyone else does. The system is secure and nothing anyone else does can break it.

      At that point you have a pretty good system where people can build up a reputation because no one else can mimic their signature. However it does not yet guarantee a valid name/adress. Well, you just use a service like Verisign which will only sign your base signature if you prove your identity to them. The P2P software can then choose not to download any files unless they are signed *and* that signature is signed by Verisign.

      You now have the exact system you wanted. That system is DRM-free. The only requ

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    16. Re:credibility? by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      I first saw them on Yahoo's news website, is that mainstream enough for you? The photos were syndicated, and available to any site willing to purchase and display them.

  5. This may accelerate the outlawing of p2p by Trespass · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's one thing to rip off musicians and publishers, but when this has some chance of actually being used for samizdat, you'll see it demonized and outlawed as a tool of terrorism.

  6. The problem isn't censorship by Gogl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is lack of attention. Censorship is a problem too, but there certainly are sources out there, albeit obscure ones, that cover all sorts of stuff that "mainstream" sources don't touch.

    The problem is lack of attention and publicity. Mainstream sources cover mainstream things because that's what the mainstream wants: it's what sells. While stories are sometimes neglected due to their being taboo, I'd say the main obstacle is lack of interest. The stories may be taboo at CNN, but they're probably being covered elsewhere. It's just the elsewhere (Indymedia, foreign sources, what-have-you) is unpopular: people aren't interested.

    A P2P news network might ironically solve that problem, though, as it would likely get a fair amount of press in and of itself.

    1. Re:The problem isn't censorship by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

      The problem is lack of attention. Censorship is a problem too, but there certainly are sources out there, albeit obscure ones, that cover all sorts of stuff that "mainstream" sources don't touch.

      Even with a P2P news network, the problem will still be lack of attention.

      It's easy to get a bored young web surfer with a broadband connection to let his/her PC be a stopping point for popular music, 1337 warez, or hot pr0n. But what's the chance of getting said netizen to give up valuable MP3 space for the latest news from CNN?

      On the other hand, plaintext news won't take nearly the storage and bandwidth of pirated music files. I guess if 1% of P2P'ers are socially minded, they could satisfy the need... since a picture's worth a thousand DWORDs.

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    2. Re:The problem isn't censorship by 1029 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not that I take CNN/NBC/CBS/etc.. as the Word of God, but...

      The day I take the likes of Indymedia to be an actual news site is the day I'll basing my opinions on the rants of the insane downtown homeless guy that sells magic wands.

      --
      - I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.
    3. Re:The problem isn't censorship by FlyingOrca · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the problem IS censorship. Look at the story of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, fired from Fox News for trying to get out an important investigative piece on bovine hormone technology from Monsanto.

      That being said, though, I agree that often the news is lost in the noise. I've wondered whether that's part of the reason for all the negative stories one sees on US news - pure distraction.

      --
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    4. Re:The problem isn't censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "mainstream sources cover the mainstream things because that's what the mainstream wants" -- this assumes you don't buy in to Chomsky's 'Propoganda Model', which suggests that mainstream sources cover things in a manner that makes their advertisers happy, NOT necessarily the mainstream/reader-base.

    5. Re:The problem isn't censorship by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the problem IS censorship. Look at the story of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson,

      I must have slept thru that one, can someone bring me up to speed?

      That said, the obvious bias occasionally shown, and the "don't cover that, its either verboten or so far off the beaten path its not worth the ink" thats so obvious from the big 6's network news operations. The big 6 being CBS,ABC,NBC,CNN,FOX and PBS.

      None of those organizations exist for *any* reason but to sell commercial time, with 4 to 6 commercials in between every story. A 1 hour news program often has only 18 to 20 minutes of real news, driving one to run down the remotes batteries at this residence because my "commercials in a row" tolerance is plumb used up at the end of 2 and the clicker plumb drowns out Jimmy Mays regardless of where in the block he is. I sometimes wonder if the people who hire him really understand just how obnoxious he really is?

      Even the local news gets a fair bit of censorship. Just how far do you think a news story that involves a major advertising client is going to get? No place at all, sometimes even if the local paper gets it into ink, but thats rare, because that same client is also spending a goodly amount of his adv budget with the paper too. Doing so would be finacial hari-kari when that client, and 4 of his friends each pull 50k$ a month off the air.

      As far as real news, I have NDI where to get it. Frankly, with your bull shit filters in place and tuned up, slashdot comes as close as any other place I scan for my nightly hit of information that covers the things I'm interested in. My hat is often doffed, with a short bow in your direction over something I've read, or found the link to, here on /. So keep on keeping on folks, its a winner IMO.

      Cheers, Gene

    6. Re:The problem isn't censorship by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Insightful

      this assumes you don't buy in to Chomsky's 'Propoganda Model', which suggests that mainstream sources cover things in a manner that makes their advertisers happy, NOT necessarily the mainstream/reader-base.

      I am not an expert, but I know a thing or two about news.

      Advertisers, be they print or broadcast, do not buy space or airtime based on the editorial leanings of the news desk. They buy space or airtime based simply on the number of people that will be exposed to that space or airtime. The measurement of those numbers is not exactly a science, but it is a finely honed craft. Numbers mean everything.

      News outlets live and die by their audience numbers. An outlet with a broad reach or circulation will be more successful at securing advertising dollars than one with a smaller audience.

      So, in essence, yes. News outlets must provide the coverage that the audience wants.

      The thing about the audience, though, is that it's not homogenous. There are people out there who will read or watch just about anything. You want to deliver just-the-facts, objective news? There's an audience for that. You want to do deliver leftward-leaning analysis? There's an audience for that. You want to deliver rightward-leaning analysis? There's an audience for that. And if you want to deliver tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories or anti-establishment rants, there's an audience out there for that, too.

      The idea that all news is the same because all news outlets are competing for the same audience is bogus. Multiple news outlets exist in print, on television, on the radio, and on the web precisely because they're all reaching for different audiences.

      If a story gets ignored by the various major outlets, it's probably got nothing to do with business or audience share, and it's certainly got nothing to do with propaganda. The culture of news is such that the dissemination of propaganda is essentially impossible. Rather, if a story gets ignored, it's probably because it set off the bullshit detectors of desk editors everywhere and got bumped from the news budget accordingly.

      --

      I write in my journal
    7. Re:The problem isn't censorship by dominion · · Score: 1, Troll

      And yet you read Slashdot?

      Oh, the Irony.

    8. Re:The problem isn't censorship by jwkane · · Score: 1

      I suspect the weight of MP3's, WareZ and Pr0n on the peer to peer networks has a more to do with the interface than anything else. The current crop are designed for searching and downloading.

      People don't search for news unless they are hunting on a topic. People _browse_ news. I suspect it's the more natural transition from a dead-tree newspaper (designed for browsing by topic) and a digital one. If you can design and integrate an engine for browsing news over a P2P network it will make a huge difference.

    9. Re:The problem isn't censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PBS? Commercials? Maybe the "brought to you by..." crap at the end, but that's hardly interspersed beteween stories.

    10. Re:The problem isn't censorship by 1029 · · Score: 1

      I don't consider the comments on /. to be news either, if that is what you are insinuating. And whatever stories get linked to, I trust based on what site is posting them and where they originally came from, not because they were posted on slashdot.

      Irony... Where? What? Who? :)

      --
      - I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.
    11. Re:The problem isn't censorship by FlyingOrca · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Slashdot helps for sure. I also like to check out news sources from other countries - the Beeb comes to mind. 'Course, here in Canada we like to think our news is a little more unbiased, but I'm not sure how realistic that is!

      Re the Jane Akre / Steve Wilson thing, their website is here:

      http://www.foxbghsuit.com/

      Interesting reading. The hormone in question is banned in Canada and Europe. Cheers!

      --
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    12. Re:The problem isn't censorship by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, attention/interest is the key. I think P2P new would be a great idea, but to have even the most remote chance of success,
      1. Each story must be signed by at least one key.
      2, Each reporter must have his own key, with which he can sign and assign a "news-worthyness" and "trustworthyness" to his stories.
      3, There must be several organizations to keep track of and collect stories. Essentially, they will be the new breed of newspapers, whose job it will be to sift through and classify news. This will help make the journalists well-known.
      4. An enormous web-of-trust, where people, cyber-newspapers, and journalists sign the keys of those they trust.
      5. A way to deliver anonymous news while maintaining a valid signature. This could perhaps be a signature used by many journalists who trust each other, or handed out by some organization (eg the organization will generate and sign an anonymous key if asked by a trusted person).

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    13. Re:The problem isn't censorship by woodhouse · · Score: 1

      How much are the wands?

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

      That's easy. Just let the browser search for articles that fit preset categories that the user is interested in. Even better would be to let the search for those stories from the areas and networks that they choose.

    15. Re:The problem isn't censorship by RobinH · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Advertisers, be they print or broadcast, do not buy space or airtime based on the editorial leanings of the news desk. They buy space or airtime based simply on the number of people that will be exposed to that space or airtime. The measurement of those numbers is not exactly a science, but it is a finely honed craft. Numbers mean everything.

      I certainly hope that is usually the case, but certainly not all the time. After all, Bill Maher lost his show, Politically Incorrect, because the advertisers pulled out when he said something controversial. However, the ratings didn't drop. The advertisers pulled out based on the content of the show, not based on the numbers. That doesn't make much sense, but that is what happened.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    16. Re:The problem isn't censorship by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      After all, Bill Maher lost his show, Politically Incorrect, because the advertisers pulled out when he said something controversial.

      Ah, but these are the exceptions that prove the rule. If audience share drops sharply, or if an advertiser's association with a particular news outlet becomes negative rather than neutral or positive, the advertiser will be disinclined to continue the relationship.

      The advertisers pulled out based on the content of the show, not based on the numbers.

      No, the advertisers pulled out because their sponsorship of the show had become bad publicity for them.

      That doesn't make much sense, but that is what happened.

      It is what happened, and it makes perfect sense.

      Keep in mind, though, that Bill Maher's show had nothing to do with news. It was strictly entertainment. Nothing like what he pulled would ever have been allowed to be part of a news show.

      --

      I write in my journal
    17. Re:The problem isn't censorship by FLEB · · Score: 1

      It's still an underwriter they wouldn't want to piss off.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    18. Re:The problem isn't censorship by Bodhidharma · · Score: 1

      You are ignoring self-censorship. Various news organizations bury stories for various reasons. The most egregious example is how virtually all the media gave the Bush administration a free pass while the FCC was deciding whether or not to relax ownership rules.

      And yes, Virginia, sponsors really do pressure news editors.

      To really find out what's going on you have to wade through a bunch of tin-foil-hat stuff. Investigative reporting has become so marginalized that the only places you can find it are conspiracy pages.

      --
      A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
    19. Re:The problem isn't censorship by RobinH · · Score: 1

      No, the advertisers pulled out because their sponsorship of the show had become bad publicity for them.

      Right. But the ratings didn't drop. It's just that the people who weren't watching the show were complaining about what he said (and that's pathetic, by the way).

      The point I responded to was that advertisers always go by the numbers, and don't look at the content. You just agreed with my point, that they do take the content into account.

      Of course, how much bad publicity could it have been? Who actually remembers who the sponsors of a particular show were?

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    20. Re:The problem isn't censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The culture of news is such that the dissemination of propaganda is essentially impossible.

      Given an audience technologically literate enough to access a wide range of news sources from around the world, yes.

      Given Joe Sixpack who in practical terms only has access to what his cable provider sends him (Fox, CNN, ABC) and what his radio plays (Clear Channel, Clear Channel, Clear Channel), no.

      In this case, "catering to the audience" results in convergence if you can convince enough of the audience that differing opinions are unpatriotic / unacceptable. Why to you think GWB etc all put so much effort into defining what is and is not acceptable thought for Real Americans (TM).

      Dixie Chicks, anyone?

    21. Re:The problem isn't censorship by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Various news organizations bury stories for various reasons.

      More conspiracy-theory nonsense.

      And yes, Virginia, sponsors really do pressure news editors.

      They really, really don't. I just kinda have to appeal to my own experience: I know what I'm talking about here. Take it or leave it.

      Investigative reporting has become so marginalized that the only places you can find it are conspiracy pages.

      You sound like Don Quixote, bemoaning the fact that all there are to fight are windmills.

      The days of the dark coverup have come and gone, my friend. The reason you don't see Deep Throat-style investigative journalism today is that there's nothing that needs that kind of investigation. The people in power, from elected officials to business magnates to celebrities, know that they can't keep secrets, at least not for very long, so why bother trying?

      The problem is that persons such as yourself somehow remain convinced that things are happening just out of sight, around the corners and in the back rooms. The fact that you're not hearing about them becomes evidence of massive coverups spanning all levels of society.

      You never stop to consider the much more likely scenario.

      --

      I write in my journal
    22. Re:The problem isn't censorship by LargeWu · · Score: 1
      Advertisers, be they print or broadcast, do not buy space or airtime based on the editorial leanings of the news desk. They buy space or airtime based simply on the number of people that will be exposed to that space or airtime. The measurement of those numbers is not exactly a science, but it is a finely honed craft. Numbers mean everything
      The flaw with this argument is that advertisers buy time based not on how many people are watching, but on how many people in their target market are watching. So, if I am promoting Toby Keith's new album on Fox News channel, and they start running stories sympathetic to such un-American causes as gay marriage or peace rallies, I'm blowing steam out my ears because my target market is switching over to the Speed Channel as fast as the name might suggest.

      Why do you think the Superbowl is filled with nothing but ads for Budweiser, disposable razors, and action movies starring The Rock? Why no feminine hygene products? It's the most watched program every year. Wouldn't Tampax want in on that? No, because it's mostly men watching. They'll stick to Dr. Phil, thank you very much.

    23. Re:The problem isn't censorship by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Why to you think GWB etc all put so much effort into defining what is and is not acceptable thought for Real Americans (TM).

      That never happened. You're referring to one comment from one administration official which was taken completely out of context. The comment was, in paraphrase: "Don't be an asshole. People are very upset right now [by the events of 9/11], so you might want to think about being a little sensitive when you're holding a microphone."

      Quite the mind-control project, huh?

      Dixie Chicks, anyone?

      Nobody censored the Dixie Chicks, if you'll recall. If censorship really goes on, they would have been thrown in cells for the rest of their lives. Rather, their audience decided that what they said wasn't cool.

      Surely you don't think they should have been allowed to go overseas, address an audience of foreigners, and speak ill of the sitting president of the United States without any sort of consequences whatsoever, do you? Words have consequences. The things you say affects people's opinions of you. This is not censorship; this is the marketplace of ideas.

      --

      I write in my journal
    24. Re:The problem isn't censorship by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      So, if I am promoting Toby Keith's new album on Fox News channel, and they start running stories sympathetic to such un-American causes as gay marriage or peace rallies, I'm blowing steam out my ears because my target market is switching over to the Speed Channel as fast as the name might suggest.

      If there were such a thing as real-time ratings feedback, you might be right. But ratings for television are determined twice a year using thirty-day sample spreads.

      --

      I write in my journal
    25. Re:The problem isn't censorship by LargeWu · · Score: 1
      There are ratings for almost every TV show aired, not just those in a particular 30 day period. But that's not the point.

      Whether or not one is able to measure in real-time how many people are watching, if a news desk is airing things that are obviously inflammatory to my target audience, then I am going to voice my displeasure with the program's content and threaten to pull my ads if they don't deliver news my audience wants to hear.

    26. Re:The problem isn't censorship by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I couldn't find any homeless guys, but is this close enough?

      --
      What?
    27. Re:The problem isn't censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, his already mediocre ratings did drop by 28% after that episode. There was a huge backlash.

    28. Re:The problem isn't censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't trust that guy. That guy who holds up a bush and jumps out from behind it yelling when you pass by - now that's a guy with some opinions I trust.

    29. Re:The problem isn't censorship by RobinH · · Score: 1

      Um, his already mediocre ratings did drop by 28% after that episode. There was a huge backlash.

      Reference please?

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    30. Re:The problem isn't censorship by naoursla · · Score: 1

      It is a bit weird that some of those consequences came from the US government.

      http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles.html#schouse

      "For using the official power of government to condemn a citizen's exercise of her First Amendment rights, a 2004 Jefferson Muzzle goes to the South Carolina House of Representatives."

  7. web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Isn't this already happening in the world wide web? (which by the way is the first p2p system)

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

      Yup - for those people who don't understand what "peer", "client" or "server" mean.

  8. I will believe it will happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...when I read about it on P2P.

  9. Freenet by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Isn't this the exact purpose of Freenet? It's simply more anonymous than your average P2P application to prevent people from being forced into self-censorship.

    1. Re:Freenet by lawpoop · · Score: 0, Troll
      No.

      As all true patriots are aware of, the purpose of the freenet is to promote piracy and computer hackery. Nothing but porn and warez.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:Freenet by mar1boro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anonymity is not the key though. I personally don't want my news reporters
      to be anonymous. I want them to be accountable. A reputation tied to public keys
      is what we need. I suppose an anonymous news reporter could eventually
      build up a reputation as credible. That would be tough.
      (The public key thing was discussed above, but seemed pertinent here.)

      --
      -- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next
    3. Re:Freenet by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1
      It's also a real pain in the ass to setup and maintain with a dynamic IP and a firewall/router (ie, for 95% of users), requiring the user to search through text config files (even though it has preferences accessible through the gui, the most important setting is missing) to input the IP address and the use of dyndns or whatever since it only likes static IPs. I gave up fairly quickly, and I'd expect anyone else who doesn't have extensive sysadmin experience to do the same.

      The fact that it was dog slow (I never even got the index site loaded to see what was on it) the only time I got it working for a while is a relatively minor flaw.

    4. Re:Freenet by RPoet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Critical reporting often mandates anonymity, especially in oppressive countries like Iran, China and Italy. I like to think that anonymous writers could post news and opinions online and build up a reputation and be heard, like Locke and Demosthenes in "Ender's Game".

      However, Freenet is not necessarily about anonymity. People could still post on Freenet using their full names and sign cryptographically. An equally important part of Freenet is censorship resistance. Once something has been posted, it cannot be taken offline as long as there is demand for the content. That's information availability, a cornerstone of democracy.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    5. Re:Freenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That project would probably take off more if they released some non-Java client. Java stuff is oftentimes a pain to install.
      Release some native Unix/Windows/Mac client, or hell even a Perl version. Then maybe more people will run it.
      Well maybe they have by now... I haven't checked recently. *shrug*

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

      And if it weren't JAVA, people might actually use it.
      I'd like to see a usability study done on this.

    7. Re:Freenet by mar1boro · · Score: 1

      Good points. I admit I was focused on "free" America. I can see where
      anonymous reporting in repressive regimes would be very important. How do you
      get around the suspicion that the anonymous reporter could be in the employ of
      the oppressor? I guess I would have to view them as sources of info I need to
      research myself.

      I'm fairly ignorant about Freenet - and I'm sure it shows. Time to do my homework, I guess.

      --
      -- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next
    8. Re:Freenet by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I like to think that anonymous writers could post news and opinions online and build up a reputation and be heard, like Locke and Demosthenes in "Ender's Game".

      Please recall that the two characters you mentioned were consummate liars whose only agenda was to gain power for themselves. An agenda they advanced, incidentally, by manipulating the masses by telling them what they wanted to hear.

      That's information availability, a cornerstone of democracy.

      The big challenge facing democracy in the 21st century is not the availability of information. If we've learned anything in the past fifty years, it's that information is like sand: it finds its way in through cracks and openings that were far too small to see, and fills your tent, your bunk, and your boots. The ubiquity of information is not the problem.

      The problem is thought. Have you ever heard the expression, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing?" It's true, it's true. To be partially informed and to think yourself wise is far, far worse than to be ignorant and to know it.

      When you figure out how to write a computer program that makes people aware of the limits of their knowledge, please let me know. That'd be something worth having.

      --

      I write in my journal
    9. Re:Freenet by incom · · Score: 1

      Why not just use a pseudonym as the author of the news, and sign them as well. If the pseudonym is unique to that activity it's pretty anonymous, and with a public key, you know it's always the same person.

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    10. Re:Freenet by Rocinante · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is not only possible, it's being done on Freenet right now. One relevant project is Frost, an anonymous/pseudonymous message board system that runs over Freenet. It's still real rough around the edges, more a proof-of-concept than a real robust system, but it's a direction for the future.

      --
      Just trying to open someone's head! I mean "mind!" Open someone's mind, um, to the possibilities! With explosives!
  10. article text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    File-sharing to bypass censorship

    By Tracey Logan
    BBC Go Digital presenter

    The net could be humming with news, rather pop, swappers
    By the year 2010, file-sharers could be swapping news rather than music, eliminating censorship of any kind.
    This is the view of the man who helped kickstart the concept of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing, Cambridge University's Professor Ross Anderson.

    In his vision, people around the world would post stories via anonymous P2P services like those used to swap songs.

    They would cover issues currently ignored by the major news services, said Prof Anderson.

    "Currently, only news that's reckoned to be of interest to Americans and Western Europeans will be syndicated because that's where the money is," he told the BBC World Service programme, Go Digital.

    "But if something happens in Peru that's of interest to viewers in China and Japan, it won't get anything like the priority for syndication.

    "If you can break the grip of the news syndication services and allow the news collector to talk to the radio station or local newspaper then you can have much more efficient communications."

    'Impossible to censor'

    To enable this, Prof Anderson proposes a new and improved version of Usenet, the internet news service.

    If there's material that everyone agrees is wicked, like child pornography, then it's possible to track it down and close it down

    Ross Anderson, Cambridge University
    But what of fears that the infrastructure that allows such ad hoc news networks to grow might also be abused by criminals and terrorists?

    Prof Anderson believes those fears are overstated. He argued that web watchdogs like the Internet Watch Foundation, which monitors internet-based child abuse, would provide the necessary policing functions.

    This would require a high level of international agreement to be effective.

    "The effect of peer-to-peer networks will be to make censorship difficult, if not impossible," said Prof Anderson.

    "If there's material that everyone agrees is wicked, like child pornography, then it's possible to track it down and close it down. But if there's material that only one government says is wicked then, I'm sorry, but that's their tough luck".

    Political obstacles

    Commenting on Prof Anderson's ideas, technology analyst Bill Thompson welcomed the idea of new publishing tools that will weaken the grip on news of major news organisations.

    Such P2P systems, he said, would give everybody a voice and allow personal testimonies to come out.

    But the technology that makes those publishing tools accessible to everyone and sufficiently user-friendly will take longer to develop than Prof Anderson thinks, added Mr Thompson.

    Prof Anderson's vision underestimates the political obstacles in the way of such developments, he said, and the question of censorship had not been clearly thought through.

    "Once you build the technology to break censorship, you've broken censorship - even of the things you want censored," said Mr Thompson.

    "Saying you can then control some parts of it, like images of child abuse, is being wilfully optimistic. And that's something that peer to peer advocates have to face."

    1. Re:article text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I demand that this unauthorised posting be removed immediately.

  11. I expect an excessive amount of… by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...Stephen King obituaries in this brave new world of news.

    1. Re:I expect an excessive amount of… by mnewton32 · · Score: 1

      not to mention headlines from the /. crowd: "Man stretches anus to record size!"

  12. Remember... by y2imm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Desert Storm 1. The CNN guys using IRC to get info past the Iraqis.

    1. Re:Remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Heh. I remember quite well. At the time I was enlisted, in a very technical MOS (diagnosed/repaired communications equipment down to the component level). A lot of our gear wasn't all that advanced (some of it was Vietnam-era tech) but it was milspec certified and it worked -- most of the time anyway. But our old-ass tech was so far ahead of Iraq's that we could basically intercept all the communications and blindside them at any time of the day or night. Which we did. I don't think they even knew WTF IRC was. ;-)
      Now, the NSA on the other hand... Those guys are the reason why P2P networks like Freenet must be deployed...

  13. oh goody by Johnathon_Dough · · Score: 1
    Exactly how I want to get my news.

    Corrupt
    Incomplete
    Poor Quality

    or possibly even think I am getting news, I open it up and get:
    "Durty, S1uts with farm animals !!!"

    yay.

    --
    If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
    1. Re:oh goody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      ... or possibly even think I am getting news, I open it up and get:
      "Durty, S1uts with farm animals !!!"

      I share your pain. Everyone knows that clean sluts are better than dirty ones. And you just can't do that sort of thing with farm animals and not get dirty.
      Yes, in that sense of the word, too.

    2. Re:oh goody by skitzoid+(moomoo) · · Score: 1

      Exactly how you get your news now. I saw all the weapons of 'mass destruction in iraq' I also saw a a 10KG pig fly naked in my bedroom. The news is turning more into a relay for goverments to spread their propaganda and bullshit. I for one welcome the option of having an alternative source of news. What does a piece of spam offering a penis enlargment product differ to George Bush broadcasting a speech on a news channel No difference because it's all shit talk. Mod this as flamebait if you wish, but i'm sick of your American news bullshit hitting our overseas shores.

    3. Re:oh goody by jilles · · Score: 1

      Sounds like CNN today. Of course you were referring to the image quality whereas I am referring to the information quality. If you live in the US and inform yourself of the situation in Iraq using mainstream media such as the New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, etc, you are unlikely to be aware of much that is going on there because that kind of information is deemed against the corporate interests of the involved media companies (of course these interests overlap partly with the interest of George Bush). The information presented on CNN is often biased, generally incomplete and of poor quality.

      Of course if you work hard, getting to the information is not that hard but surprisingly few people bother to do that. Last week there was an interesting example of a few US casualties. In europe and elsewhere in the world there were photos and video of their corpses being dragged through the streets and hanged from a bridge. CNN and other US agencies ignored this news for hours (until they could no longer ignore it) and limited themselves to saying there had been a number of casualties. Right after seeing the news on tv in europe, I browsed several US news sites including the NYT site and CNN to verify my suspicion that they would attempt to keep this of the frontpage. CNN had several big headlines on domestic issues and a comparatively small story without pictures mentioning that four US citizens had been killed. Some of the more gruesome facts were hidden in the story but the message was clear: business as usual, this is not interesting for our readers & viewers. I also watched CNN on the tv: there was no mention of the incident. No breaking story, no shocked reporters, nothing. This lasted several hours until one news channel broke the silence.

      In the days after the incident it became clear that the whitehouse had requested that the be censored for ethical reasons. Apparently that is all it takes these days to keep things out of the newspapers.

      --

      Jilles
    4. Re:oh goody by Johnathon_Dough · · Score: 1
      Of course you were referring to the image quality whereas I am referring to the information quality

      Actually, I was referring to the information quality. But it seems I was little to vague...

      --
      If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
  14. In case of slashdotting..... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 3, Funny

    The site is going a bit slow, so heres the Torrent

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  15. Public Keys by mar1boro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    P2P news syndication would be the perfect venue for public keys and signatures.
    Find a journalist you trust? An entire news organization maybe?
    You could check the validity of source every time.

    --
    -- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next
    1. Re:Public Keys by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

      I guess it would depend on how the keys work (which I don't claim to be an expert on in any sense) but how possible is it for someone to write a program which adds text to the end of a given string to make it match the given key?

    2. Re:Public Keys by platipusrc · · Score: 1

      It's not really possible unless you manage to gain possession of the (sometimes very large) private key. Something that just added text would probably take a huge amount of information to try to match up text to a previous signing.

      --
      And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
    3. Re:Public Keys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would basically defeat the entire purpose of using public keys to sign messages.
      In other words, it can't be done (in theory, or at least not without breaking the mathematical algorithm, or brute-forcing the key).

    4. Re:Public Keys by gilrain · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I imagine that once a news source has posted enough reliable news to be trusted, it is too big to keep hidden simply by using this P2P scheme. At the point it's done enough work to be trusted, and thus make a PGP key useful, it has also probably done enough to be located physically by whatever government is interested and shut down that way. If it were news sensitive enough to warrant that, anyways -- and if it weren't, the elaborate P2P scheme probably wouldn't be necessary.

    5. Re:Public Keys by mar1boro · · Score: 1

      I agree. However, once the reputation of the key has been established
      -and it has not been stolen or cracked- an organization or reporter
      could post while on the run. If they kept another key, tied to the same ID
      in a "data haven" somewhere, they could begin using that one and post a notice
      that the old key had been compromised. No solution is perfect, but this
      could be useful while trying to maintain a free press under, let's say, adverse conditions.

      --
      -- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next
    6. Re:Public Keys by sashako · · Score: 1

      Top reporters are earning a lot of money. We can pay the amateur reporters with internet complementary currency (Geek Credit) when news worth this.
      This will create a good rating system, I would read the news posted by "wealthy" amateur reporter first, and I am OK to pay for the best articles with complementary currency that is backed with my commitments to community.

    7. Re:Public Keys by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Or one source could be handing information off to a more public front, somewhere else. the more public front in another country is trusted by all. The private source is trusted and known only to the public front.

  16. Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This type of news dissemination will always stay underground for the reason the parent points out: credibility. Anonymity != ( credibility || newsworthy)

    1. Re:Mod Parent Up by I_Love_Pocky! · · Score: 1

      Anonymity != ( credibility || newsworthy)

      Much like your post I suppose?

  17. I don't get it by Funkitup · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The whole reason why news works is because people trust newspapers. I know it's stupid, but there are people out there that trust FOX!

    P2P news doesn't really seem to have that same trust value. Personally I am happy with the Guardian newspaper in the UK to generally get things right. It is their job to go out and read stories from around the world and present the facts to me in a way that I feel is relatively objective. I know they like (think it's their job) to screw the british government so I take that into account.

    I can't see how p2p would be any better. I would just get a massive influx of information that I don't have time to sift through. News syndicates not only do the sifting job for us, but they hopefully do it in a trustworthy fashion.

    1. Re:I don't get it by Johnathon_Dough · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You also get to know a news sources biases, as you mention the Guardian's out-to-get-it-ness for the Brit Govn't

      Once you have compared a couple of news sources, you learn pretty quick how they slant their story's. So, even if it isn't the whole story, you will at least have a general idea of what was omitted or skewed based on that source's leanings.

      If your news comes randomly from all over, you will never know the angle someone is pushing, nor ever the whole story.

      --
      If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
    2. Re:I don't get it by The-Dalai-LLama · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It is their job to go out and read stories from around the world and present the facts to me in a way that I feel is relatively objective.

      I think you make an excellent point about the reliability of the major news services; they do the job better than I ever could, and since there are so many eyes looking at them they're subject to to at least some review.

      I like the idea of P2P-style (which is to say decentralized) news sources, however, because on this side of the pond our mass-media outlets are becoming increasingly concentrated into the hands of an ever-shrinking pool of owners (I'm too hungry to find links, google for your own evidence - if I'm wrong I'll concede the point). Most of us still trust them, but when all of the radio stations, television stations, and newspapers are owned by the same three or four grandparent corporations (which may not have happened yet, but probably isn't too far away) their motives and their objectivity become increasingly suspect.

      Particularly when those organizations do a lot of heavy lobbying to influence the government they are supposed to be watchdogging.

      The Dalai LLama
      ...just my .02 - IANAJ (I am not a journalist)...

    3. Re:I don't get it by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      On the other hand, there are people who believe that Fox news is fair and balanced. They still haven't figured out the (obvious) bias. Sure, the intelligent people of the world can see right through them, but most people aren't that bright. Getting news from lots of random sources is a good solution for that problem. Anyone who gets their news in such a fashion would tend to be forced to hear different, often incompatible opinions about the world in which we live, and would be forced to reconcile those opinions into coherent ideas rather than simply tuning out everything but what they want to hear.

      On the other hand, they might read the first ten words and just click "next" in disgust. Guess it doesn't solve many problems after all.... *sigh*

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:I don't get it by indigeek · · Score: 1

      I think you have to pick your news sources right and then average them out.
      In the case of Iraq war, take Fox news ,al-jazeera, Raeds blog, a couple of european news sources (not BBC, they switched their POV around a couple of times about the war) average them out and you get a good idea of what is happenning. But the same mix would probably not work if you wanted any information on Vladmir Putin. For that I would prefer a russian news paper ,one chinese or Indian and BBC.
      It appears that reading the top 3 and bottom 1 links on googlenews give an approximate idea. Any other suggestions/solutions anyone has?

  18. Reputation by Raindance · · Score: 1

    I think this would work if one takes into account some already-implimented p2p features- mainly the ability to rate a file/thing for completeness or quality.

    If someone passes bogus news, they get a bad reputation. More importantly, if someone consistently passes 'good' news, they get a good reputation and lots of folks download their news.

    Like another poster suggested, news releases could be GPG-signed so that
    1. Known-good news sources could be identified, and
    2. Mean folks couldn't change the news the known-good folks wrote.

    RD

  19. Truth by dj245 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I would be worried about if what I was actually getting was the truth. /. covers some pretty obscure items, but 364 days out of the year I am pretty sure that the articles are mostly true. Add some common sense, and if its "too good to be true" it isn't, and I would say that most web-based trusted pages like this have the tendency to be true. If they werent, their reputation would get out that they are biased and unfair. Examples- Tomshardware, Intel biased, Foxnews, Warmongerers, ABC, Christians evangilism.

    With P2P you just have no clue what you are getting. It might be true, might not be. If you've seen the story before then you could be sure that it was true, but that would defeat the purpose of news- reading stories you haven't read before.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yah them april fools jokes were pretty fake. Just like them p2p files that say they are "The Butterfly Effect" but are actually hardcore porn. What if this happened to news?

    2. Re:Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't really the Butterfly Effect?

    3. Re:Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it was the butter in his fly effect.

    4. Re:Truth by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 1
      If you've seen the story before then you could be sure that it was true,

      If you have seen the story before, one author might have copied it from the other.
      It does not mean it's true.

  20. Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    You mean there is more news than slashdot?

    1. Re:Slashdot? by I_Love_Pocky! · · Score: 1

      You mean there is news on slashdot?

    2. Re:Slashdot? by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      You mean theres a slashdot?

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  21. Naivety (Where's Hugo Weaving when you need him?) by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

    "If there's material that everyone agrees is wicked, like child pornography, then it's possible to track it down and close it down. But if there's material that only one government says is wicked then, I'm sorry, but that's their tough luck."

    Oh, would it were so, Professor Anderson.

    There are quite a few of your human governments that don't have a problem with slavery and terrorism, let alone child pornography.

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  22. Re:News? Oh my!!! What's next? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 4, Funny

    My goodness. this would mean news being promulgated by illiterate, ignorant, uninformed, panderers after obvious political or social agendas instead of the current newspapers and electronic media which ..... hey now! wait a minute...

    --
    - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  23. Actually. That honour falls to Usenet News. by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 3, Informative

    It existed long before the web and is a true distributed peer to peer system lacking centralised control.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  24. Never happen by sproketboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Quote "This would require a high level of international agreement to be effective." We'll all be running around in ape suits chasing an (almost) naked Charlton Heston before this happens.

  25. No changing the articles after either... by Supp0rtLinux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And while providing the average Joe with news that is much more gory than we see on a regular basis, it would also help to put an end to *altered* stories... the kind that've been mentioned on /. before where a story is written, then because of this complaint or that reason they edit the original. If the news is on P2P networks, we'll be able to always see the raw stories...

    The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers

    1. Re:No changing the articles after either... by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, cause noone ever changes a story because they find the "facts" they originally reported turned out to actually be false. Once that happens on p2p and the truth isn't the Truth, how will you correct?

  26. Wasn't this the purpose of anonymous remailers? by David+Hume · · Score: 0

    Isn't this the exact purpose of Freenet?


    Wasn't this the purpose of Anonymous Remailers, Mail to News Gateways, and Usenet?

    Then again, will the use of P2P to disseminate uncensored news be subject to the same vulnerabilities as the above -- e.g., spam, legal (and possible physical) attacks on "servers," etc.?

    Or does the more highly distributed nature of P2P effectively immunize it from at least the legal attacks (while perhaps more effectively empowering spam...)? Or will it just serve to get more people harrassed, arrested and in some places, shot?

    1. Re:Wasn't this the purpose of anonymous remailers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember anon.penet.fi? Or was that before you time?
      In any event, it all boils down to: well-designed P2P networks are much harder to control (or shut down, or tap, or whatever).

  27. Already exists by br00tus · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's already an Indymedia family p2p news-sharing site in existence. Indymedia sites are great for text articles and pictures, but pile audio interviews and videos on top of that and the bandwidth starts to pile up. Enter something like v2v, where the site shares the audio and video files on Bittorrent, Edonkey/Overnet, Gnutella and the like, this helps lessen the load on the servers, and I suppose helps prevents censorship as well.

  28. :: Usenet III? :: by argent · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Usenet I already serves this purpose, and with MIME it can be just as rich a medium as the web. Just look at the porn-spam groups!

    Which does make me wonder how a medium even less controllable than Usenet would manage to avoid turning every group into spam. You'd need something like Google News to make sense of it... but, hold on, we already *have* Google News.

    1. Re::: Usenet III? :: by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      Clarinet, anyone?

      Or not....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re::: Usenet III? :: by argent · · Score: 1

      Clarinet was an attempt to run cnn.com and bbc.co.uk over Usenet. Only half-kidding.

  29. Relevant Links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The people at OpenPrivacy have been working on tackling the problem of anonymous news syndication for years. The result of this effort is Reptile, which has both an anonymous RSS syndication system as well as a web-of-trust reputation framework. NewsMonster is a similar application written by some of the same people that has a reputation system but lacks support for anonymous publication.

    Also, there's JTCFrost, a freenet client that supports NNTP-style news publication.

  30. Very perceptive of you by empaler · · Score: 1

    Indeed it would be demonized, but that hasn't stopped sites like What Really Happened or Turning the Tide, even though they are quite popular.

    Then again, they don't reach millions of people with video, which for some odd reason works more convincing on most people.

  31. Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's even a news-over-freenet application. See JTCFrost.

  32. Freshness? by Doobeh · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Wouldn't one of the greatest problems be that of signal to noise. If P2P is employed as a way to supress censorship, then we by that very mark, we are unaware of who published it (since we don't want the author being censored at a later date)


    Now spread this out to a wide implementation, what news is 'worthy' and 'trusted' to read if this very untraceable route holds true? I might as well read mind-numbing, ultra-biased blogs, because that is all the system would amount to.
    I go to the news outlets I currently do because I can to a high degree trust the articles, news without that trust is.. gossip.


    P2P for articles, especially news doesn't hold true, how is the article propogated? Will I have to wait 2 days for a fresh article to make its way around the Internet to me? If I want news, I'm used to getting information when I want it, P2P fails on this point.


    People think P2P is the cure to [insert internet downfall] because it works for MP3's. But MP3-P2P essentially runs off peoples greed, so there are mass copies of MP3's around, no-one cares if an Mp3 is four days, old, 3 years old, it makes not a difference, but hell, even MP3's are tainted, blanks, bad rips, misnamed, to assume this wouldn't follow on to any other P2P implementation is wishful thinking.

    Not to mention that only when an article gains a certain critical popularity mass would most people be able to find it on the system due to the inability to search every user without having a centralised database/hub (which could of course be.. you got it, censored!)

    --
    If we can't play God, who will?
    1. Re:Freshness? by hyc · · Score: 1

      So maybe P2P gossip isn't such a bad thing... ;)

      I can't put any trust in anonymously posted news. So, you either put your name on it, and risk future censorship, or leave it unsigned, and risk being totally ignored. I think this is only going to be of any value if postings are signed.

      --
      -- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
    2. Re:Freshness? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I think the S/N ratio can be dealt with. I mean, we are doing it all of the time here on /., and there are other similar sites.

      The point is that you need to form a trust relationship with the people creating the news. People that are good sources for news can be trusted, and people simply showing up and trying to push a P.R. news piece are similarly discounted.

      The biggest problem with this sort of approach is that it is somewhat incompatable with technologies like Freenet, but even that is not totally impossible. The main point is that if you rate some messages as more newsworthy based on who is doing the posting, it cuts across anonymous postings that are obviously going to be down-graded unless supported by some other more trustworthy source.

      This still doesn't totally dismiss P2P transactions, instead it does make it easier for police/governments/corporations/religions to censor information because they can block sources, even if they are sent through some anonymization sites.

    3. Re:Freshness? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is a special case, tho. It's filterable because it runs thru a central set of servers and has a finite amount of data to persue (and even then, the most rapid mods/posters have concentration points limited to one or two particular topics, sometimes three)

      P2P (in some of it's various forms) is not. I doubt it's even theoretically possible to build a system that could monitor all that traffic (and never mind parsing and interpreting it for censors :). Consider IRC...or even Usenet; in it's modern form Usenet hasn't been attacked by the RIAA for music distribution (even tho there's a helluva lot that goes on there) because they simply can't figure out how to do so. IRC is, as an entity, for all intents and purposes immune to attack by centrally organized searches (not to universal blockage, alas)

      Back to the OP: I doubt very much that if news was distributed via P2P that it could be tracked at all without some ubuiquitous form of a very smart AI. There's simply too much data to parse, too few resources wrt to processing capability, and a huge glut of channels that cannot be parsed (ex. deep encryption or one-time ciphers over *any* channel).

      Apply that to encryption/P2P news/email what have you, and you have... the internet. So far it's not practical - and it probably won't ever be, within human resources - to try to censor the internet. We do have a lot of ignorant morons trying to do so, however (Orrin Hatch comes to mind).

      Human resources are limited. There is no conceivable amount of employees who could 'police' the internet, even today (hell, even five years ago). But - big, big but - given an AI with the capability of intuitive deduction of data - it could become possible for large enough systems to process the data and give good results. The middle sticker is the AI :) and sometimes I hope they won't ever become viable...

      Skynet? :)

      In any case, I think that if the technology became available - and the government granted use of it - to monitor even 50% of everything going on, that brilliant people all over would find ways around it.

      "Andy's Law": What can be thought up, can be reverse engineered by someone else who is smarter; and there is *always* someone smarter.

      Of course, this is all wild speculation...

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  33. Already happening by 77Punker · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Try Freenet. It's much better now than it ever has been.

  34. P2P News = Urban Legends and Stupid people stories by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's nice to have an alternative method of news, but I don't think you could believe anything sent in such a network. There is "NEWS" that people can run cars on water and aliens walk among us.

    "Consider the source" means a lot when your trying to decide if a news story is believable. P2P removes the credibility. News will bubble to the top based on how many people share it.

    P2P news will end up a worthless collection of lies and urban legends. Most of my family is already is part of such a network via email and no matter how many times I tell them otherwise they still spread the made up news stories, "HUGS" and prayers. I search out and refute almost every piece of crap my way, but no one sends that out 20 times to everyone they now.

    What news needs is peer review and feedback. P2P in it's current form doesn't offer anything like that. You would end up with worthless POP news that people bother to keep and share. News needs a reputation system.

    At least now I can see something comes from Fox News and know it's likely distorted, on P2P there is no trust at all.

  35. Web/USENET are NOT P2P [Re:web] by j.leidner · · Score: 1
    No, sorry, I believe you are wrong here; both the Web and USENET are client-server based.

    Web: Your Web broser (e.g. Mozilla) is a client, which sends requests to the Web server, which is a, well, server (nomen est omen).

    USENET: Your newsreader, e.g. gnus is a client, the USERNET news server, is, again, what the name says: a server.

    The fact that there is data replication between servers doesn't make them a P2P system. For a scenario to be P2P, both parties need to be able to submit requests to others AND answer requests with responses.

    1. Re:Web/USENET are NOT P2P [Re:web] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usenet is a peer-to-peer system between the servers. Which is what matters for the purposes of this discussion. The NNTP protocol does also contain client-server commands, however, when the client is just used as a last step to sift through the information on the server.

      Saying Usenet isn't p2p is analogous to saying Fasttrack or eDonkey isn't, because you use a filesystem client (the Mac Finder, Windows Explorer, Unix shell) to retrieve the files from a server (a filesystem driver in a kernel).

      SMTP is also p2p btw, even though it's also used by clients to submit messages to a server (MTA).

      (in other words, whether something is p2p isn't always a simple distinction, and it's likely to get less so)

  36. Torrential by shokk · · Score: 1

    Maybe not the same exact thing, but in concept this was covered a few weeks back when talking about RSS distributed via Torrent.

    --
    "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
  37. The BIGGEST news on P2P will be... by News+for+nerds · · Score: 1
    your true friend in internet life, it's penis enlargement kit
  38. In case of /.ing by sam_handelman · · Score: 1, Funny

    By the year 2010, file-sharers could be swapping news rather than music, eliminating censorship of any kind.

    This is the view of the man who helped kickstart the concept of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing, Napster co-founder Sean Parker.

    In his vision, people around the world would post the most outrageous slander via anonymous P2P services like those used to swap songs.

    They would further the trend toward sensationalism already seen in the major news services, said Mr Parker.

    "Currently, only news with some factual basis will be syndicated because otherwise the news outlet, especially those in Britain, could face ruinous legal expenses," he told the BBC World Service programme, Go Digital.

    "But if some crank with an axe to grind says that [Recording Industry Association of America Presdient] Cary Sherman is a cannibal who eats babies, it won't get anything like the priority for syndication.

    "If you can break the grip of the news syndication services and allow the news collector to talk to the radio station or local newspaper then you can have much more efficient communications."

    'Impossible to censor'

    To enable this, Mr Parker proposes a new and improved version of Usenet, the internet news service.

    But what of fears that the infrastructure that allows such ad hoc news networks to grow might also be abused by criminals and terrorists?

    Mr Parker believes those fears are misguided. He argued that acts of politically motivated violence, such as those perpetrated by Al Qaeda and other muslim extremist groups, fulfill necessary functions in the maintanence of a free and democratic society.

    Violence of this kind produces a high level of international fear, which is why it is so effective.

    "The effect of peer-to-peer networks will be to make censorship difficult, if not impossible," said Mr Parker.

    "If there were material that everyone agreed was wicked, then it would be possible to track it down and close it down. But if there's material that only one government says is okay then, I'm sorry, but that's their tough luck".

    Political obstacles

    Commenting on Mr Parker's ideas, movie actor Billy Bob Thornton welcomed the idea of new publishing tools that will weaken the grip on cinema of major world governments.

    Such P2P systems, he said, would give everybody a voice and allow personal testimonies to come out.

    But the technology that makes those publishing tools accessible to everyone and sufficiently user-friendly will take longer to develop than Mr Parker thinks, added Mr Thornton.

    Mr Parker's vision underestimates the political obstacles in the way of such developments, he said, and the question of censorship had not been clearly thought through.

    "Once you build the technology to break censorship, you've broken censorship - even of the things almost everyone wants censored," said Mr Thornton.

    "Saying you can then control some parts of it, like images of child abuse, is being wilfully pressimistic. And that's something that peer to peer advocates have to emphasize."

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
    1. Re:In case of /.ing by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 1

      You told me I could order the moon, babe, just as long as I shoot what I want.

      The New Pornographers "Letter From An Occupant". Great band, saw them last year down here in Austin. Both of their cds are favorites, and the most recent made my top 10 of 2003. Nice to see others enjoying them, it's pop rock the way it should be.

      CB

    2. Re:In case of /.ing by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      news.bbc.co.uk is not going to be slashdotted. It is the most popular news site in Britain, and in the top 10 in the US - ie it gets a lot more hits than /.

  39. "Forbidden?" by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 0

    thereby escaping the grasp of the censors' attempts to control the spread of forbidden information.

    Like what?

    Seriously. This is the 21st century. How long has it been since anybody in the Western, industrialized world actually considered any information "forbidden?"

    If you wanna talk about samizdat for the Islamic world or something like that, go right ahead. But peer-to-peer computer networks aren't it. Peer-to-peer requires either a small network of dedicated hosts (in which case it's peer-to-peer in name only), or a vast network of part-time hosts. Neither of these things exists in the repressive parts of the world.

    It's a neat idea, but let's not overestimate our own importance, hmm?

    --

    I write in my journal
    1. Re:"Forbidden?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a neat idea, but let's not overestimate our own importance, hmm?

      But what if we really, really want to be important?

    2. Re:"Forbidden?" by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually most things in the western world are censored, we just dont realise it. Look at Diebold coverage in the general media - its almost zero, when it should be making the front page of every paper and be the hot topic of every channel. Beef scares and wardrobe malfunctions get more coverage than a nations most basic principles and beliefs and you dont call that censorship? And dont get me started on tv censorship, in America you cant even say shit on tv. yes the western world might seem more open than other parts but we have just as much censorship - its just more advanced - instead of killing people for having some political leaflets, we have a nice advanced hierachy of various people paying eachother off for not mentioning things.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    3. Re:"Forbidden?" by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Then stop speculating about technological solutions to social problems and go do something constructive.

      No computer program has ever changed the world. Only people can do that.

      --

      I write in my journal
    4. Re:"Forbidden?" by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Beef scares and wardrobe malfunctions get more coverage than a nations most basic principles and beliefs and you dont call that censorship?

      Nope, for two reasons. First, because Diebold's experiments with new types of voting machines are hardly representative of our "most basic principles and beliefs." They're experiments, nothing more. If they work, they'll be used widely. If they don't, they'll be improved or replaced. That's as far as it goes.

      (Your interest in Diebold is probably inspired more by the fact that it's tangentially related to computer programming than by any true love of democracy. Just a guess on my part, but I think it's a good one.)

      And second, no one person, organization, or group makes the decisions about what stories end up on the front page of your hometown newspaper or at the top of the hour on the evening news. There can be no censorship because there's no single point of control. It just isn't happening like that.

      Why are "beef scares" front page news? Because Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease kills people, and you get it by eating contaminated beef. Lots and lots of people eat lots and lots of beef, and if some of it's contaminated, people can die. The stakes are incredibly high, even though the odds are low.

      Janet Jackson's boob was front-page news because nearly three hundred million people saw it happen on live television. And notice, if you will, what things have occurred since it happened? The effects have been broad, even though they've been quite benign.

      And dont get me started on tv censorship, in America you cant even say shit on tv.

      Of course you can. You can't say it on broadcast television, of course, because the airwaves are collectively owned by the people and the people don't want cursing during prime time. But broadcast television makes up for a very small part of the medium we call TV.

      Besides, it's just a word. A word that is not uttered in polite company. You can say "feces," which is a synonym. So there's no censorship there. Merely the application of a minimum standard of polite behavior.

      instead of killing people for having some political leaflets, we have a nice advanced hierachy of various people paying eachother off for not mentioning things

      Care to back that assertion up with some kind of fact? Or are you just spewing paranoid ramblings with no concern for truth?

      --

      I write in my journal
    5. Re:"Forbidden?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the airwaves are collectively owned by the people and the people don't want cursing during prime time

      Now "the people" is another synonym for the FCC?

      Gimme a break.

      BTW, nobody asked me, my relatives, my friends or you if some occassional (sp?) cursing in TV is allowable. Or is it a prerrogative exclusive of the FCC, the current administration or even the holy roman catholic church for that matter?

      Do you still believe in Santa? 'cause I don't.

      PS: Foribbiden news... I remember a reporter (from ABC I think), who used to follow the Army to wherever they were starting a war, and told stories about flagrant human rights violations done by US troops. He was later banned to enter Irak (during the early 90's): if he tried to follow the troops (a privilege reserved to CNN reporters only), he would be shot dead (blaming enemy fire, of course).

    6. Re:"Forbidden?" by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1

      Now "the people" is another synonym for the FCC?

      Are you deliberately trying to be dense in order to shift the argument to different terms?

      I'll assume you really don't know how this works.

      The people elect representatives and an executive. The executive, with the approval of the representatives, appoints delegates to carry out the will of the people. One of those delegates is the Federal Communications Commission, which exists under a mandate from Congress to administer, among other things, the publicly owned airwaves.

      The FCC gets its instructions from the Congress, which is the sovereign, elected voice of the people.

      In other words, the FCC is just doing what we tell them to do.

      BTW, nobody asked me, my relatives, my friends or you if some occassional (sp?) cursing in TV is allowable.

      Nobody asked you whether the Fed should cut interest rates, either. Or whether to build an interstate highway system. Or whether to fund public education.

      We don't make these decisions directly. Instead, we appoint representatives to take care of the business of governance for us. And you were given the opportunity to participate in that process. Whether you chose to take that opportunity or not is another question.

      If you don't like the FCC's policies on the airwaves, express your opinion through your representatives. That's what they're there for. Call, write, or visit.

      Our country is not run in secret, smoky, back-room meetings of oligarchs. It happens right out there in the open. But nobody's going to pound on your door and force you to participate in the process. Getting informed and exercising your voice are your responsibilities, nobody else's.

      I remember a reporter (from ABC I think)

      Who remains conveniently unnamed, I see.

      if he tried to follow the troops (a privilege reserved to CNN reporters only)

      To the extent that journalists are allowed "to follow the troops" at all, pretty much anybody with press credentials can get in. I say "pretty much" because the security measures are almost laughable. If you have a valid United States passport, or a valid passport from a country that's not on the State Department's "list of concern"; have credentials in good standing with any recognized news-gathering organization, including those issued to freelancers and stringers; and have not been convicted of a felony, you're in.

      It's not just CNN.

      Now, it's obvious from your remarks on this subject that you just made some stuff up, or blindly repeated something that somebody else made up. I think it'd be great if we could raise the level of debate a little bit and leave that sort of thing behind. Don't you?

      --

      I write in my journal
    7. Re:"Forbidden?" by ExMember · · Score: 1
      And second, no one person, organization, or group makes the decisions about what stories end up on the front page of your hometown newspaper or at the top of the hour on the evening news. There can be no censorship because there's no single point of control.

      It doesn't take a single point of control to homogenize the news.

      "Did you hear that [insert even slightly sensational story]?"
      "Wow! Really?"
      "Yeah, it was on Network A Super Monkey Death Car News last night."
      "Network B Responsible News did even mention it. What else am I missing by watching them instead of Network A?"

      It's every network's nightmare to be Network B in this senario, which is why if any network covers a story people may talk about the next day, all the other networks have to cover the same story. It's not censorship, but the results can be just as bad as indepth reporting of anything is push out by as many reports as possible of anything that might catch somebody's interest.

  40. Exploiting P2P by bcilfone · · Score: 1

    Here's a story titled Exploiting Peer to Peer Networking.

    It's presented as a funny story, but it's a real world example of what could happen.

    1. Re:Exploiting P2P by rnx · · Score: 1

      well i'm no expert on this but all those downloads probably came from clients who were searching for
      their files based on checksum not on name.
      so all those people probably really wanted the stuff he renamed. ... still a funny read. too bad it
      is (probably) based on wrong assumptions.

  41. P2P Sockets project by joelparker · · Score: 2, Interesting
    P2P can bypass censorship in numerous ways...
    the P2P Sockets project paper has interesting
    comments about this (it's a JXTA core project)

    P2PSockets Intro

    Cheers, Joel

  42. I wish I could read the article by WhiteManInChina · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I live in China, where everything from the BBC is blocked, so I can't even read the article...

    grrr...

    1. Re:I wish I could read the article by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Im guessing you can get kazaa and download britney spears though? oh the irony

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:I wish I could read the article by burns210 · · Score: 1

      since the Google cache was too much of a pain to try and get....
      "
      Bypassing China's net firewall
      Numerous efforts are under way in the West to help Chinese web users get around China's censorship of the internet, reports technology correspondent Clark Boyd.

      The internet is booming in China
      Bill Xia left China for the US in the late 1990s. He keeps up with events in his homeland, mostly online.

      He has been amazed by the rapidly growing number of people in China who can join him in cyberspace.

      But he has also watched as Beijing tries to keep tighter and tighter control over those Chinese web users.

      Mr Xia says he got fed up with the way the Chinese authorities control access to information on the web

      "I started realising the media controls in China. And then I realised the internet presented a great opportunity to get around those media controls," he said.

      In 2001, Mr Xia and some other US-based volunteers started Dynamic Internet Technology.

      The company helps Chinese web users get around China's firewall.

      Net bypass

      The way the company does it is not new. It allows a user inside China to access the internet, not through a system controlled by the government, but through a proxy server.

      "The basic method of these technologies is to find a helpful computer in the United States or Canada or Europe that is willing to act as an intermediary for requests," said Ben Edelman, a fellow at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

      What we're trying to build is a network of trust among people who know each other, rather than a large tech network that people can just tap into
      Nart Villeneuve, The Citizen Lab
      Mr Edelman cites the example of a website that China often censors, the BBC. The country will block the BBC's domain name - bbc.co.uk.

      But, a friendly intermediary in, say, Canada, could help to bypass the controls.

      "You might find a computer at the University of Toronto that is willing to get you the BBC, and provide it to you with a domain that says toronto.ca, it doesn't say BBC," he explained.

      "China would never think Toronto would have the BBC, what an odd combination, and so you'd be able to get the BBC site that way."

      It means the BBC site is accessible through a different web address. But how do you tell users in China how to find it?

      Agile technology

      One idea is to e-mail Chinese users directly. However there is a catch. The Chinese government has 30,000 people who routinely scan e-mails for this kind of information.

      Officials keep a close eye on net activity
      Agents can could also pose as cyber-dissidents, and sign up for these e-mail lists.

      Nart Villeneuve from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto says the trick is making sure that only people you know and trust get that e-mail with the proxy web address.

      The Citizen Lab is working on a project called Psiphon. Mr Villieneuve says it relies on a human peer-to-peer network made up of say, the Chinese diaspora community.

      "The idea is to get them to install this on their computer, and then deliver the location of that circumventor, to people in filtered countries by the means they know to be the most secure," said Mr Villeneuve.

      "What we're trying to build is a network of trust among people who know each other, rather than a large tech network that people can just tap into."

      Another idea is to present the Chinese authorities with so many proxy addresses, that they would never be able to block them all.

      The US-based peacefire.org group has adopted this approach, saying its system is designed to be technologically agile.

      "The idea behind the circumventor was to make it so easy to install and run while it's on your machine, that if one is blocked, you can always send an e-mail to your friend, and say hey, can you set one up here," said Bennett Haselton, Peacefire's webmaster.

      "Instead of having a small number of sites that

    3. Re:I wish I could read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they block all ssh connections? If you can get an account on a machine in the UK you could just tunnel port 80 over ssh.

    4. Re:I wish I could read the article by csteinle · · Score: 1

      That'll be because it's an extremeist left-wing anti-US propoganda machine. Oh, hang on. Why would China block that?

  43. Apparently by Bl33d4merican · · Score: 1

    They haven't heard of /.

    --

    Every windows user is a sadomasochist.

  44. It would be hard to sort.... by Digitus1337 · · Score: 1

    Whoever had the most resources could flood, "this product shown to be great!" If you sorted out duplicate posts they would go around that and truely important news items would be blocked as well, there's no real way to work around it. People go to CNN, and Reuters and the like for their name, they're reliable (more or less).

  45. Re:P2P News = Urban Legends and Stupid people stor by incom · · Score: 1

    I see the same kind of fake news, and strongly biased news come out of the "real" news organizations all the time. Wasn't there a new york times journalist that only printed fake news for years?

    --
    True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
  46. Bogus News by JRSiebz · · Score: 1

    Is the RIAA going to spread bogus or garbled news, like they do with music on kazaa? ;-)

  47. Similar GPL project by +ve_flow · · Score: 5, Informative

    P2P delivery of moderated news is one of the visions of this project:

    http://www.freshmeat.net/projects/eucalyptt

    Think of the moderated efficiency of communication provided by slashcode coupled with the decentralisation of a P2P network. With an open framework such that anyone may post on any topic without prior editor checking

    The project is in early stages and is functional for a group of any size.
    (hidden agenda disclosure: I am a developer on the project)

    1. Re:Similar GPL project by shadowbearer · · Score: 0

      Think of the moderated efficiency of communication provided by slashcode coupled with the decentralisation of a P2P network. With an open framework such that anyone may post on any topic without prior editor checking

      No offense, but that sounds an awful lot like marketing BS.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    2. Re:Similar GPL project by +ve_flow · · Score: 1
      no offense taken :-)

      Key buzzwords add to overall heightened "impact" and the reiteration of the project title increases "brand awareness" in your "target" demographic.

      the result...

      Thousands of /.'ers submit to the power of my ruthless marketdroid team and join the project in droves!!

      <strokes cat>
      Soon... soon I shall achieve world cooperation, mwuaahahahaa.
    3. Re:Similar GPL project by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      Bill, is that you? :)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  48. Never run out of space again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (at least not for the next two years)

    Stack 60-odd of the wonderful Maxtor OneTouch external 250gig Harddrives (Maxtor propaganda page) and you'll get around 15 TB of extra pr0n and mp3-space. Each has a sweet 8meg cache to boot. So stop whining.

  49. Isn't that called "Gossip" and "Rumors"? by billstewart · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I mean really, why have we let professionals think they've taken over the entire news business? Sure, they do a good job of many kinds of news reporting, and of collecting interesting stories, and they've become a really important part of modern society but fundamentally lots of news has always been more personalized, more subjective, and has had a much wider range of biases than The Official Sources. So they shouldn't be shocked that there's still amateur news distribution around. And that's much more true in the technology business, where so much of the commercial press does little better than reprint press releases.

    And yes, there's a level of quality that you can get from professionals, but don't think that "objectivity" means there isn't a lot of bias. I'm not talking about the US's "Liberal Media" that the right-wingers whine about - the actual media are radically biased towards the Establishment, and if you want to find some actual liberal media you need to listen to Pacifica Radio or read leftist web sites. National Public Radio is relatively liberal in its cultural content, except for an obvious bias in favor of music by Dead White Europeans, but if you look at its poilitical coverage, it's still basically believing that the government that funds it are a really good thing, even if there are occasional individuals it doesn't like.

    Oh, and back to the reliability of P2P-distributed news, did you hear that thing about Bush's trouble with Duct Tape?

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Isn't that called "Gossip" and "Rumors"? by saroth2 · · Score: 1

      We *wish* NPR was government funded.

  50. Don't see it happening by initialE · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can forsee several fundamental problems with spreading of news through P2P. First of all is the speed with which anything disseminates through P2P protocols. We're talking somewhere around a day or so for things to spread virally, not to mention the need to publish the presence of the latest news through the various announcement methods (trackers etc). Second, Google. P2P is not currently googlable. Third, the tendency is for us to accept whatever news is spread over the web without checking for details. If you know of anyone who still thinks that going on holiday to Bavaria/Thailand/Wherever is putting him in risk of getting his kidneys stolen and himself dumped in a tub of ice water somewhere, it's thanks to unverified mass mailing. Now imagine this being spread over P2P, leading either to a lot of people first falling for alot of false information, then distrusting whatever they hear (cry wolf syndrome) Finally, remember that P2P has enemies, namely the RIAA and MPAA (and their cronies worldwide). They'll believe, and rightly so, that anything that justifies the existence of P2P networks will weaken their ability to gestapo the net. Therefore I'd expect as much trouble from them as they can concieve up. Well, my 2 cents.

    --
    Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    1. Re:Don't see it happening by burns210 · · Score: 1

      Speed: BitTorrent speeds UP when more users request data, so I don't see why a news reader would be any different. Basicly I would see this as a kazaa meets google news... A topic/thread with comments(?) on many different news stories from many news sites broken down into categories, waited by your preferences(you like /. more so than OSNews) along with some duplicate checks on your software.

      This is just as Googleable as cnn.com is, it is just that instead of going to CNN.com, you get it through an rss-style p2p feed and you get it from 100 news sites, not just CNN. Google could run their own client(or thousands of clients), keep a complete archive, and have THAT be searchable... It is like the Usenet archive, basicly.

    2. Re:Don't see it happening by evilviper · · Score: 1
      We're talking somewhere around a day or so for things to spread virally, not to mention the need to publish the presence of the latest news through the various announcement methods (trackers etc)

      That doesn't make any sense. Once something is on the network, the search function (on a P2P program like Gnutella) should be able to find it (with a few exceptions). Once somebody has downloaded it, it will be shared with everyone else, and again, it should almost instantly be findable with a search.

      Also, there's no reason to use a tracker. That pretty much defeats the purpose of using P2P in the first place. What you need is a public-key system, so you can search for a key, and find all content signed by that key. No tracker, just a simple search.

      P2P is not currently googlable.

      No, it isn't CURRENTLY. That's one reason why news isn't distributed by P2P CURRENTLY. You didn't think the world stood still did you? Things will improve. Kazaa already has a meta-data search, and I'm sure it won't be too long before Gnutella has a full-text search (for selected file formats). Afterall, Gnutella search results are compiled by the server end, so it would be trivial for your node to grep through several files on your hard drive, and only list the hits.

      Now imagine this being spread over P2P, leading either to a lot of people first falling for alot of false information, then distrusting whatever they hear (cry wolf syndrome)

      I expect to see a public-key system in-place. You'll know where all your information comes from, and you can choose to trust or distrust each source. Obviously this won't make Fox News patrons more informed, but for the rest of us, it is an improvement. We can automatically assign a rating based upon how accurate past news stories have been. Unlike today, there could be real dis-incentive for early (inaccurate) reporting of news stories.

      Therefore I'd expect as much trouble from them as they can concieve up.

      Yes, they would LIKE to squash this, but so what? The RIAA/MPAA are doing strong-arm stuff, but they don't have a blank-check, and attacking an system that has this implimented would be obviously wrong. Giving P2P applications the protection of a medium that carries protected speech can only be a good thing. Even in the worst cases, democratic governments are reluctant to censor methods of speech.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  51. Text of article by k4_pacific · · Score: 2, Funny

    A lot of people on here build up their karma by reposting the article text. I have a different approach inspired by Office Space:

    Peter: No, you don't understand. So, everyday, Slashdot gets these anonymous posts with mod points that just go away. It's called aggregate. Samir and Michael and me wrote a program that drops those into an account we own.

    Joanna: So you're stealing.

    Peter: I don't think I'm explaining it right. You take a penny from a dish by the register right?

    Joanna: From the crippled children?

    Peter: No, not the jar, the dish. we just take a fraction of the mod points, and take them a couple of million times.

    Joanna: How's that not stealing?

    --
    Unknown host pong.
  52. p2p news clans and signed articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Certainly on a p2p network there could be clans of reporters that sign their work and gain a reputation for valid news.

    This has already happened for things like DVD rips.

  53. it's a cycle by the+eighth+grader · · Score: 2, Insightful

    yes, yes, the technology is interesting and so forth, but to me p2p news doesn't look much like progress. look: 1. people get news from anyone who happens (or claims) to know slightly more than they do. news is decentralized, not to say anarchic. 2. paid messengers and town criers bring news to specific people or groups. news is partly centralized, and targeted. 3. the newspaper, radio, tv are invented and anyone can buy relatively cheap, reliable (as far as they know) information. news is centralized. 4. the internet comes along, people think centralized news is censored and decide to distribute news via p2p, which is. . . 1. people getting news from anyone who happens (or claims) to know slightly more than they do.

  54. Usenet isn't even close (now) by poptones · · Score: 2, Informative
    It's a long way from anonymous. About the closest you might get is to sign up with a fake ID and stolen credit info and never connect without tunneling through a well trusted proxy - hardly a practical channel of "anonymity." The US gov has seen well to it no one is allowed to post these days without being well traceable.

    And so far as spamming a p2p service like freenet - well, there's that "demand" thing. So unless you are posting some high demand spam, it's doomed.

    1. Re:Usenet isn't even close (now) by argent · · Score: 1

      It's easy to post anonymously, just find someone infected by a dropper virus and post to Usenet through their trojan backdoor. As for spamming, people have already used targeted files on p2p networks to track downloads and infect computers, spamming is much easier than that.

  55. First I will purge this author by spRed · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    man that was a painful article to read. Never has so much been written by one man that means less to so many who can read [English].

    This man couldn't be more uniteresting, less politcal, or less aware of _existing projects_ (*cough* freenet *cough*).

    Crypto? RSS? Blogs? Why bother extrapolating from things that are highly effective right now when you can go a different way and get posted to slasdhot?

    -1 Karma for the article becuase it comes from the BBC. Britons paid for this obviousness "drunk people more promiscuous, study finds" journalism.

    --
    .sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
  56. VOA's Been Doing this for a while by dmoynihan · · Score: 1

    I'm sure I don't have to tell people here that China blocks webpages (like the Voice of America, blogger, etc.). So even though in the big cities the Chinese have killer broadband, it's not as useful as it could be.

    Anyway, when VOA, whose TV/radio signals are blocked/jammed on the mainland try to get the feeds out, they'll run broadcasts through other sites, and also make everything available via P2P networks.

    Whether you agree with VOA/the U.S. Government is another matter, but they're doing stories on things like the AIDS/blood donations crisis, that China won't even talk about (just back from a party with those filmmakers and some VOA reporters).

    Of course, most of what people in China download over p2p is Britney or whatever, but, still, the stuff is out there and there ain't nothing the gubmint can do about it.

  57. transportation isnt the important factor by rnx · · Score: 1

    i think the p2p part really isnt all that important.
    what would be needed to bring the whole news (and discussion) thing to a new level is a standard format (think xml file) in which stories/comments/moderations are posted for everyone to download ... with signature of course.
    the method of transportation really isnt that much of an issue. ppl can shove it around anyway they want. this is more or less what i mean (friend of mine wrote it) :
    http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/3/27/225230/ 153

  58. Sourceforge project... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Found a reference to a Sourceforge project called PeerNews... I'm assuming that the URL is peernews.sourceforge.net or something like that. That URL doesn't work, but the original post I found said that the project was just getting started, so maybe the project hasn't been approved or something. I plan on googling for more...

  59. Richard SALANT by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

    Shit, his name is actually Richard Salant. With an 'l', actually it could be Salent. Blah!

    1. Re:Richard SALANT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's got an 'S' and at least one 'A' in it anyway. Who cares about details?

  60. Feedback by bug-eyed+monster · · Score: 1

    What news needs is peer review and feedback.

    Yes! And that's where internet can be useful. It's one thing to say "I trust this source but not that," but how can I be sure my trusted sources weren't duped themselves? That's where sites like Slashdot come in. When a "news" item is posted here, anybody can comment on it, and this gives me a chance to guage the truth behind the article not only based on my own opinion but based on the opinions and references made by hundreds of others.

    That's where traditional news media is weaker, TV, radio and newspapers are one-way communications and aren't accompanied by others' feedback. So I can never be sure if I'm getting the whole story or even the right story.

  61. Re:Slashdot censors its users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should really censor those IPs who keep babbling about You Ess Ee En Ee Tee. We're trying to keep it under the radar folks, so shut up already!

  62. One Word: by vwjeff · · Score: 1

    Slashdot

  63. http://tka-dvdr.co.uk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://tka-dvdr.co.uk

  64. HEY, Lets just lie to them ... by argoff · · Score: 1

    We should just start swearing up and down that controlling content, administering copyrights, and stoping forbidden information and file sharing will be easy once a secure and private p2p infrastructure is in place.

    Then once it's in place, give em the finger. ....then again, it practically already is in place.

  65. spam would happen by mnewton32 · · Score: 1

    How long before people started posting spam stories? You think you're downloading a story about government corruption in Norway and end up with an ad for v!@gra or something.

  66. were do you think by u-238 · · Score: 0

    all the geeks went to get videos of janet's wardrobe malfunction after hearing about it from their sports loving cohorts at work?

  67. Down with censorship by mindless4210 · · Score: 1

    This sounds like the way news should be to me, I know I'd rather hear news straight then with the media's crooked twist. I'll be interested to see how this plays out into the future, when I can stream uncensored news to my wrist watch. 2010 though... I hope it happens sooner.

    --
    Wireless News www.DailyWireless
  68. "Forbidden?"-Party favour. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay! Twirlip's back. Now things can get frustrating again. :)

  69. Yeah right.. by bmantz65 · · Score: 1

    Someone will end up wanting to regulate it and we'd get fed biased stories. Give me /. anyday!

  70. Re:Naivety (Where's Hugo Weaving when you need him by serutan · · Score: 1

    "That's their tough luck" is second only to "Dude, watch this!" as an intro to a disaster. "That's their tough luck" sounds good until their lawyers come into the picture, and then the situation suddenly changes.

    I think anyone who provides or relays P2P news will have to be extremely careful of stepping into the twin potholes of copyright infringement and libel, as people who publish tell-all weblogs have already found out. In defamation suits you get treated just like a big publisher, except for not being owned by a media conglomerate with a multimillion dollar legal budget. Calling yourself part of "The Press" means nothing unless you have the resources to actually take your case into court.

    It's not the despotic governments I'm afraid of, it's the toady governments (starts with a U, ends with SA) whose corporate sponsors demand a structure of rules that limits their own exposure to lawsuits. I don't know whether that means more RIAA-like waves of lawsuits against individuals or another crusade to harass ISPs for carrying P2P news feeds, or some other form of restriction, but you can bet there will be something.

  71. Re:P2P News = Urban Legends and Stupid people stor by burns210 · · Score: 1

    so we use encryption... public/private keys? Popular news editors, indy sites, mainstream sites have a file that you add to your 'buddy list' or 'subscription list' that contains the public key(and whatever other metadata needed). From there, the publishing system encrypts the given article using the authors private key, and then submits it. You only ever see articles that is decrypted correctly with your subscription list.

    Authors, Indy or mainstream could grow a large reputation to be trusted(or the inverse, completely ignored). You could even have 3rd party unencrypted articles submitted by people trying to get a start into the network. The possibilities are endless.

  72. Re:News? Oh my!!! What's next? by brxndxn · · Score: 1

    Um, are u mking fun of slashdot cause' if u r u are making a big mistake because we now what we talking about and news isnt always about grammer so why don't you stfu noob and go learn some english you 14yo fat kid U are obviously uninformed about inteligense cause it is not always about how u spel yer words!!!!

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
  73. It's Natural result. by okayiaT+ver.65535 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It is completely natural.
    Even the meaning made into news is not felt.

    --

    _
    # CheapGbE!GbE!!TheKLF!KLF!!TheRMS!RMS!! And a meme sparks ...
  74. Been there, done that. Renaissance for Usenet by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    Actually, as other posters have and will point out, Usenet has been syndicating informal news for over 20 years. Later, ClariNet started to use Usenet to syndicate Reuters, Tass, AFP, AP, UPI and other, real news. Interesting to note, ClariNet was one of the first (IIRC the first) profitable, Internet based company that wasn't an ISP or similar.

    The comp.* and sci.* hierarchies, from my experience, have been good. e.g. comp.text.xml, comp.protocols.kerberos, etc.

    Many of the big players would like Usenet to go away as it is decentralized and distributed which makes it hard to censor and control. ISP what a bottleneck though which users must pass and view ads while doing so.

    The BBC article brings up a good point, but perhaps it is more practical to look to Usenet again. It is the only decentralized, distributed service I have seen. Mozilla, Opera and other web browsers include news readers so there is no need to install extra software, though dedicated news readers do have advantages. (Ask your ISP for details on how to connect) I prefer when mailing lists have SMTP/NTTP gateways so that I can check the list with a threaded news reader.

    Maybe it's time to look at a new version of the NNTP protocol, and/or to the message format to make up for shortcomings. RSS is trying to do something with the web, which is perhaps more suited to NNTP or its successor.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  75. The role of P2P systems in news delivery by Teancum · · Score: 1

    The number one problem with P2P software is that it breaks down the walls of "the priesthood of the computer operators", which dates back to the 1950's and has various forms that currently is embodied with the MIS staff at most larger business. The idea is that a central authority has control over computing resources, and that you should get "permission" to get anything or be able to access "computing resources". Much of this dates to the military involvement in the creation of the first computers, and the fact that the first computers were so expensive that security provision (as in actual human security teams with badges and billyclubs) were needed just to make sure it would be running the next day. Software development talent was so rare at the time, and the very idea of computers so new that it was treated like some sort of God-like device.

    The opposite side of this is the decentralizing forces that have made things like TCP/IP and personal computers. To really understand this philosophy, you really need to go back to the hippy movement with it roots in San Francisco, and its role in the development of computers. With programmers so used to sharing girlfriends, dope, money, class notes, and beer, it is no wonder that they also felt that sharing data and computing resources was just a variation on theme, not really even an innovation. P2P networks and Grid computing are natural progressions of this philosophy.

    What has been exciting is that the two cultures are colliding is some very substantive ways. P2P networks really aren't any different from normal TCP/IP networks... it is just that they have a different topology that bypasses the normal control mechanisms (I.E. Cisco routers and the MIS control freaks). Don't think that routers don't exist in P2P communication... they do. It just gets disguised a little bit more and is not where "the powers that be" are normally expecting them to be at. Instead of being in a nice air-conditioned secure facility behind bullet-proof glass and 7 levels of physical security, it is on a workstation for some high school computer lab set up by some 16 year old totally without permission of even the school district. That is the real rub of P2P communications.

    Can P2P communication be linked to a specific IP address (and hence a specific user)? ... usually yes. In this case sending news through a P2P network is mainly to help avoid the /. effect of millions of people crashing a server with the latest cool thing that geeks like. If a good P2P network for news protocol were establshed, it would require at most a few hundred "hits" per computer, and some way of sharing with other computers in the network what are the "new" news items, and how to exchange them without hogging bandwidth. Of course, that is the whole point of USENET, and earlier systems that did this very well like FIDONET.

    If you don't know about FIDONET, that was a BBS newsfeed exchange service that exchanged news items between dial-up BBS services. There were many levels they worked on, and some interesting routing protocols, but it was a very effective and cheap, if not slow. You could exchange e-mail with people across the world for basically the cost of a local phone call back in the 1980's and early 1990's. If you were generous, you would send the $5 or $10 per month to the local BBS operator to keep it going, but often this was a voluntary donation even then, not something you were obliged to do to get the message sent. The only problem was because it was only dial-up connections at each exchange node (which happened only once or twice per day... to save money) it would sometime take a week or longer if your message had several hops to get to the final destination. Still, it was a great alternative when having internet access for mere mortals was impossible. As usual, most of the bugs in the system were worked out just in time for cheap commercial internet access to become available. There were some FIDONET/SMTP gateways made, but

  76. There is no one True news source. by lysium · · Score: 1
    Problem is that I no longer trust the "trustworthy" news sources.

    Balance out your US news by reading opposition news. I suggest Al-Jazeera. Despite what Donald Rumsfeld may claim, their journalism is no more biased than one of Rupert Mudorch's outfits. The quality of news varies, from hastily written reactionary news to deep and knowledgable analysis of geopolitics (and neoconservatism in particular). The political cartoons are quite incisive and worth checking out as well.

    I find that getting doses of propaganda from each side tends to nullify each other's effect, leaving me able to figure out the truth more accurately.

    ===---====

    --
    Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
    1. Re:There is no one True news source. by Ender_Wiggin · · Score: 1
      I'm sure this is the official site, in English:
      http://english.aljazeera.net

      It looks like the parent link is a copycat site, like aljazeerah.info

  77. 364? interesting by way2trivial · · Score: 1
    you do know 2004 is a leap year, what's the other day you don't trust?

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  78. Great by LuYu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Great! Now teenagers and old ladies can get sued by another content industry for sharing.

    --
    All data is speech. All speech is Free.
  79. Re:P2P News = Urban Legends and Stupid people stor by evilviper · · Score: 1
    It's nice to have an alternative method of news, but I don't think you could believe anything sent in such a network.

    Damn... Why does every idiot on /. believe that the technology being discussed will never improve one bit?

    Yes, they are talking about P2P, but that doesn't mean a bunch of people distributing documents on kazaa named "NEWS", with no guarantee of the source. Most likely, the future of P2P news will be one where each piece of news is signed with someone's private key, and you simply seach with their public key to find everything they've submitted. That would allow anyone to start reporting news, and allow end-users to fetch only from the sources they want, and potentially assign a level of trust to each seperate source of news.

    eg. Goatse-Troll=0 Fox-News=0 CmdrTaco=5 CNN=20, etc.

    I get the feeling that 20 years ago, upon hearing the prediction that people would browse the internet with formatting and pictures, you would have said "Gopher can't do that, no way!"
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  80. Re:P2P News = Urban Legends and Stupid people stor by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 1

    *sigh*

    Please read past the first sentence before responding. I also said...

    What news needs is peer review and feedback. P2P in it's current form doesn't offer anything like that...

    Obviously something like that is needed. That's the point of my post.

  81. CNN's Cafferty Crapperty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The CNN morning news show is such fun. Not a bit of unbiased information to be seen - and its propagandistic crowning glory is the "Cafferty Files" where Jack Cafferty asks a question (usually with a nice slant to influence the answers) then reads user's email in response.

    Kind of a quick way to take the pulse of public opinion right?

    Of course. If the public opinion you're interested in comes from the people who watch CNN and respond to the slanted question. Not to mention the way he slights any response that is even marginally left of his. I can't speak to his method for selecting the mail to read, but I do have my doubts about it being unbiased.

  82. Re:364? interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talk like a pirate day

  83. Re:P2P News = Urban Legends and Stupid people stor by evilviper · · Score: 1
    Yes, I did read your WHOLE post.

    Obviously something like that is needed. That's the point of my post.

    Hmm, strange. From your post (and from that 2 sentence quote), I would assume that your point is that P2P is inappropriate.

    The 4 little words "in it's current form" are the only place you do anything but outright slam P2P as being incapable of doing this, and even that isn't a very clear indication that you DO think P2P is capable. But still, you are talking about "peer review and feedback", which I don't believe is important at all. There's really none of that with standard news channels, and /. should be a good example of the downside to things like review and feedback.

    In fact, P2P applications are very close to being capable. You can search for a file based upon the SHA1 hash, so a website could just list the hashes of stories, and anybody could find it, and know they are getting exactly what they shoud be (and who it's from, through the method of hash distribution).
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  84. Re:credibility? mus-slime deathbringing scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the murder killer known as mister 100 percent. mister 100 percent ethnic cleansing. mr 100 percent all non muslims must die. mister 100 death. you are a minion of satan, allah, muhammed was satan's bitch. muhammed was the biggest pillaging murder in all of history, making the huns, stalin, chinese, mongols, all of them, look tame compared to the sword of satan, allah, mohammed and islam. muslims are the worlds best and leading murderers, you satanic child molesting pig fucking muslims will be vanquished in everlasting hell for your murderous ways against science and whatever god you think exists. the human race will root out the cancer known as islam. for so it is written.