Slashdot Mirror
Ian Clarke and Freenet in the Crosshairs
EMIce writes "John Markoff of the New York Times writes of Ian, "Though he says his aim is political - helping dissidents in countries where computer traffic is monitored by the government, for example - Mr. Clarke is open about his disdain for copyright laws, asserting that his technology would produce a world in which all information is freely shared. ... Now, however, Mr. Clarke is taking a fresh approach, stating that his goal is to protect political opponents of repressive regimes." Wasn't freenet originally about dissent? Mr. Markoff appears to be re-writing a history that he probably only knows through a handful of lexis-nexis searches." Update: 08/01 18:32 GMT by T : Ian Clarke wrote to point out his comment posted to the story which lays out the actual subject of his Defcon talk.
"The classic use for Freenet would be for a group of political dissidents in China, or even in the United States."
Yeah.
Because the United States and China are so similar when it comes to oppressing free speech and jailing political dissidents. It's clearly impossible in the US to criticize the government, or even have imagery of the president with a bullet hole in his head on the tob banner of your web site.
If anyone can give actual provable examples of the US government abridging Constitutionally protected free speech, I'd love to hear it.
(Note: traveling to Afghanistan, training in Taliban camps, and planning to blow up buildings in downtown Chicago with radiological dirty bombs is not "free speech".)
If you're looking for trampling of free speech, you needn't look to the government; you need only look no further than our own academic institutions.
Don't we already know John Markoff's tactics all too well?
It's too late for that, the internet is designed to not being able to be shut down...
They talked about Usenet in the article. The fact is that Usenet news is still very much alive and there are tons of copyrighted material floating around on it. There's also lots of legitimately published stuff too. Does anyone know of any efforts by RIAA and others to shut it down? ISP's have been carrying the alt.binaries.* groups for as long as I can remember. Have there been any legal challenges to that?
You got any karma man? I really neeed it. Just a little hit! Come on!
In order to accurately discuss Scientology you need access to documents they claim are copyrighted and sell only at extornist prices. Open informed discussion brings lawsuits.
Yet free speech via Freenet brings charges that it is just a method used to violate copyrights.
How do you reconcile these two, divergent views?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Truth is, the U.S. is probably locked down a bit tighter than China these days. Does China have one of these? Through Echelon and the Patriot act, you can say the wrong thing and have nice black suits show up within 24 hours to take you away without a warrant, hold you indefinitely without a trial and completely ignore any constitutionaly protected rights you think you might have.
That is America today and some people are not so happy about it. People like Ian are sticking their necks out and being good Americans. You aren't trying to tell us he's not a PATRIOT are you?
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
Whenever freenet pops up in any discussion, there are two points discussed.
* Child porn
* Political propoganda
These are two of the untouchable evils that are used to condemn Freenet. The rest of the world really doesn't see the point of an organized data store distributed accross machines based on constancy of use.
After all, political dissidents are an essential measure of the health of a country. One with too little or too much of those indicate either fascism or anarchy. Democracy essentially says that the minorities shall not get what they want (ie the minority is defined as people who voted for something other than the majority) - it should technically have some disgruntled citizens. If you believe otherwise, please stop buying more shiny things.
Anyway, like I like to say "Technology is a sword, both sides use and misuse it". And the essential sarcastic comment about "Freenet can be used for terrorist communications".
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
The writeup isn't confusing...the article itself is, and purposefully so.
From TFA: In the second sentence, Mr. Markoff insinuated that the original purpose of Freenet wasn't to protect political opponents of repressive regimes, when in fact Freenet's stated purpose was always, and still is, to combat censorship.
In other words, Mr Markoff is intentionally distorting established history for his own ends, but given his history, that's not too surprising.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Freenet's not really something you can just start up like eMule or BitTorrent (exeem, azureus(spelt) etc), but it is designed from an 'always on' perspective... If you left it on for at least a couple of days and allowed it to get to know other (reliable) nodes, you would notice it is considerably faster when the network is in a working state..... Even though it does have a sort of 'load and go non-permanenet' mode, it does take ages to get it to do sod all. Have patience, and if you've not got any of that ;) then join the mailing list and complain! :)
"So anyone have any anecdotal examples of were Freenet has actually helped any Dissidents?"
That's a tough one, since the absence of evidence is the entire point of the system.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
This article doesn't seem to be about Clark. What Markoff appears to be saying is that the struggle corporations have with "protecting" copyrighted material is similar to the challenges repressive governments face with censorship. Tools such as Freenet challenge both. Advocates like Clark typically find themselves disagreeing with corporations and governments. Communication technology and individual liberty makes no distinction between information. /.'s should already know this well.
If you're going to let anyone onto the network, you may be letting undercover government agents onto the network.
If you're going to transmit data from point A to point B, points A and B have to know something that makes the other unique among all possible points.
If you're going to make the network 100% anonymous and available, it'll get blocked by administrators afraid it will be abused, like Tor.
When freenet becomes common enough, government and industry will have to resort to Old Fashioned Police work, trying to trick file sharers into trusting them, then exploiting that trust in an investigation. I have no doubt that we will see that for highly objectionable content, such as child porn and terrorist communications. It won't be worth it for infringement cases, though.
The real question is whether the courts will be bold enough to make the technology unlawful based on the widespread criminal uses that are sure to develop. Stay tuned.
Didn't you learn anything here?
/. mods to understand sarcasm, you'll have to clearly mark your comments as being sarcastic.
In order for
That way, at least some of them will understand what you are trying to say.
So please, the next time around, put [sarcasm] tags around your post, followed by a short disclaimer that your post is indeed intended to be sarcastic and maybe add a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm for good measure.
Hope this helps.
(voluntary disclosure: I am a practicing Catholic in full communion with the see of Peter, and a Canadian citizen)
I've actually thought about this a bit myself - partly about the Scientology problem, partly about the fact that copyright law makes it essentially impossible to post complete, up-to-date copies of Catholic liturgical texts and such online. I would be inclined to suggest the following:
Any "official" sacred writing or liturgical text of any religious group, or any translation thereof, is automatically in the public domain.
(From a Catholic context, this would include Scripture itself, the contexts of the "official" liturgical books - the Missal, the Breviary, the Ritual, etc. - and other similar materials published by the Church herself, possibly including the Catechism of the Catholic Church. For other religious entities, I don't know enough about the details to comment in an informed manner.)
Now, this would in many ways solve the whole Scientology problem. If they are a religious group, then all these texts they're trying to protect would be public-domain, and so they couldn't suppress public dissemination and discussion of them using copyright law. If they insist on protecting these texts under copyright, then they're no longer a religious entity, but a business, and that opens them up to government legislation.
In other notes we have violations of due process in the case of Jose Padilla and other U.S. Citizens. For example Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." Which requires jury trials for those accused not secret military tribunals. Amendments V and VI also speak to this subject:
And before you jump on the point I would point out that the Military Tiribunals are not being convened against members of the U.S. Military ('
In service in war or in time of public danger') so that clause of Amendment V doesn't give carte Blanche for them.
On another note both the USAPATRIOT act and various federal laws dealing with drugs routinely allow for the unwarranted search and seizure of private property in some cases such property is not returned even when no conviction takes place. This would be (IMHO) a violation of Amendment IV of the constitution which states:
While we're on the topic of drugs. Excessive punishments and jail times have routinely been employed in this area noteably including California's 3-strikes policy which leads to life in prison even for 3 minor crimes (any 3 frauds including possession). Agasin in my opinion this would be a severe issue with Amendment VIII:
As a key point I would also mention this amendment:
From the Wayback Machine archive of May 2000:
Another page from the Wayback Machine:
Freenet's political goal isn't revisionist history. Implying that it's intended for copyright infringement is.
While False information is generally covered as Slander or Libel "Scandalous" and "Malicious" wiritng is simply anything oppositional to the current govenrment. That includes almost all politicial speech except that desired by the current officeholders. This would include all of the Clinton-Bashing that was published during his office (some of which included unfounded accusations). The same would be true of any and all things critical of the bush administration including news reports of their manipulating WMD evidence.
This new design for Freenet is different, it is a globally scalable invite-only Darknet. Oskar Sandberg and Ian Clarke have developed a method to route messages through a "fixed links" P2P network in a scalable way. This is non-trivial as most scalable P2P search algorithms (such as that previously employed in Freenet, and other Distributed HashTable algorithms) rely on being able to choose which peers are connected to each-other. Its like trying to create signposts for a gigantic maze in an entirely decentralised way.
We hope to make a paper describing this available through the Freenet website in the next few days.
-Ian
The question is when does free speech go to far?
Someone complained that about the preventing protests too close to the president. How do they feel on limiting how close protesters can be to abortion clinics? Another talks about how valuable hiding you identity is when you speak but how do they feel about Microsoft funding studies about Linux? I have seen people post that allowing kiddie porn is a price they are willing to pay for free speech. If I had the home address and phone number of someone that was unpopular on Slashdot should I have the right to post it? Should I have the right to lie about them?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Abstract:
It has become apparent that the greatest threat toward the survival of peer to peer, and especially file sharing, networks is the openness of the peers themselves towards strangers. So called "darknets" - encrypted networks where peers connect directly only to trusted friends - have been suggested as a solution to this. Some, small-scale darknet implementations such a Nullsofts WASTE have already been deployed, but these share the problem that peers can only communicate within a small neighborhood.
Utilizing the small world theory of Watts and Strogatz, Jon Kleinbergs algorithmic observations, and our own experience from working with the anonymous distributed data network Freenet, we explore methods of using the dynamics of social networks to find scalable ways of searching and routing in a darknet. We discuss how the results indicating the human relationships really form a "small world", allow for ways of restoring to the darknet the characteristics necessary for efficient routing. We illustrate our methods with simulation results.
This is, to our knowledge, the first time a model for building peer to peer networks that allow for both peer privacy and global communication has been suggested. The deployment of such networks would offer great opportunities for truly viable peer to peer networks, and a very difficult challenge to their enemies.
Blog Entry:
I started the Freenet Project in 1998 with the goal of building a network for truly free communication, and of all the things we have learned since then, perhaps the most salient is that the biggest threats to P2P networks come not from without, but from within the network itself. This is something that the current file sharing networks are now learning the hard way, with those organizations who wish to stop them now infiltrating the networks to sue individual users for providing certain files. And while Freenet has always been designed to protect the identity and security of people who access and publish information from attackers and prying eyes, it's design has never been able to protect the identity of people who operate nodes in the network from one another.
Recently Oskar, who was one of the original contributors to the project and who is now working on his PhD in Mathematics, and I have been discussing the mathematical mechanics behind large scale networks. As a part of this discussion it dawned on us, that because science now believes that human relationships really do form a "small world" (between any two of us, there are only six degrees of separation), with the right algorithms it should be possible to find data fast even in a network where peers only ever talk to peers that they already know and trust. We believe our methods for doing this provide to key to making peer-to-peer networks that are both dark and searchable: secure and efficient. For those who wish to constrain the free flow of information, such networks could be the biggest nightmare of all...