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.
Don't we already know John Markoff's tactics all too well?
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
If anyone can give actual provable examples of the US government abridging Constitutionally protected free speech, I'd love to hear it.
Alien and Sedition Acts, specifically the Sedition Acts. From wikipeida:
The Sedition Act made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against government or government officials.
I think that qualifies.
It's clearly impossible in the US to criticize the government
That depends. Is your wife a CIA agent?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
This act long ago expired in 1802. I imagine that the grandparent poster meant something a little more recent. :-)
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.
You know, things like that used to piss me off. Then someone laid it out for me.
If you have a group, say the Republicans, trying to have a meeting. Then another group, say PETA, wants to protest. The city says that PETA can have a protest, but it must be a few blocks away from the Republicans.
What right to peacibly assemble has been infringed?
None.
The guys at PETA want to disrupt the Republican's right to assemble. Not the other way around. By seperating the groups, everyone can assemble and no one has their rights removed; either by the government or by each other.
Now, you can be an anarchast and claim that anyone should be able to assemble at anytime, but that'd just lead to chaos. The Republicans would be trying to talk while the PETA guys are yelling. The PETA guys would get their asses stomped by the Republican rednecks. Someone would kill a dog or eat a steak just for show. It'd be terrible.
Seperating the groups does not mean that anyone's right to speech has been removed.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
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