After 3 Years, Freenet 0.7 Released

evanbd writes "After over 3 years of work, the Freenet Project has announced the release of Freenet 0.7. 'Freenet is software designed to allow the free exchange of information over the Internet without fear of censorship, or reprisal. To achieve this Freenet makes it very difficult for adversaries to reveal the identity, either of the person publishing, or downloading content' ... 'The journey towards Freenet 0.7 began in 2005 with the realization that some of Freenet's most vulnerable users needed to hide the fact that they were using Freenet, not just what they were doing with it. The result of this realization was a ground-up redesign and rewrite of Freenet, adding a "darknet" capability, allowing users to limit who their Freenet software would communicate with to trusted friends.'"

Comments

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles.

[Anonymous Coward]

A new and improved way to share that child pornography! More congratulations are in order for the powers that be. They have managed to convince a large segment of the population that the only consequence of anonymous communication on the internet is the proliferation of child porn. The citizens are now ready and willing to be tracked and logged.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles.

[Hyppy]

Is that the only use you can think of for this? Is this just a hopeless attempt at trolling? Is your world view so ethnocentric that you don't realize how censorship affects people?

Here's a quick list of situations or people off the top of my head that could benefit from this:

- Citizens of a government which controls information flow (China, Kuwait, etc)
- Investigative journalists releasing stories (Judith Miller, anyone?)
- Leaking protected or damaging information (Wikileaks has been shown to be vulnerable)

If all you can think about is "OmG teh CHILDRENS!!111", then something is seriously wrong with you.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles.

[Anonymous Coward]

More congratulations are in order for the powers that be. They have managed to convince a large segment of the population that the only consequence of anonymous communication on the internet is the proliferation of child porn. The citizens are now ready and willing to be tracked and logged.

It's a signal-to-noise ratio problem, and what constitutes signal (or noise) is a function of what the authorities are looking for.

In China, Freenet is a tool used by traitors to pass destabilizing messages (to the PRC, that's signal) back and forth, hiding in a sea of American child porn (to the PRC, that's noise).

In the USA, Freenet is a tool used by pedophiles to pass disgusting images back and forth (to the FBI, that's signal), hiding in a sea of "Free Tibet" and "Falun Gong" emails (to the FBI, that's noise).

Unfortunately, since the network is designed that you can't host one without hosting the other, neither is a particularly advisable thing to have on your network, no matter where you live.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX

[grub]

Have you actually seen Freenet? The only purpose it's pretty much used for is the exchange of the worst crimes of humanity.

With Freenet you have to actively look for what you want. If you found "the worst crimes of humanity" it's because you were looking for them in the first place.

Re:Exchanging gas ovens?

[jesdynf]

You know, I never thought about it before... but why is it necessary to compare "rape" and "murder" and decide which of the two are worse?

Both are supremely unacceptable acts, full stop. The hypothetical question asked doesn't seem very realistic. "I would choose neither." "NO! What if you had to choose... because you're on a bus! And a madman would blow up the bus if you didn't choose, or it slowed down!" I'm not feeling it.

I'm not prepared to agree that killing N people is better or worse than raping N people, and that's before I even GET to the part where we bring up the religion thing. What if you *raped* N people for religion, but then killed N others just because you're a jerk? How does that stack up? And what if you double-parked because you wanted to make it harder for someone to drive away, thereby increasing the energy they expended and hastening, ever so slightly, the end of the universe? And you just raped N people to produce delicious candy? Hard to call that one, I tell you.

Re:Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Hosts

[Sanity]

but if my computer is hosting content, I should have the freedom to choose what that content is

If you have the ability to choose what you host or don't host, then you become responsible for it. Its a bit like the concept of a "common carrier" in US telecommunications law. Freenet gives you freedom by preventing you from censoring the content you host. Its a feature, not a bug.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute

If not, then who gets to choose what speech is permissible?

Re:Seriously?

[Sanity]

You have freedom of speech, but not freedom to make other's repeat your free speech.

So you don't mind if your ISP blocks your access to websites they don't like, or drop emails they disagree with? Freenet users choose to give up the right to control your speech on Freenet. In doing so, they protect themselves from responsibility for what you say.

Additionally, it's already been established that certain things (like the child porn example I used), are NOT protected by free speech.

Yes, but what measures are tolerable to prevent it? Do you mind if all your mail is read by the government just in-case it contains child porn?

The same goes for certain other types of expression such as yelling FIRE in a crowded theater when there is none.

Common misconception, this is perfectly legal in the US ever since the Brandenburg v Ohio case in 1969.

The founding fathers recognized this fact and realised that government was a necessary evil that by it's very definition restricts or moderates certain natural rights. In a total anarchy you would be absolutely correct, but we do not live in one.

That is a Strawman argument. Just because I believe that governments shouldn't be permitted to monitor and control communication doesn't mean you believe we shouldn't have governments at all.

Re:Seriously?

[Sanity]

Talk about a strawman arguement! ISP's do not have the same rights as individuals.

ISPs are corporations, and at least in the US, corporations do have the same rights as individuals. Anyway, you are missing my point. Common carrier status is a bargain, the ISPs give up the right to censor content, but in doing so they aren't held responsible for that content. Freenet users make the same bargain. If you don't like that bargain, don't use Freenet, but many people do like that bargain.

I was pointing out that rights can be moderated by goverment, by design.

Yes, but the founders recognized that speech was special, because speech is integral to the democratic process, and if a government can control speech, then they can manipulate the process through which they are regulated by the citizenry. We believe that governments should have no right to regulate speech because then they can short-circuit the democratic process.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX

[evanbd]

You use it because you're curious, or want to support free speech. Adding to the userbase and content available helps the network grow, and helps those who actually need it. There are plenty of people who need it or think they need it even though their government isn't out to get them -- for example, there's at least one freesite by a victim of abuse who doesn't appear to be particularly comfortable talking about it in other forums. There are also plenty of conspiracy theorists who seem to think they need it -- I think they're wrong, but who knows? Not for me to judge. I'm sure there are some people using it as a route for "normal" copyright infringement that's secure from the RIAA et al, though that usage is discouraged.