Slashdot Mirror
New "Dark" Freenet Available for Testing
Sanity writes "The Freenet Project has just released the first alpha version of the much anticipated Freenet 0.7 branch. This is a major departure from past approaches to peer-to-peer network design, embracing a 'scalable darknet' architecture, where security is increased by allowing users to limit which other peers their peer will communicate with directly, rather than the typical 'promiscuous' approach of classic P2P networks. This means that not only does Freenet aim to prevent others from finding out what you are doing with Freenet, it makes it extremely difficult for them to even know that you are running a Freenet node at all. This is not the first P2P application to use this approach, other examples include Waste, however those networks are limited to just a few users, while Freenet can scale up almost indefinitely. The new version also includes support for NAT hole-punching, and has an API for third-party tool development. As always, the Freenet team are asking that people support the development of the software by donating."
You can also use TOR.
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
Well, it is not a foolproof solution, but you can try using TOR: The Onion Router (http://tor.eff.org/). It will act as a random daisy-chain of proxies that pass all the information (except for the final hop) encrypted.
Failing that, you could always buy a laptop/PDA/etc. and a cheap wifi card and connect to random WAPs using a spoofed MAC address.
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
>I wish there was a way that I could view websites without giving any IP or client information
Anonymizer.com, cotse, and many others.
There's some loss of functionality. For example if you have Java turned on then a remote web site can grab your IP even through a proxy. So you have to turn off Java, and Anonymizer disables Javascript as well.
One should note that Tor won't attempt to hide the fact that you're running a node
On 31 Mar 2006, at 20:08:
> This isn't about *technical* support, I just wanted to tell Matthew
> thanks
> for working on this project. The US government is really scaring
> me and
> I'm glad someone's working on this. You're doing a great job man.
>
> One question I have is that the paypal balance on the home page
> usually
> says something like a few hundred $, and I was wondering if it's
> actually
> generating the required $2300 per month, or if it's falling short.
> I've
> had a monthly donation set up for quite a while now, and I just
> want to
> make sure everything is going well financially for the project.
We have been fortunate enough to generate just about enough to pay
for Matthew for the past few years, but donations have been tailing
off as we haven't put out any new releases in quite a while due to
our work on 0.7, and the financial situation is actually quite
precarious just now.
Our hope is that with the 0.7 alpha release we will get some
donations, but if anyone can contribute, now would really be the time
(as there can be no guarantee that the 0.7 alpha release will
generate the level of publicity we have seen for previous releases).
Ian.
There is always one of you per Freenet discussion.
I've used Freenet off and on for a number of years and I don't see much churn in the number of free sites. The most active free sites tend to be FLOGs (Blogs on Freenet). Many of the sites in Freenet have been there since what seems like the beginning of time. There are new ones added (like someone mentioned the Diebold files), but they tend to not be kiddie porn.
Here's an idea... run a node, access the non-kiddie porn content, post your own content, and use the network. The network is changed by observing it, so by accessing non-kiddie porn, you are encouraging it to be replicated across the network, while also making the kiddie porn hard to find.
Andrew
In this new Freenet, network connections only pass through a select few friends, but the routing layer hides this - files are globally available, as they used to be. You've misunderstood the protocol design.
Also, you've even misunderstood the "select few friends" thing. It's not that you can exclude people. It's that you have to actively include people - and you have to have their permission first.
An analogy would be: passing messages between people by telling a trusted friend, he tells his trusted friend, and so on until it reaches the destination.