Revamping Freenet

N3wsByt3 writes "Many will have heard about the anonymous P2P-system Freenet. What many probably don't know is, that a big change is at hand: the Freenet developers have decided to drop all support for the 0.5x version, to skip version 0.6 and to completely revamp the 0.7 build into some kind of poorly described, presumably scalable darknet. The main coder even threatened to quit if such a darknet would be rejected. So, is it finally going the right way with the development of Freenet? Maybe not, since they seem reluctant to provide real data and rather rely on security through obfuscation, and then there is still the problem of their general inability in regard to pooling human resources, which, for any OSS project, is of the utmost importance." Obviously, the article submitter has his own feelings on Freenet, but notwithstanding that, what's the latest scuttlebutt from within the Freenet crowd?

Comments

How many revamps

[News for nerds]

will it take until it becomes something that can be used as easily as an web browser?

Re:How many revamps

[Uruk]

The actual things that are done by any software are pretty complicated - that doesn't prevent us from abstracting them away from the user.

Now freenet is slightly different in that it uses encryption. From that perspective, things can change slightly in that PGP had problems with users needing to know about public/private keypair security, understanding what signing was, why it was important, concepts behind the web of trust, etc.

I don't see freenet having those issues though. Node administrators for sure, but not freenet users. Freenet users don't really have keys or even any necessary knowledge of the technical layer of encryption. They need to know how to connect to a node.

What's so fundamentally different about freenet that it's inevitably going to be more complicated? For disambiguation, specifically I'm talking about the user perspective, not the node administrator perspective (which sadly have been one in the same so far). Node administrators will deal with stuff that users don't see.

I'm not trying to beat up on freenet here, I just think that if the software is very complicated, it's probably due to a potential lack in usability design as opposed to something inherent about the software. If you buy the metaphor of freenet as some gigantic encrypted data store in the sky, using it from a user's perspective shouldn't be much more complicated than using a hard disk. Send files, get files. Sure, there's lots of sticky details, but the node should worry about that for us, shouldn't it?

Child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Internet is for porn, then Freenet is for child porn. Sad, but true. I would recommend getting around this by giving file sizes a low cap before they're broken into many parts, this would probabilistically decrease the chances of any person being able to get kiddie porn while retaining the ability to serve text.

Re:Child pornography

[mmkkbb]

See, the wonderful thing about such loaded language is that even if you tolerate the existence such content, by using Freenet you are being FORCED to distribute it. Isn't that lovely? And if you complain, the powers-that-be make YOU the bad guy!

Re:Child pornography

[Kihaji]

The problem with anonymous freedom of speech is you eliminate the responsibilty of speech. Sometimes it's difficult to decide what is worth more.

Re:Child pornography

[mmkkbb]

Refusal to redistribute isn't censorship. If I don't distribute content I find objectionable, that does not stop others from doing the same.

Of course, there's next to no way of knowing what is passing through your system, but the reply from the Freenet admins is arrogant and misguided.

Re:Child pornography

[Rei]

So where do you draw the line as to what one is allowed to post and what they aren't?

* Should people be allowed to post any pornography at all? (illegal in a number of countries)
* Should people be allowed to post a glowing post of support for Falun Gong? (illegal in China)
* Should people be allowed to publish a diatribe denying that the holocaust occurred? (illegal in much of Europe)

Etc. You can claim that, "Well, allowing the posting of child pornography or terrorism-related materials offends universal sensibilities", but this obviously isn't true, or the material wouldn't be being posted in the first place (not to mention, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter). Just as a demonstration of how much people's sensibilities are different in different parts of the world, this (originally posted on msnbc.com) covers an interview with an Afghan mother who supported her daugter's execution by stoning for the crime of adultery ("My daughter is a criminal. If she hadn't been killed, I could never hold my head up again in my community.")

If the data is being created through abusive means, go after the source of the data. If the data is being used to plan violent action, use proper security at likely targets (not like it's hard for people to hatch plans in secret anyways - this is nothing new). The fact of the matter is that data wants to be free.

Re:Child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with non-anonymous speech is that it prevents the airing out of taboo subjects. Taboos and the religions that spawn them go in and out of fashion (albeit slowly). Not all of what we consider taboo today will be considered so by future generations, or even by other populations currently extant.

See the excellent article by Paul Graham on this

http://paulgraham.com/say.html

Also, it seems to me that it is inane to think you can somehow prevent evil from occurring, just by somehow preventing someone from talking publicly about it. It is this sort of ostrich mentality that has led to the widespread molestation of children within the very church that preaches most strongly about the immorality of the same. IANA psychologist, but I would think that those who speak about something are at least more approachable, more lucid (and open to arguments against) than those who keep it to themselves. Driving them underground only makes it worse.

Re:Child pornography

[ThePiMan2003]

The problem is that if freenet gives you the ablity to block arbitrary files based on content you could become liable for not blocking them. Then again IANAL but I would guess that if you had the ablility to block, say mp3 files and you did not the RIAA might be able to take you to court. Its hard to say, on one hand I like the fact that anyone can say anything on freenet, on the other hand I don't really like that kind of stuff on my computer.

Re:Child pornography

[finkployd]

So what is the alternative? Change freenet so that each node can censor what they want? Kinda defeats the entire point of the project then.

Finkployd

Re:Child pornography

[Ars-Fartsica]

If the data is being created through abusive means, go after the source of the data.

Uh, if you are hosting child porn, you are the host of the data, under current law. Many nations are now erasing the line between being a "distributor" of this material and being in possession of it. Really, you need to know this, because you will find very few individuals in Western societies who will vigorously defend you in public or the courts. You will find out what "pariah" means.

And in the strict sense, with Freenet you are a distributor in any case - you are providing a service to obtain this material - remember under the law ignorance is not an excuse, you could find it difficult to claim you were an unwitting accomplice.

Re:Child pornography

[finkployd]

I think the point is that every government draws the line somewhere else. In some places a naked 16 year old is child porn, in other places it is not. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

There is not a universal code of what is acceptable to everyone, there is just your own personal code. This may fit the mold of where you live or it may not. The question is not "Should a line be drawn?", everyone would agree there is a line. However "Where do you draw the line on issue X?" is something that cannot be answered globally. The freenet people have taken the approach that since the line cannot be drawn in a specific place, let's just ignore it altogether and let anything go. Interesting experiment if you ask me. I'm not interested in using it, but I am not morally opposed to it just because it does not stop those I disagree with from communicating. As a user of PGP that would be damn hypocritical of me wouldn't it?

Finkployd

Re:Child pornography

[10101001 10101001]

You're right. It's just against the spirit of Freenet. Freenet is about complete freedom of speech. That means they've designed and generally make it non-trivial to block content, as any sizeable filtering of content on freenet greatly hinders the availability of that content. So filtering isn't included because of censors in the world (not you).

Now image going to a seller of just apple pies and saying, "You know, I really like your pies flaky crust, but could you sell them all with cherry instead?" Now, of course you can ask, but to act like the apple pie seller is somehow arrogant or misguided to only sell what they've specifically set out to sell is arrogant and misguided. This is the same when people complain about the GPL's "viral" nature and act like software should be deGPLed just because they're uncomfortable with what that means. Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it to. So long as no force/coercion is placed upon you to use GPL software, eat those apple pies, or use freenet, that's the end of it from a fairness/legal perspective

But, we live in a free world. That means that if you want to, you can make a freenet clone that lets you filter out things. You could also alter your freenet client to filter out things (the source is available, which should make this task a good bit easier than it would otherwise be); I'd discourage making it compatible with freenet, though, as doing so would almost certainly harm freenet. You could form/join a freenet-filter fork. I'm sure there's a good many people who want to filter and are willing/able to help.

In that regard, good luck with whatever your plan. Just don't be surprised that freenet doesn't change to suit your wants.

Re:Child pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Child pornography is more than "horrid icky pictures you don't like". Child pornography is about the rights of a minor being trampled on by another person (a minor cannot consent to sex).

A minor being raped (nonconsensual sex) is always a violation of the minor's right to safety of the person. A person who is prevented from expressing themselves may or may not have been subjected to a violation of the right of free expression. The well worn example of shouting fire in a crowded theatre clearly illustrates this (ie. freedom of speech is a limited right, safety of the person is considerably less limited).

Free speech and child pornography will never intersect, and attempts to make the right of safety of person and the right of free expression equivalent are sophistry of the worst sort.

Re:Child pornography

[Abcd1234]

Child pornography is about the rights of a minor being trampled on by another person (a minor cannot consent to sex).

Nooo... *production* of child pornography is about the rights of a minor being trampled on by another person. The pornography itself is merely a record of the event.

This is different from the "shouting 'fire'" example because, in that case, the actual act of expression, the shouting itself, is what causes damage. Put another way, it's an excellent example of balance of harm: we are willing to limit a person's right to free speech (and thus "harm" them, in a loose sense) in order to protect others from being physically injured by a panicked mob.

Child porn is not remotely the same. The expression (if you want to use that word) isn't what causes the damage. It's the creation of the work in the first place.

Now, does that mean I think Child Porn is a-okay? No, of course not! However, I think the focus on distributors and collectors is highly misguided. People should be going after the producers. The people who are *actually* harming children.

The current approach, OTOH, seems focused on trying to curb demand (and to get juicy soundbites on the news), but I would contend that that approach will be about as successful as Three Strikes laws for drug users.

Re:Child pornography

[westlake]

We cannot allow filtering Freenet nodes without compromising anonymity, which is our number one priority. Sorry, but if you don't like it, don't run a Freenet node."

The problem here is that anoymnity (and performance) requires a critical mass of users. From a coldly logical point of view, Freenet's association with hard-core pornography is a guarantee of failure.

Re:Child pornography

[kfg]

Another way of looking at it is. If you do not want to commit aid in a felony do not run Freenet.

Exactly! That's the whole bloody point of the thing.

You want to make it about absolute freedom of speech? Limit it to just text files.

You have a peculiar definition of "absolute," nor do I see any reason why picutures of my violin should be banned from the net.

You could then say anything you want.

Your point of view of what constitutes kiddy porn also diverges from that of many of the people who decide just what is and is not felony kiddie porn. Here's a clue for you, virtually everything on the Internet is a felony, somewhere. Just ask Yahoo! about it.

My current desktop wallpaper would be considered felony pornography by some. It's a family portrait. You can clearly see the faces of my wife and underage daughter.

Freenet is taking it too far into complete freedom of action including that which harms people.

Nobody has ever been harmed by a file transfer, the only action possible by Freenet. I'm afraid I now have to consider you one of those people who when the words "kiddie porn" are invoked has a mind that clouds over. Rational discussion is not possible in such a situation.

Sure if you want a warz and porn P2P network knock yourself out but admit it. Do not wrap it up in Freedom of Speech.

Except, of course, that that is innately part of freedom of speech. Jefferson himself even argued this. "Warz" only exists as a governmental form of limitation of speech, one that Jefferson felt was innately opposed to the very concept of republicanism and every other provision of the American Constitution. Porn has always been protected by the Constitution (bearing in mind that the Constitution did not apply to local government until after the Civil War).

KFG

speed

[capoccia]

when the speed of freenet comes within an order-of-magnitude of the normal internet, people will start using it again. right now, it's just a nifty way to do things 100 times slower than you could otherwise.

Re:Unfortunately, not a troll

[F�an�ro]

how do you know what was on your node?
I thought that was one of the points, that noone can reasonably find out what is on his node?

Please ignore flamebait

[dj28]

For anyone who reads the freenet mailing list daily (me), you'd know the the submitter of this article (Newsbyte) is a known troll who doesn't actually contribute to the project.

I suggest that people who want to know the whole story check out the mailing lists going back a month or so.

Less talk, more code

[m50d]

Freenet gets more attention because its developers are very vocal, but it sucks as a working network. You can hardly get any speed off it, you have to use the stupid browser interface, it's bloaty java, and there's no working search. Switch to gnunet, it has decent speeds, working search, and has a graphical client (not a very nice one as yet, but that could be improved).

Re:Newsbyte is a well known troll

[Uruk]

How about using this opportunity of discussion on Slashdot to bring up some of your own thoughts on Freenet? I for one used it regularly quite some time ago, but I got lost in all of the network upgrades and software transitions that left me with nothing but RNF and DNF messages even after having run a node for several days.

I'm really, genuinely interested in this project, and I'm all ears to hear about any forward movement or positive momentum the project has. Let us know about it.

Whether or not Newsbyte is a tool isn't really an interesting issue - let's talk about the ideas that are going to make the network actually usable!

Re:Perhaps, BUT....

[m50d]

Vaporware. Why haven't they fixed it right away? The anonymity is the whole point of the entire project, and they can't even get that working.

You are Totally off there

[nurb432]

Only a browser interface? There is an 'application port', and there are applications written for it. ( such as frost )

Java bloat? No worse then other languages that try to be *universal*. Besides, don't like java? Then recode it in something else and quit bitching.

Slow? Depends on what you are doing. Are you trying to download files? Well it really wasn't designed for that. And there will be a tradeoff on speed/anonymity.

Searches? Umm there are several search engines available if you look.

Re:FreeNet Is Lost

[Jugalator]

I hear the accusation of Kiddy Porn quite a lot about FreeNet, but how does anybody actually know?

Hard to tell exactly what's circulating on the network, yes, but I saw signs of it since it was the first thing I was greeted with after finally finding out the address of a large "a little bit of everything" Freenet portal. Maybe the conclusions were drawn prematurely, but it sure didn't look so with links like "The Blog of a Paedophile", "Illegal child porn", and on and on... Think of a kiddie porn-oriented Yahoo!.

Great, here come the CP trolls

[Laxitive]

Every time there's a freenet article on /., the usual comments about child pornography and other "bad stuff" are bandied about.

Personally, I see Freenet as an experiment in what's possible. There's an abstract problem statement: how do you share data anonymously? And Freenet attempts to provide a solution to that problem. There are many valid uses for a solution to that particular problem. The canonical example is "dissidents in ". But it goes beyond that. Everything from corporate and government whistleblowers even in relatively free countries, to those who want to expose sensitive information they might be privy to without giving themselves away.

The problem is that such a system, by design, is necessarily going to be useful for people that organize activities and spread information that has little redeeming value. If dissidents and whistleblowers can obtain anonymity when sharing information, then so can child pornographers and terrorists and gangsters and whoever else.

This dilemma occurs with many systems based on an ideology of freedom and opposition to censorship. The US constitution's first amendment guarantees the right of NAMBLA to express their views on a public webpage.

The point is, freedom to any extent in the public commons will, necessarily, support both good and bad uses of that freedom. The question people have to ask themselves is wether their belief in the ideology behind that freedom is worth the tradeoff or not.

If you believe that the "bad guys" should be kept off of Freenet, then you don't believe in Freenet, or any other truly censorship-free information sharing system.

-Laxitive

Re:Great, here come the CP trolls

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Personally, I see Freenet as an experiment in what's possible.

Personally I see Freenet as an experiment in hubris gone badly wrong. Leaving the morality of porn aside, the design of the network is so attrocious from the point of view of its supposed target audience and so obviously inadequate to what is supposedly its main task, that anyone looking at it in depth can only conclude that it was designed for kiddie porn. Any lingering doubts have been removed when the project leaders decided to take this turn to a "darknet" system whose attributes are even more geared towards pedophile networks and far less towards free speech political dissidents.

Re:Great, here come the CP trolls

[stratjakt]

Well, I also have the right to express MY viewpoints. And I sure as hell have the right to decide that any computer equipment I own will NEVER help the spread of child pornography.

I have the right to express that everytime freenet comes up. I have the right to let as many people I know understand that if they run a freenet node, they ARE aiding in the spread of child porn, that they are helping the worlds worst monsters commit their crimes. Most sensible people understand that.

It's why bittorrent is huge and fast, and freenet is slow. With BT, I can decide that I have no moral objection to spreading last nights episode of the Simpsons, with FreeNet (and others like it), I don't get the same choice.

I have the right to mention that videos and still images of real children being raped is NOT FREE SPEECH.

NAMBLA expresses their "viewpoints" on the regular internet.

If you choose to support Freenet, and it's userbase, it represents a tacit approval of the material it's used to dissiminate.

And I can say that all I want, and encourage anyone who feels the same to absolutely bury any discussion of Freenet with similar posts.

And Zonk can go right ahead and ban me again.

I hate assholes like you who basically tell everyone to "shut up" because of someone elses "freedom of speech". It works both ways.

No, I don't believe in freenet, and I don't believe in your "truly censorship-free" information system.

Re:Great, here come the CP trolls

[evanbd]

Yup, you're welcome to express those views. And yes, there is CP on Freenet. There's also a lot of other stuff.

The point of view of most of the developers (and myself), however, is that you can be either for or against absolute, anonymous free speech. You clearly fall into the "against" camp. Most of those working on the network, however, believe that the benefits of having uncensored speech outweigh the cost. That the gains in human rights from publishing police brutality videos outweigh the losses from making terrorist discussion easy. That the gains from making DeCSS available outweigh the costs of copyright infringement. That the gains from proof of election fraud outweigh the losses from child porn. You're more than welcome to disagree with that point; I understand your position. However, there is another side, and it's more complex than "I want my child porn."

Me, I think I'll support Freenet and all that it entails, even if the results aren't perfect.

Re:Great, here come the CP trolls

[stratjakt]

The people IN the pictures are real.

And the people looking at the pictures are generally the same as those who are in the pictures.

And yes, I personally think the man who rapes an 8 year old is worse than the man who murders another adult. But I don't buy into the whole "moral relativism" bullshit, both are evil.

And I also think people who try to shrug it off as "just pictures" are completely obtuse at best, or pedophiles themselves at worst. Those are real kids.

And I also think that anyone running a freenet node is legally on the hook for aiding and abetting child molestors, since it's widely known that it's a primary use of the network.

And, as a side note, all the "political dissident" stuff is pure horseshit and misdirection. It's illegal in China (and other countries with harsh free speech laws) to use encryption at all. Freenet is not even an option for the oppressed village of Wing Wang.

As for free speech, it's guaranteed. And NAMBLA has a presence on the real net, and as much as the organization and everything they say disgusts me, there's nothing I can do about it.

But I can sure as hell criticize those who would help them commit their crimes.

So I'll sum up with a big fuck you to the ACLU for providing free legal representation for NAMBLA members, lo these many years.

Re:Great, here come the CP trolls

[Laxitive]

Well, I also have the right to express MY viewpoints. And I sure as hell have the right to decide that any computer equipment I own will NEVER help the spread of child pornography.

Odd, I don't remember saying that you didn't have the right to express your viewpoints. In fact, I kind of took your right to express your viewpoints for granted. Get off your goddamn persecution complex.

I have the right to express that everytime freenet comes up. I have the right to let as many people I know understand that if they run a freenet node, they ARE aiding in the spread of child porn, that they are helping the worlds worst monsters commit their crimes. Most sensible people understand that.

In the same way that if they live in and support a society that has free speech, they're aiding in NAMBLA's ability to claim that it's ok to have sex with little boys.

It's why bittorrent is huge and fast, and freenet is slow. With BT, I can decide that I have no moral objection to spreading last nights episode of the Simpsons, with FreeNet (and others like it), I don't get the same choice.

If you have a moral objection to a truly censorship-free network, then you have the option of not running that network. And it seems you've taken this option, so what are you complaining bout?

I have the right to mention that videos and still images of real children being raped is NOT FREE SPEECH.

Yes, you indeed have a right to make complete non-sequiturs. I don't think CP falls under the purview of free speech either. Just like slander, libel, and blackmail don't fall under the purview of free speech. But a system that's designed to offer an environment free of censorship using anonymity as a tool will NECESSARILY support such activities. There is no way to get around it.

NAMBLA expresses their "viewpoints" on the regular internet.

If you choose to support Freenet, and it's userbase, it represents a tacit approval of the material it's used to dissiminate.

Just like if you support free speech, and those who are allowed to exercise it, it represents a tacit approval for all the messages and viewpoints they express using it?

Or does it represent your commitment to a higher-level principle, and your conscious decision that the value of that higher-level principle outweighs the ill-effects of those who use it to acheive questionable and despicable ends.

And I can say that all I want, and encourage anyone who feels the same to absolutely bury any discussion of Freenet with similar posts.

I'm just asking you to be honest about it. I'm asking you to say: "I don't beleive in a censorship-free medium" if you want to oppose Freenet on the grounds that it allows CP.

And Zonk can go right ahead and ban me again.

Who the fuck is Zonk?

hate assholes like you who basically tell everyone to "shut up" because of someone elses "freedom of speech". It works both ways.

I am perfectly capable of understanding that it works both ways. In fact, I've reconciled the idea of allowing people to disseminate information that disgusts me to the core. That's a hell of a lot more difficult to do than reconciling a few misrepresented arguments on slashdot.

No, I don't believe in freenet, and I don't believe in your "truly censorship-free" information system.

See, that wasn't so hard, was it? All I'm asking is for people to be honest with their assessment of why they don't like Freenet. If you think the ill effects of dissemination of CP on Freenet outweighs the benefits of a complete lack of censorship, that's fine. I can disagree, but it's a position I can respect. Thing is, people here seem to like the idea of 'no censorship', and will try to avoid speaking out against it.. but still speak against Freenet because of the CP hotbutton issue.

A little intellectual honesty is all I'm asking for.

-Laxitive

Re:Great, here come the CP trolls

[DJCF]

No offence but this has gotta be a troll. I I'm wrong, I do apologize.

First of all, like other children of the parent say, in most cases the benefits of a free (beer+speech), distributed, anonymous network outweigh the costs.

I have the right to let as many people I know understand that if they run a freenet node, they ARE aiding in the spread of child porn, that they are helping the worlds worst monsters commit their crimes. NO -- that is not a certainty. It is a possibility, maybe even a high or low probability, but it is NOT a certainty. Running a Freenet node does NOT entail that you are nessesarily aiding CP.

If you choose to support Freenet, and it's userbase, it represents a tacit approval of the material it's used to dissiminate. NO IT DOESNT. What it DOES represent is tacit approval of free speech (as you say, and I strongly agree with you, CP does not fall under this category). It does NOT represent tacit approval of CP.

Re:Great, here come the CP trolls

[KagatoLNX]

Since we're exercising our rights, I agree with your point.

After careful consideration of your point, I realize the error of my ways.

Specifically, I realize that by running a Freenet node, I would be allowing others to use it the way you've said. I would be providing support to a system that, as a whole, exploits children.

I have since determined that telephones and video cameras are used in the production of CP. I can no longer supply the phone company or video empires with the money I pay for their products, since their products are used for bad things, as well as good.

I think we should do the same to the gun manufacturers, since we all know how guns are used.

Seriously though, the technology (Freenet) does not exploit children. People exploit children. Don't ban technology because it is effective. Freenet has NEVER exploited a single child any more or less than a telephone, the US Postal Service, and the entire line of Sony Handicam(TM)'s.

You do realize that by the time the video hits whatever distribution system that it's already too late, right? If you want to protect the children...why not actually protect the children. Don't use abused children further as an excuse because you're uncomfortable with other people expressing their rights outside of some sort of central control--because that's the object of Freenet--for better (political reform) OR worse (abuse of children for profit).

Finally, realize that the First Amendment is not what it used to be. There was a time that speech and thought could not be ultimately suppressed. Given the current state of technology, I'm not sure that will be sustained. Disturbing as it may be, someday the First Amendment may not be a nod to an unsupressable reality, but it will be that last bastion between an unscrupulous bureacratic machine and individual freedoms.

Re:Great, here come the CP trolls

[zettabyte]

Everything stated below is my opinion. It is not to be mistaken for fact.

"...you can be either for or against absolute, anonymous free speech."

You hit the nail on the head. Remember, though, the bill of rights makes no guarantee to anonymity.

It's my opinion that the rule of law has to be more important than a right to anonymous free speech. If someone were to use Freenet to post pictures of two nuclear warheads, and nuke New York with one of them, and subsequently hold the country hostage, can you legitimately say their right to that 'speech' supercedes those of the millions dead and millions more threatened? I don't believe that's a reasonable position.

That the gains from proof of election fraud outweigh the losses from child porn.

You don't have a child, do you.

There has to be a balance. The right to free speech can exist with limitations. After all, you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

If you're concerned about election fraud or police brutality, run for the election board or mayor. Or do you believe the system to be so completely rigged as to prevent you from attaining those offices?

Re:Great, here come the CP trolls

[Loki_1929]

"I sure as hell have the right to decide that any computer equipment I own will NEVER help the spread of child pornography."

You sure do, and I'd advise you not to run Freenet in your case. The fact of the matter is that Freenet's security relies on everyone knowing as little as possible so as to minimize the ability of attackers to compromise anonymity. It's not the complete anonymity model, but it does simplify the equation greatly.

"I have the right to express that everytime freenet comes up. I have the right to let as many people I know understand that if they run a freenet node, they ARE aiding in the spread of child porn, that they are helping the worlds worst monsters commit their crimes."

If this were truly your goal, you would simply repost what Freenet's own site has to say on the subject. They freely admit that any content possibly attainable may, at some point, be stored on your computer. Your stated goal is false; your actual goal is to demonize something you don't understand and don't like by spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in the minds of those curious about it. If you're going to express hatred of something, try not to lie about your reasons for doing so. 'Education' isn't it.

"NAMBLA expresses their "viewpoints" on the regular internet."

A good point. You're supporting them, by the way, when you pay your ISP. Your payment partially subsidizes the upstream provider (including their hardware, bandwidth, etc) of your ISP, which in turn allows the worldwide internetwork upon which NAMBLA distributes its message worldwide to function.

See, the thing with people like you is that you like to pretend that anything new that gets misused by a small group only exists for the purposes of helping that group. You like to pretend that that group, child pornographers in this case, never existed before the birth of Freenet. Therefore, you get to toss out twisted logic in a fit of rage against Freenet; calling it a pedo network and the like. Unfortunately for your logic and the rest of the world, pedophiles and child pornographers existed before Freenet. They used the internet before Freenet existed. Do you support the internet? They continue to use it. They also existed before the internet. They distributed videos of their crimes against children as well. Do you support VHS? Prior to that, they used magazines to distribute their awful content. Do you support the printing press?

Using the logic that any technology which can be mis-used by evil-doers to facilitate their criminal acts must be banned, we'd have to drop ourselves back to the stone age. I take that back - we'd have to go back to before man existed. So long as man has used tools, a small minority has mis-used those tools to rape, torture, and kill others. Banning those tools will not make that minority go away.

What we are left with is the fact that no matter what we do, there will always be monsters in the world. Banning the technology which has already allowed groups of Chinese dissidents to openly communicate back and forth with ideas banned under penalty of death is not the answer. Banning the technology which has allowed former Scientology members to speak out about the lies, hatred, and crimes of that cult without fear of being hunted down and murdered (as several former members have been) is not the answer. This technology has the potential for substantial beneficial use. It has already shown that it, as anything else, can be used for good as well as for evil. That you ignore the good to rage against the evil shows an irrational hatred of something you do not understand.

Don't run Freenet if you don't want to. I don't care and I sure as hell know Ian Clarke doesn't care. I've met Ian, and he's a good guy. It infuriates him to no end when someone like you comes around after reading three whole sentences about Freenet and starts babbling on about how it's just there for pedophiles. Your spreading FUD and irrational rage does your argument no good. The fact of the matter is that Freenet's already proven its worth to good and decent people around the world and no one's forcing (or even asking) you to run it.

Re:Great, here come the CP trolls

[zettabyte]

I'm just asking you to be honest about it. I'm asking you to say: "I don't beleive in a censorship-free medium" if you want to oppose Freenet on the grounds that it allows CP.

Now, I'm not who you said this to, but I'll agree to say that I don't believe in a censorship-free medium.

For example, during World War II, I don't think American reporters stationed in Britain should have been allowed to say whatever they wanted.

I don't think that fertilizer truck bomb recipes should be publically available.

I don't think that 'Grow Weapons Grade Antrhax in Your Basement' should be available to the average Joe, either.

And I don't think that 'How to kidnap, rape, kill, and dispose of your neighbors 9 year old girl without getting caught.mp3' should be accessible by anyone.

What I'm trying to say is that there's a balance to what you're looking for. If you want to protect whistle-blowers, elections, DeCSS, or what have you, do so through the law. That's what they've been doing for over 200 years.

There's no quick fix to what you want (I don't think anonymous speech is the answer, as it creates it's own host of IMO significant problems). To me, it seems like you're asking for 'Anarchy of Speech', where there are no rules. I think there's a better way...

With that said, I will concede that many people significantly smarter than I have lost much more sleep over this issue and all to no avail.

Re:Great, here come the CP trolls

[KagatoLNX]

Ill conceived my arse.

Take America for instance. How many children are killed by guns each year? How many children are abused in CP each year?

The guns are just as guilty of killing children as Freenet is of creating CP.

Bottom line:

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

Over 30000 gun deaths in a year.

http://www.nch.org.uk/information/index.php?i=77&r =326

2234 Child Pornography busts in the same year.

Children abuse in real life, recordings trafficked on the Internet. Apparently that means we should suppress the technology of the internet.

Thirteen times as many people are shot the same year (even taking suicides and under-reporting of CP into account, the numbers are still overwhelming) but we settle for public service announcements. Ask any police officer in a big city, it burn you up inside finding abused children every day, but never once would they prefer to find one dead. Give a parent the same option, same answer.

Blaming the technology instead of the criminal only makes doing even reasonable things illegal and puts innocent people in jail, because, let's face it, Child Abusers will find a way to do it unless we remove every last shred of freedom, privacy. and due process from our society.

No, the issue here isn't a analogies. The issue here is the fact that some people value their speech (or their guns) and some don't. I value children's lives more than most Slashdotters, but I also understand that Child Pornography is the crime, NOT transfering files over a P2P network or communicating anonymously.

In fact, I'd say that anonymous and P2P communications might actually be two of the "rights" that the children of the future may enjoy most. If the casualties of the war on child pornography (or the war on terror for that matter) are going to be the freedoms that allow democracy to exist, there will be far more victims than we can appreciate right now.

http://www.i2p.net/

[gst]

i2p.net seems to be a better alternative. especially because it provides an overlay network. you can't just transfer files over it - you can do everything which you can do on the current net. you can even choose how "much" anonymity you would like (over how many nodes should your messages be relayed).

pooling human resources

[Anonymous Coward]

With regards to "general inability in regard to pooling human resources", I'd have to agree with the poster. I was interested in contributing to one of Ian Clarke's projects, and the whole thing was quite disorganized and rude to new comers.

I'm not going to fight with someone to help them with their project...

Same old, same old

[0123456]

I haven't tried Freenet in quite a while, but when I did use it now and again before (in the 0.3-0.5 days, AFAIR), the main problem was that they'd get a network that kind of worked, lots of people would start posting stuff, it would be usable for a few months, and then they'd break it to introduce the 'next big thing'. And it would stay broken for six months, during which time most people stopped using it.

Frankly, for Freenet to have any future, I think the developers need to get used to the idea of _not breaking it_ every six months. Otherwise the few people with the enthusiasm required to keep it operating are going to find better things to do with their time.

You can either have a research network or a viable, usable system, you can't have both. If it ever gets to a viable, usable network, I might give it a try again, but it's pointless when you can't insert anything and can barely retrieve anything.

Re:That is what happens...

[Sanity]

Nice troll, lots of accusations and insults, with not a shred of evidence.

When a self-absorbed "project leader" encounters a problem which is far beyond his skills.

Thanks for setting the tone, you don't like the project leader. I am sure we can expect this view to be carefully justified and supported in the rest of your post...

The existing system is basically unworkable and was proven to be completely useless for its main stated purpose: protecting dissidents.

I guess you are too busy making further unsubstianted claims to actually justify those you have made so far. Exactly where is this "proof"? Have you told the real life dissidents that are actually using Freenet today?

This project neeeds a serious theoretical discussion and research to determine if it is even feasible.

And let me guess, you are just the person to do it. I look forward to reading your paper.

Re:bait

[Bobdoer]

Defiantly not. Whenever Freenet's point releases have been advertised on /., Freenet slows to a crawl simply because its not designed to handle a ton of people turning it on for five minutes, saying "this sucks" and pulling the plug. It takes time for Freenet to acclimate itself to new nodes, and that amount of time is far greater than most Slashdoter's attention span.

Speed?

[Mr. Cancelled]

What many probably don't know is, that a big change is at hand

Like maybe making the thing fast enough to be usable, maybe?

You always hear the Freenet detractors talking about all the questionable content making its way to Freenet, but my question is "How the hell could you stand using Freenet long enough to view anything in the 1st place?". The thing's dead-dog slow, and I'm on a very fast broadband connection!

I love the concept, but unless this new revision brings speed to Freenet, it's a waste of time and effort to me. Secure and anonymous internet browsing is an important thing, but usability's should be just as important if they ever hope to bring this to fruition.

Is Freenet doomed to failure by design?

[Loundry]

The problem I've had in using Freenet is that they are open to any content. What this says to me is, "If you want to share terrorist information or child porn, you are welcome here."

Before you jump down my throat, please keep in mind that I know that the term "terrorist" is highly subjective. Also, I *like* the idea of being able to have my communications remain private. My relationships are my business, and I don't have to subject them to any other *human's* supervision because I don't trust that the supervisor is any more virtuous than I am.

But to create a Freenet that is completely agnostic toward content is entirely the same thing as creating a terrorist-friendly and pedophile-friendly network. That may not be the intent, but it is certainly the outcome.

And it's for that reason that I don't use Freenet. I want completely private communication, but I don't want to be lumped in with vicious creeps, either. How can Freenet or any network provide me with that? I have doubts that it's possible at all.

Re:Is Freenet doomed to failure by design?

[evanbd]

That's odd, because PGP is then "terrorist-friendly" and "pedophile-friendly," yet an awful lot of people support it (you included, I'm guessing from the bit about keeping your communications private). The problem is that if you make the network decentralized, private, and resistant to government censorship, then it seems to be the case that you have made it inherently content-agnostic and secure enough for terrorist use. Some people are willing to make that tradeoff, some aren't. But being willing to make that tradeoff for PGP but not Freenet seems... hypocritical.

Re:Is Freenet doomed to failure by design?

[0123456]

"But being willing to make that tradeoff for PGP but not Freenet seems... hypocritical."

Particularly as PGP is vastly more useful to 'terrorists' than Freenet. Why take the risk of using Freenet to distribute messages when you can just PGP-encrypt them and stick them on a floppy disk for hand delivery?

No sane 'terrorist' is going to use Freenet to communicate... they don't need to.

Re:Is Freenet doomed to failure by design?

[naasking]

But to create a Freenet that is completely agnostic toward content is entirely the same thing as creating a terrorist-friendly and pedophile-friendly network. That may not be the intent, but it is certainly the outcome.

And it's for that reason that I don't use Freenet. I want completely private communication, but I don't want to be lumped in with vicious creeps, either. How can Freenet or any network provide me with that? I have doubts that it's possible at all.

This is completely ridiculous reasoning. If you really believe this, then I suggest you turn in your computer immediately, because, guess what? Pedophiles and terrorists use computers! Do you want to start building content filters into your low-level hardware too?

Hey wait a second! Pedophiles and terrorists use doors too! Let's start putting in face recognition systems, x-ray machines and metal detectors into every door then!

Your reasoning is the very definition of the slippery slope. And this is completely ignoring the fact that filtering content is completely and utterly impossible. See steganography and crytography.

Re:Is Freenet doomed to failure by design?

[bluGill]

Depends on the goals of the terrorist.

A Terrorist who is meeting another in person (this includes walking by an secretly exchanging floppies when the 'accidentally' bump into each other) will use pgp because it is the best solution. They already know the keys to use, so encryption is just a way to save themselves from dropping the disk.

A terrorist looking to recruit someone in the target country needs some way to tell everyone the message without getting caught. (of course they still need a message that only those interested in becoming a terrorist will understand, while the police will not. Such a message is left as an exercise to the reader)

A terrorist who wishes to make a public threat needs something anonymous.

Remember one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Think of Tibet for example.

Response on Freenet website

[Sanity]

Ah yes, The Register, bastion of quality tech journalism, where a two year old known issue is an "Exclusive!!!" ;-)

FYI - there is a short response to this article on the Freenet website.

Re:Newsbyte is a well known troll

[Sanity]

And his network actually works. Now. As far as I'm concerned, it's the phoenix rising in the ashes of Freenet.

I2P is a cool project, but it is doing something rather different to Freenet. The next version of Freenet actually seeks to solve one of the core problem affecting all anonymity systems, including both the current Freenet, Tor, I2P, and others, which is that of "harvesting" nodes. If the Chinese government can, with relative ease, obtain a list of all nodes in your network - then you have problems. Freenet is the only one of these projects actually making headway on this.

Now it may well be that Freenet does the pioneering work on this, and it is then adopted by other projects, as has happened with many of Freenet's innovations - and that would be fine. Freenet is happy to be a R&D lab for anonymity ideas so long as they enrich the options available to the entire anonymity community.

Re:Newsbyte is a well known troll

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

How so? If I'm connected to 3-5 trusted friends, each of whom is also connected to 3-5 friends, that can turn into a globe-spanning network given a reasonable number of hops.

Great idea! Now, just dump the freenet middleman, run openvpn tunnels to those 3-5 friends, route IPv4 the way it's been done for the last 20 years, and we can have a true layer3 network!

Need market changes, not subterfuge

[Pedrito]

We need the market to change to make trading TV shows, movies, and music legal. This article yesterday is a perfect example of tackling the problem from the right direction.

Just trying to hide it will only invite further problems and frankly, the idea of being unable to avoid contributing to the spreading of child pornography bothers me a lot more than the MPAA and RIAA going after people illegally trading copyrighted material.

What we need is for the RIAA, MPAA, or some organization(s) that will eventually supplant them to find a financially viable market in open, distributed file sharing. A solution that makes everyone happy and doesn't contribute to child pornography.

I am convinced that this is possible. If the MPAA and RIAA can't figure out a way to make money doing it, someone else will and the MPAA and RIAA will eventually die off. Evolution: Adapt or die off. Wasn't there an article on that over the weekend as well?

Who is the Troll?

[Famatra]

"(Newsbyte) is a known troll who doesn't actually contribute to the project."

Really, and attacking his character instead of his statements makes you...what then?

I really hate to get into a debate about character, since I prefer to judge a statement on its own terms since it seems to be a statement's truth is independent of the speaker, but Newsbyte runs the freenethelp.org webpage. He's not some loner retard coming out of left field, he seems to have large issues with the (lack of) progress Freenet has taken over these past few years. Hopefully this will stimulate something in Freenet, but many people have long since moved on to other anonymous p2p projects.

This conversation really should have taken place a few years ago, but I think it did (October 1.5 years ago actually) when people wanted to fork it and go back to a working model. I look at MUTE and see all the forks and side projects, or BT with all its forks and side projects, but has Freenet had any forks? It does not look vibrant any more, and defiantly not in comparison to current anonymous p2p application development in my opinion. Too bad really, although this new idea of Freenet's looks interesting, enough to try it they've little to lose.

Re:IF by legal you mean NOT ILLEGAL ...

[atomm1024]

"Not only that, this program benefits China and 'the Middle East' according to the site. Sorry, I'm not 'down' with a program that caters to communists and terrorists."

Are you ignorant, or are you just flamebaiting? Freenet benefits those who work *against* China's oppressive government or terror-supporting Middle Eastern regimes.

Or is everybody in China a Communist/fascist, and everybody in the Middle East a terrorist?

Freenet caters to anybody who has something to say. It doesn't know or care, for example, whether that speech is supporting or attacking terrorism, or whether it's defending or opposing the government of China. Freenet helps information be free, but whether or not Freenet exists, the information still does.

My opinions about Freenet

[N3wsByt3]

As I expected, I'm getting viled and praised at the same time. Some call me courageous, some call me a troll.

Well, I don't care either way, as long as people give valid arguments for why my claims in my post are untrue. Alas, few who refute what I say by claiming I'm a troll even try. But, of course, even if I *was* a troll, then still it says nothing about the arguments I made. The tactic of depicting the speaker as an idiot, troll, etc, and thus what he says as being untrue neither, is a well known falacy.

I find it humorous that Ian, in this slasdot thread, says I'm a troll because 'look; he's never provided one line of code to Freenet'...which proves to me he didn't even do the trouble of reading my blog, because that's exactly what I point out in my blog: if you aren't a coder, and don't contribute code, one isn't worth much in the eyes of Ian, whatever one may have done in support as a non-coder.

So, I'm a troll because I've never provided code and I dare to criticise? Wow. Even now, he doesn't see where the problem lies, instead he portrays exactly the attitude that I describe. But still, while I have troubles with the way he manages Freenet, I still think he has had (and still has) some good ideas - something which is important too. I could call him a 'troll' as well, and thus shrug off everything he says, but I'd rather see arguments, especially about the topics that I've raised. But, chances are, I'll be waiting for a very long time; it's much easier to call me a troll, after all.

That said, my opinion of Freenet, as a concept, is still high. People should not make a mistake about that; being all for free speech, I can't else then see any way of making it possible for all people to speak their mind unafraid as something unbelievable valuable. So, it's not Freenet itself that I have a problem with, it's the current way in which it is managed and developed - and I don't say that just out of the blue; I argument it and give examples of it on my blog.

As yet, 'troll' is the most advanced reply I received from the founder. I don't know: maybe I was the wrong person to tell this. Clearly, his bias towards me prevents him from arguing rationally about the points I brought up.

It's true, that sometimes, my blog is a bit harsh, but then again, after seeing and experiencing several years of people being ignored because they are no coders, one gets a bit annoyed by it.

Anyway, maybe Freenet WILL go in the right direction, perhaps... or maybe it will be surpassed by systems like I2P. But, I can bet one thing: its succes or failure won't be determined just by the code.

Freedom of speech is absolute.

[elucido]

There should be no restrictions on speech. Look, if someone puts child porn on the internet THEY are the ones who should be put in jail, the people who actually took the pictures and abused the child, put them in prison. People who just look at the pictures, this is putting people in jail for a thought crime. There is a difference.

Free speech does not have to be limited for law enforcement purposes, are we in China now? You should have the ability to annonymously say whatever you want as long as its not harming anyone. What you are saying is that by somehow stopping the distribution of childporn that you somehow cure the child of the abuse and thats BS. The child is already abused, so what you really mean is anyone who sees the abuse should go to jail? or do you mean anyone who talks about the abuse? you see where this can go? They could make it illegal just to describe child porn with text if you don't protect freedom of speech. If they can limit child porn speech then its easy to limit any other kinda speech and all freedom is lost.

So how much freedom is too much? It's not freedom to harm a child, its freedom of speech to talk about it. This means no child should ever be harmed, raped or any of that, but the moment you start putting people in jail for talking about it, then something is wrong. What would stop the government from putting people in jail for talking about communism?

Re:Freedom of speech is absolute.

[Winkhorst]

What you are conveniently forgetting is that the folks who look at the child porn are creating the market for it. Without them, there would be none. All the rest of your sophistry is just that--sophistry.

Re:Freedom of speech is absolute.

[Money for Nothin']

What you are conveniently forgetting is that the folks who look at the child porn are creating the market for it. Without them, there would be none.

Oh great, somebody who subscribes to Keyne's Law (the flipped version of Say's Law), a.k.a. "demand creates its own supply."

You're looking at the problem from the demand-side, not supply-side. Low supply = unfilled demand = high price.

Analogize the problem of child porn to the problem of the drug trade. We've attacked the demand-side (users) for decades. Result? Half of our entire prison population is made up of non-violent offenders found posessing pot, crowding out more-worthy offenders (rapists, pedos, murderers, etc.). It's been as much a failure as the Prohibition that preceded it.

Going after the source hasn't been much more effective, but we have at various times managed to drive up the price of (for instance) heroin -- like when we went to war in Afghanistan a few years ago (Afghanistan's primary export, at something like 65% of GDP, was heroin). Going after the supply has been scarcely more-effective, but it is certainly more effective than going after the demand, because the suppliers are more centralized and less-numerous than the demanders are.

That is, supply-to-demand in any market is almost always a few-to-many relationship.

So it is with legal adult porn, and (I would guess) child porn as well... A few twisted kid-fiddlers peddling their wares to a larger audience which has a taste for it. Hence, we ought to go after the producers of child porn, cut an arm, and string them upside-down by their toes over a pool of hungry sharks.

In truth, both the supply and demand sides are a problem. As anywhere else in the economy, both must work in tandem to produce results; one cannot exist without the other. Supply doesn't necessarily create its own demand (look at the various e-commerce sites of the late 1990s that collapsed due to a stupid product/service), and demand doesn't necessarily create its own supply (everybody would like an extra $1 million in their bank accounts by tomorrow morning, but there's no way in hell that's going to be supplied (barring utterly *absurd* inflation)).

But going after the demand-side has been a proven failure time-and-again in virtually any other analogous case... Hence, I say the supply side -- like the root of any plant -- is ultimately the side that needs to be worked-against the most.

What's the implication then for Freenet? How about that the demanders of child porn who use Freenet are (or ought to be) less-culpable than the suppliers who insert child porn into the encrypted data stores of the users' nodes worldwide, giving Freenet a bad rap among the non-Freenet-using populace just because the project promotes absolute freedom-of-expression (and, although it's logically-fallacious to do so, giving a bad rap to absolute freedom-of-expression generally)?

Yeah but if China did this then we'd have a fit

[elucido]

China does this kinda stuff all the time. Free speech is free speech. Child porn may not be the speech I like, but I don't think we have a right to outlaw speech we don't like, otherwise theres a lot of political speech which could be outlawed as well. This can easily be taken too far and I think that there should be absolutely no possibility for thought crimes to exist. We should never even allow the laws to be configured in a way which allows for the possibility of thought crimes.

Look, I don't want children to be abused, but controlling speech wont stop children from being abused. This is equal to saying "It's illegal to think about or talk about kiddie porn". It should be illegal to CREATE kiddie porn. Thats wrong, because the child is being abused. Talking about it isnt abusing anyone, and a lot of people are more abused than the average child porn victim on the internet by internet bullies. Remember the star wars kid who become suicidal after his video was put all over the internet? Are we going to arrest everyone who ever downloaded or distributed that video?

Re:Another Analogy

[rpresser]

/Some things *are* beyond the pale and I would suspect that most rational humans would agree that at the very least coerced child pr0n is one of those cases./

I would argue that using the expression "beyond the pale" is an attitude that specifically means one is *not* rational about the thing being discussed. (I myself am also not rational about child pr0n, in the same way as I infer you are.) A rational response to the concept of coerced child pr0n is not to say it is beyond the pale; it is to point out the specific harm being done to specific underage individuals, and require appropriate punishment or restitution (if it was even possible). A rational response, however, is not necessarily going to be tolerated by most human beings - if you try to argue rationally about this topic, you will likely be shouted out, ostracised, and possibly beaten.

But that's the way humans are. We are not rational about everything, and we never will be; it's probably part of our success story. The important thing is to be careful which topics about which irrationality will be excused/condoned. When members of your society respond to your badmouthing the President in the same way they respond to your defending a child-rapist, it's time (past time) to get more rational.

Don't run the internet either.

[elucido]

If you use the internet you are aiding terrorists who may be on the same ISP, You are aiding communists, you are aiding liberals or conservatives. You are aiding child pornographers who use the same ISP as you.