Freenet Version 0.7 Release Candidate 1 Available

apostle5406 writes to mention that the "Freenet" project (a global peer-to-peer publishing network) has unveiled their first release candidate. "Freenet 0.7 is a ground-up rewrite of Freenet. The key user-facing feature in Freenet 0.7 is the ability to operate Freenet in a "darknet" mode, where your Freenet node will only talk to other Freenet users that you trust. This makes it much more difficult for an adversary to discover that you are using Freenet, let alone what you are doing with it. 0.7 also includes significant improvements to both security and performance."

Comments

Re:Pedophiles

[paganizer]

It is a fabrication.
I've been using freenet for a long, long, log time, since 0.3 was freshly released.
The truth is that Pedophiles do NOT use Freenet 0.7; it's insecure, and their identity would be too easily compromised.
This means it's also not smart for whistle blowers, activists, freedom fighters, or anyone else to trust it's anonymity & privacy. You seize the computer of one Darknet user, and all the members of that darknet are compromised. other insecurities abound.
A good rule of thumb; if Pedophiles can use a system with impunity, it's probably safe to talk about your boss ripping off the government.
Freenet 0.5 is still active, still has thousands (at least) of users, and is still private and anonymous; the only thing anyone can say about a user without using a keylogger is that they are, indeed, a user. and thats not necessarily easy to say with total certainty.
Freenet is either going to have Pedo's and other sick farks, or it's anonymous & private; you can't have both.

Re:Pedophiles

[paganizer]

"Freenet is either going to have Pedo's and other sick farks, or it's anonymous & private; you can't have both."

note to self: use the frakking preview button!!

try "Freenet is either going to have Pedo's and other sick farks, or it's NOT anonymous or private; you can't have it both ways"

Re:Pedophiles

[Jugalator]

Yes, we could do all these things, but we won't, because this thread is about Freenet, and therefore it will be heavily modded by people who are fans of Freenet. Ironically enough, Freenet users on Slashdot have shown unlimited willingness to use moderation to silence opposing points of view. How do I know? Because this isn't the first time I've sacrificed karma by trying to make a skeptical post about Freenet in slashdot comments on a Freenet story. It's usually not about what you post, but how you post.

Anyway, yes, obviously there are a number of pedophiles around there. After all, Freenet is a fairly successful anonymizing network. But thanks to this property, it can be immensely useful to other people as well. I'm not sure what can be done about that problem, if anything. Once it starts being monitored to screen the child porn, everything else will be screened too, and those doing the screening will likely only be mere humans that may choose to censor other material as well. And then everything is lost. Anonymizing properly seem to be a bit of an all or nothing deal, just like there is no such thing as a "little" freedom. Either you have it, or you don't.

I guess in the end, it is a fairly simply philosophical matter. A question on whether a person is willing to risk supporting something that's criminal in most parts of the world for other things the person believes in or not.

Re:Pedophiles

[PopeRatzo]

Unfortunately, a secure, private, anonymous network will draw people doing nasty things.

That does not make it any less necessary for our future freedom.

Remember, privacy does the same thing: it allows people to do bad things. That doesn't mean we give up our privacy, just because people will do bad things privately.

At some point, pedophiles (and other bad actors) have to stick their heads above ground in order to satisfy their urges. That's where they should be met and stopped.

I think it's safe to say that any communication medium that is secure, private and anonymous will be accused of harboring the "bad guy du jour" whether it's terrorists, pedophiles or soon, file sharers. It doesn't matter whether this accusation is true or not, because those with power are going to make the accusations regardless. If our world is to be governed by a tiny group of rich and powerful people, preventing personal security, privacy and anonymity is a matter of survival.

That's why we have to support Freenet and other such tools. Plus, it's a great way of flushing out the tyrants: Just look at whomever is originating the claim that such a tool is full of "pedophiles, terrorists, gay priests, etc etc".

Remember, child pornography can be sent in a sealed envelope. Should we abolish the sealing of envelopes? It's been tried elsewhere. You can bet that shutting down Freenet or any other secure anonymous mode of communication will do absolutely nothing to eliminate pedophilia and other perversions from the face of the Earth.

You'd have better luck locking up all the priests (and Republicans). [note: I'm just kidding... .. about the priests.]

Re:Pedophiles

[amRadioHed]

I guess in the end, it is a fairly simply philosophical matter. A question on whether a person is willing to risk supporting something that's criminal in most parts of the world for other things the person believes in or not. Speaking for myself, my opposition to child pornography has nothing to do with its legal status. I support some things that are currently illegal and I oppose some things that are currently legal. My personal morals are not linked to the whims of lawmakers.

I am not interested in running a freenet node because despite its potential for good the reality is that the chances that my actions will actually accomplish any good are vanishingly small while it's almost a certainty that I would be aiding the distribution of harmful material. There are other ways to support free speech without also compromising my belief in not causing harm to others.