Freenet Project More Stable, In Need 606
An anonymous reader writes "The Freenet Project is asking for donations to help keep their main programmer, Matthew Toseland. After a long time, finally Freenet, software which 'lets you publish and obtain information on the Internet without fear of censorship' is working fine (and fast) again, since their overload problems are almost completely fixed. They even plan to write a paper about the overload problems. If you want to try, be sure to run the latest stable or unstable snapshot."
Will code for spare change... (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to the new world of Open Source, courtesy of the GNU Manifesto [gnu.org].
What the net was (Score:5, Insightful)
Donate!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The problem I have with FreeNET is... (Score:5, Insightful)
freenet : (Score:1, Insightful)
NOT TROLL (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW - if you are unaware - unlike most P2P systems, on FreeNET you do not choose what material to share, rather it gets stored (and served from) your computer according to the network-wide demand. So if someone uploads kiddie porn to the network it may be stored on your computer for others to download. Because of its anonymous nature (well, nearly) it is very attractive for people who may want to bypass local law enforcement - i.e., those that wish to engage in unlawful activities will be disproportionatly drawn to it.
I Tried Freenet Once Before (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm glad that they claim to have fixed those issues, because I seriously love the concept, and I'm jumping at the chance to try it again.
Re:I don't like Freenet (Score:2, Insightful)
Freedom of hate? (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact, further reading of the FAQ [sourceforge.net] states that if you don't want your node to harbor child porn, you should not run a Freenet node.
I'm all for freedom of speech but i don't support anyone who would take other's freedom away. Child porn is exploitative and robs children of their childhood. The concept of freedom of speech is only useful if it promotes freedom. For example, supporting the right of Nazi freedom of speech can only lead to the growth of a movement that wants to take your freedom away. Logistically, this makes absolutely no sense to me.
I'm uninstalling the freenet, sorry.
Re:I don't like Freenet (Score:3, Insightful)
More Bad joke time (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently its hard to pay the bills with "free" these days.
Re:Freenet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Freenet is not useful in very oppressive regimes (Score:2, Insightful)
If Freenet is so useful to dissidents, then an oppressive government will simply make its use and distribution illegal. They don't need to monitor what's actually being traded on it by specific individuals.
Re:Freenet... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I would be going after my ex-wife or banker, not complaining about freenet.
Re:Is censorship such a bad thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Our kinds will be teenage sluts, working for pyramid groups, worshiping some pagan god, while indulging in transgender, transpecies, disgusting courtship rituals that involves ritualistic sacrifices of viginity, then eBaying their souls to the lowest bidder, which of course is horrible since it strays from our capitalistic ways and eventually turn us all into slutty transgendered pagan communists.
Anyways.. in our society where we expect the world to educate our kids, we're not ready to move away from censorship.
Hmmm....I'm failing to follow your logic. Please explain the part in between "no censorship" and "all hell breaking loose".
Thanks.
Re:I don't like Freenet (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? When is it ok to silence speech? When it goes against something you belive in? I personally don't agree with your post
but that doesn't mean that I think you shouldn't be allowed to speak your opinion.
Re:And this will help I'm sure (Score:5, Insightful)
In short I donated $20.
Re:What the net was (Score:1, Insightful)
Or do you just have your tin-foil hat on too tight today?
The real reason freenet hasn't taken off... (Score:4, Insightful)
It had always seemed that Freenet leadership is obsessively interested in getting press, yet at the same time embarrased enough by the actual system that they make it impossible for anyone but the most dedicated techies to get started using it. Considering that at startup some of the first content encountered is (quite unfortunately) child pornography collections, I wouldn't be surprised if this is almost intentional to keep the Press talking about the high ideals without seeing the current reality. Maybe it's even best for the project at this stage.
If freenet is to succeed, and we all desperately need it to, it's going to have to make itself both USABLE and RESPECTABLE. That means new potential users should not be confronted with stomach wrenching content even if such things are available by the nature of the system.
-braddock
Jesus Christ... (Score:0, Insightful)
Yeah, free speech is nice, but at the same time providing free speech to child pornographers and Nazis is both hypocritical and wrong.
Re:What the net was (Score:2, Insightful)
distribution of illegal material (Score:5, Insightful)
Be it on freenet, the open web, or the US-mail.
If that offends you then dont contribute time/energy/resoruces/money to freenet.
Oh, and dont buy stamps, or buy gas or anything else.. As there is nothing in this world that isnt tainted somehow..
Just get used to it, and move on.
Depends on Sun (Score:4, Insightful)
> Software!
But it requires the Sun JRE, which is proprietary bloatware.
Re:The problem I have with FreeNET is... (Score:3, Insightful)
After installing FreeNET and trying it out , I couldn't care less about its claims to be a conduit for freedom of speech. Along those lines, I also couldn't care less about poor, oppressed people in communist countries who aren't allowed to express their views, if they try to express them via FreeNET
FreeNET claims to provide an safe haven for people to exchange information without fear of oppression or censorship. What FreeNET is (whether or not by design) is a "harbor house" of sorts for child pornographers, terrorists, and other criminals.
You may argue (as the FreeNET team does), that a few bad apples are just spoiling the bunch, but next time you log on to FreeNET, count how many of the afforementioned links are available (and towards the top of all the lists).
As far as I'm concerned (and I am not a lawyer, but I have studied the U.S. Constitution in-depth), free speech extends to speech. It does not extend to breaking laws revolving around child endangerment and molestation and civil rights violations and hiding behind it by claiming it's protected by the right to free speech.
In fact, having something like FreeNET tied to the open source community could have a harmfully negative impact upon it. Imagine the FUD campaigns if people started pointing to the material available on FreeNET (sure, they'd be baseless arguments, but they'd be playing on people's emotions). Rebuttal to the FUD might be that such material is freely available from other sources, however that argument would fall short in the eyes of the public because FreeNET is forever tied to the open source community
Just some things to think about before you consider donating (time or money) to the FreeNET project
Re:What the net was (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem I have with FreeNET is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are the dissidents communists, or are those oppressing them communists?
Your statement makes very little sense. Communism is an economic system - and an economic system has very little to do with freedom of speech.
(Actually, communism may have more of an effect upon freedom of speech, but in the case of communism as an economy, it actually HELPS it)
China's government is communist (though it's becoming arguable with the humungous amount of foreign trade going on). However, it is also a dictatorship (and a somewhat fascist one at that) - a dictatorship certainly supresses civil liberties.
India is communist by popular election. No system of government which supresses personal freedoms as China does would be acceptable to the masses. And you certainly don't see these violations of civil liberties in India today.
Looks like you're still feeling the ill effects of Senator McCarthy (America's worst politian. Ever)
Re:I don't like Freenet (Score:5, Insightful)
What checks does Freenet have in place to preserve privacy, and yet prevent the distribution of illegal material?
That's kind of the point. Illegal != immoral != harmful. It's up to each individual user to determine whether what they're doing is "right" or "wrong". Is it wrong to wail against communism? The Chinese government thinks so. Is it wrong to spread child porn? The U.S. government thinks so. But, what does the USER think. It's THEIR responsibility to do the right thing rather than the government forcing them to do it. I must say, I don't participate in freenet because I'm not convinced that the benefits of using my computer to help spread democratic propaganda away from the prying eyes of the Chinese government outweights the negatives of some sick fuck using it to spread kiddy porn, but that's MY decision, not the governments.
When you rely on the government to hold people to certain standards, you're just asking for trouble. Look at the gay marriage thing. Does it hurt anybody? No. Still, there are people who say it's right and people who say it's wrong. The government wants to stick it's big nose in the mess now and that's just begging for trouble. They'll try to legislate morality which is just plain nuts. The government is hear to PROTECT and SERVE the public, not be a self-appointed moral watchdog. Freenet is an interesting experiment in putting the power of deciding one's own moral course back in the hands of individuals.
Unlike the screwball grandparent poster, I like Freenet in principle, I'm just not convinced that I like it in practice...
Re:Is censorship such a bad thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
And this free anonymous speech can be filtered, since it is free, and it is anonymous. Filtered in the sense that I'm more likely to trust something my mom says than some voice I hear whispered in a subway. We've gotta teach our kids to moderate that free speech and figure out if it's trustworthy or not, before they let it convince them to become teenage sluts building pyramids for alien-worshipping monkey gods, or whatever it was you alluded to. Anything you read on Freenet should be treated as an unfounded rumor. Which doesn't do much good for our Chinese dissidents, I guess.
Re:What the net was (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, right now, if I was to take my web server, and put up a site claiming that Osama Bin Laden was the new messiah, and that I agree with the destruction of the World Trade Center, and the acts of terror; I would be lucky to see a lawyer, before I landed in Guantanimo; even if I stated on the site that I am not advocating violence.
Granted, this might be a bit of an exageration, but do you really think I would be left alone? Especially if my site got popular.
Now, techinically, I should be able to publicly espouse the belief that Al Queda is right, and that the US is the Great Satan, etc. But with the current climate, I'd be nuts to do so. Its not a case of what I can and cannot say, its a matter of me having to censor myself out of fear of begin punished for my views. But, if I can put forth those views, and do so anonymously, I am less likely to censor myself out of fear; and, as such, truly have free speech.
But (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that only popular items becomes memes as they are spread to other servers when requested.
Things that are not popular eventually go away as the servers they are on smoke them when more popular content is downloaded.
So, if your server is storing lots of kiddie porn (and there's no way to tell without trying to download it and seeing how fast it goes), then that means many people are downloading it...which means that you are probably living next to child pornographers, and probably have some in your church, synagogue, temple, job, and home.
Hell, you might even be one yourself and not even know it.
Re:Freedom of hate? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The problem I have with FreeNET is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want my node to be used to harbor child porn, offensive content or terrorism. What can I do?
The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find disgusting. If this is not acceptable to you, you should not run a Freenet node. There is another thing you can do. Since content in Freenet is available as long as its popular, you can help limit the popularity of whatever information you do not like. For example, if you do not want a file to spread you should not request it and tell everyone you know not to request that specific key. However, keep in mind that freenet is not designed so as to only allow communication between people if a sufficient number of people agree with the communication. Freenet is designed to make communication possible even if there's just one publisher and one reader, and this is already reasonably feasible on the current freenet.
Personally, I think the only way to stop kiddie porn is at the source. Removing the transport medium will only lead to those involved seeking another medium, and there's always SneakerNet.
Re:The problem I have with FreeNET is... (Score:5, Insightful)
> child pornographers, terrorists, and other criminals.
You mean `the internet is...`. So why are you using it. Perhaps you should stop using the phone, postal system, visiting libraries etc.
You can only make the world a better place with information. Ultimately, it is better than ignorance, even if you can pick a few examples of the downside.
I'm still at a loss as to how the internet can help terrorists. What can they now do that they couldn't do before with phone calls? Likewise for "criminals" in general.
I think the internet is a godsend for police and other agencies trying to track down child pornographers.
Re:Freedom of hate? (Score:3, Insightful)
won't someone please think of the children? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Freenet. Pull the plug before someone gets hurt (Score:2, Insightful)
> the time to pull the plug is long overdue.
If it's popular, people will use it. Which third party should pull the plug?
> Ian, Matt: You made your point -- absolute anonymity means we'll have to face
> some things we don't like. Now pull the plug before someone gets killed.
LOL! You drama queen! I love Slashdot! "Oooh, look at my serious face! I am the conscience of the internet, and I have determined that that is a Bad Thing!" What, so things can happen now with the internet which couldn't have happened before? No doubt you're thinking of bomb making or something? That's the example you always here. You know how easy it is to make an explosive? They practically tell you how on the news every time there's an attack on the American troops currently occupying Iraq, or on Israelis.
You people should be ashamed of yourselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nearly all of the posts i'm seeing talk about how horrible freenet is because it may be used for child pornography or other illegal things and then go on to say that freenet should not exist and how terrible they must be etc. etc. I've even seen posts saying (to paraphrase) 'everyone should have free speech except kiddie pornographers and nazis'.
get a clue and go fuck yourselves! If you want to filter what someone says because you dont agree with it than it's not really free speech, is it?
Further, these morons arguing against freenet are using the same argument i see used so fervently in defense of DeCSS or any other tool that allows them to pirate music or do something 'cool'...
'Hey! you cant make this tool illegal! Just because I have a card programmer doesnt mean I am stealing. i have rights, man! Free speech!'
So, which is it?
(a) Tool X can be used for illegal things and therefore should be banned.
(b) Tool X can be used for illegal things. It does, however, serve useful, legitimate purposes. Keep it legal.
I vote for option B myself.
Re:Hold on a sec... (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution is, of course, easy. Accept that you cannot solve social problems by technical measures. Censorship and political oppresion are political problems, they will be solved by political changes or not at all. A P2P network might be a tool usefull for those working on these change, but it is neither sufficient on its own, nor is it really neccessary.
Re:The problem I have with FreeNET is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Removing the transport medium will only lead to those involved seeking another medium, and there's always SneakerNet. The thing is, the internet (server based or direct P2P) is not an anonymous communication medium, people are liable, so the source can be more easily found. Providing an electronic transportation medium to them that is making their life easy and removing the kind of back-tracking that could be done in a conventional internet transfer. Sneaker-net takes us back 20 years when there are organised groups which could be infiltrated by law-enforcement. By endorsing FreeNET you make the paedophile's life easier and effectively remove any possibility to trace tem.
But FreeNET helps freedom of speech in China you may ask... Well just punish anyone you find with FreeNET on their computer to death! Perhaps the People's Firewall (sic) could reject packets which appeared to be encrypted (or all non-web traffic, as pointed out earlier). 'Tackhead' made an excellent post [slashdot.org] earlier.
Re:I don't like Freenet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Depends on Sun (Score:0, Insightful)
Informative? Some people really shouldn't get modpoints.
You CAN use it with Sun JRE (sun's merits as an open source friend was already discussed today) but you can choose otherwise.
I don't like Sun's java implementation so I use an alternative like blackdown's jre.
It's all about the freedom to choose.
Re:From the Freenet FAQ... (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a huge difference between tolerating something and actively propagating it.
Child porn (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want a system that can censor a particular kind of data, it would require a central authority to make that judgement -- and the entire point of a decentralized network of expression is lost.
Re:Freedom of hate? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would be more concerned that knee jerk laws would find you liable for some crime, regardless of the fact that you don't (can't!) know what data is on your machine.
Re:Rule out Jury Nullification w/ FreeNET (Score:1, Insightful)
This is not correct. Your node will contain information that you requested or somebody else requested through your node. That's where the plausable deniability comes in. Thre's no way to tell if you personally requested that data. In fact, if an investigator requests kiddieporn through your node, it's equally likely that it's his request that placed the kiddieporn on your node.
Ultimately, the security of freenet relies on the premises of plauable deniability and entrapment. The authorities can't prove whether you're the originator of questionable content or just one of a number of random proxies passing it along.
SO, in the end, the protections freenet offers are alot less than it's creators would have you believe. If your government/legal system allows entrapment or ignores plusable deniability, then you're screwed.
Kazaa had the same problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The problem I have with FreeNET is... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The problem I have with FreeNET is... (Score:5, Insightful)
That would make me a terrorist to the current administration.
Let us say also that the Administration was making use of advances in Science to monitor dissidents communications, purchases, library visits, how many times you go the bathroom each days, etc.
Freenet is a neccesary evil, much like lawyers.
Re: Not On My Computer posts. (Score:5, Insightful)
By the most sensible definition of location of data, the child porn is not on your computer.
What you have on your computer is indistinguishable by all known statistical tests from random noise. The sum of this pseudo-random data on all nodes, viewed in a particular way, i.e. through a suitable client, is the Freenet network. The child porn is there, all right - if you're sick enough to seek it out. But the nature of Freenet means that no mapping can be found between data in it, and encrypted data on nodes. That's the whole point. So why worry? If there was a scheme by which you mailed your hard drive to some island and they added it to a pool of storage anyone could access, would you have the same qualms about your disk being possibly contaminated?
Re:Freedom of hate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Freenet is an unlimited (well, very very large) supply of megaphones. If you'd like to use one of the megaphones, the only requirement is that you not stop other people from using the megaphones. As there are more megaphones than people, no one will ever be left wanting. In that vane, if you stop others from using the megaphones (uninstall Freenet), you lose the use of them as well.
Now, keep in mind that having a megaphone does not guarantee an audience. If you cannot get people to link to your content, your content goes nowhere. The only reason there is child porn on the net is because people are looking for it. Whether or not you run a Freenet node, child porn will be distributed so long as people keep wanting it.
Re:You people should be ashamed of yourselves. (Score:4, Insightful)
There has always been a bugaboo, right now it is child porn and terrorism but not long ago it was communism, or the KKK or neo-nazi's or what ever.
If you do not like child pornography then you are free to set up a freenet webpage and give your views as to why it, and anything else you dont like, is wrong.
As to the parent, I also agree that people seem to be hypocritical in that they think one type of 'illegal' speech is ok (MP3 copying etc.) but other types (child porno) is bad. Reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Marge is forced to stop trying to censor the violent cartoon industry because she realized she was a hypocrite in wanting Michangelo's David (nudity) to be shown.
Re:Freedom of hate? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate child porn as much as humanly possible. But that doesn't make me hate cameras. Or freenet. It makes me hate child pornographers. They should be found and shot dead. If it is hard to find them, I don't blame the largeness and complexity of the physical world. Or freenet.
I don't have a solution to child porn, but I don't want restrictions on useful technology because of the sick actions of a few.
Cheers.
Re:The network is finally working, Great.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What good is a node whose CPU and memory are hardly used, but fullfills no requests because the network is screwed up?
Priority 1: Create secure, anonymous, decentralized network
Priority 2: Get network reasonably functional
Priority 3: Get resource usage reasonably low
Priority 4: Get network running very well
Priority 5: Get resource usage way down
Right now, I'd say they're working towards 3 and 4, and doing a damn fine job at it. When you can design a functional, anonymous, secure, scalable, and fault-tolerant network, and have each and every node use minimal resources, feel free to let the Freenet team know. Until then, either run a node, or don't run a node - donate, or don't. But don't sit there and complain with no useful suggestions, corrections, help, or ideas to offer.
How about bandwidth controls that work. (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe in the principles of Freenet.
I am willing to dedicate disk space
I am on a broadband connection where I can affort x GB / week.
I have tried freenet carefully setting the supposed bandwidth controls. At first everything was fine, but as days and weeks went by my node got more and more popular. Eventually it was way above the limits I had set and I could find no way to throttle it back to a reasonable rate, so I was forced to remove the service. This was far more problem than even it's slow speed -- it made it impossible for the average user to use. Normal users get into trouble if their bandwidth usage keeps going up without limit. I also run web pages that eventually become unusable if they get too much competition. That is the make-or-break feature for me. I must have bandwidth controls that put a real cap on bandwidth.
Re:The problem I have with FreeNET is... (Score:5, Insightful)
"It does not extend to breaking laws revolving around child endangerment and molestation and civil rights violations and hiding behind it by claiming it's protected by the right to free speech."
Personally, I think you're totally crazy. A digital camera and a CD burner might seem like ideal tools for publishing child pr0n. Should they be illegal? Should I say that I couldn't care less about their non-infringing uses? You're just another hypocrite who hates the DMCA for it's effects on non-infringing uses, but at the same time is more than happy to kill a project like FreeNET because it can be used in ways that are in violation of your laws and morals. I don't want to start a war here, but what is wrong with you people!?!?
Re:Freedom of hate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Freenet is the ultimate test of tolerance - will you allow things you(and possibly most people) disagree with, such as those things the parent just mentioned, in exchange for supporting those things that you DO agree with? Or will you say "no deal?" It's hard to say that anyone "wins" whichever side you choose, since you don't know what you're participating in, but in the end it's all a matter of trusting that the elements you like will prevail regardless. If you're a cynical bastard, you'll mutter something like the parent post, and move on with your life. If you're super-optimistic like me, you'll think it's keen ^.^
Re:The real reason freenet hasn't taken off... (Score:3, Insightful)
When the network and the code base are less volatile, then it makes more sense for people to get working on things to help out newbies. As it is, it's probably best that the AOL crowd NOT join up just yet, as they're not going to be able to provide the level of debugging assistance of your average techie. Stable and unstable are just branchs of development - the entire project is essentially in heavy (some might say 'extreme') beta testing. The difference between this project and so many others is that this one makes progress at incredible rates. Updates can happen several times a day sometimes, and the stable branch rarely goes more than a week or two without a new build. Unstable branch users are advised to update 'daily'. What does that say about the development pace?
In terms of it making itself 'respectable', I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean to say that 'stomach wrenching content' should somehow be removed, well then you've missed the entire point of the project. In terms of not being confronted by such content, I would argue that they're less likely to 'bump' into it on Freenet innocently than they are on the regular internet. At least on Freenet, things are generally labled fairly well, and the major indexes (currently about the only way to learn of 'freesites') pretty much sort out content by hand, ensuring timly and accurate descriptions of what each link contains. If you're offended by particular content, then don't click on the link to view it. If you're offended by the link itself, then go on one of the indexes which censors unlawfull freesites.
On Freenet, you're not forced to go anywhere you don't want, and you almost can't find something you don't want to find. Seems to me that you're safer on Freenet than you are on the regular net.
Interesting.
Free speech does not exist without anonymity (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, but Slashdot provides us with another handy example: The moderation system demonstrates how anonymity is essential to free speech. Here on Slashdot, disagreeing with the crowd only costs you some Karma. In the world at large, differing opinions can cost you social status. In places like China, dissent can cost you your life. Anonymity allows you to express your views without fear of retribution for doing so.
Also, being anonymous does not absolve you from responsibility. You still have a responsibility to say something worth hearing, or else no one will listen, and your freedom of expression is wasted. For example, how many GNAA posts have you read lately? How many goatse links have you clicked on? Even if you read Slashdot at -1, I doubt you would pay posts such as those much attention. The trolls are free to spout their gibberish all day long, but that doesn't mean that they're guaranteed an audience.
True freedom of expression is an all-or-nothing deal, unfortunately. The moment you put limits on it, it's no longer free. Denying anonymity is one such limit. Denying certain forms of expression is another. Most people here, it seems, though they would deny it until they were blue in the face, don't support free expression at all.
Re:Jesus Christ... (Score:5, Insightful)
They state as much in the FAQ. The downside of an uncensorable system is that some people will use it for things you and I would prefer to censor.
Aside from that, the same can be said of the internet itself. The same can be said of the real world, as well. Shall we destroy the internet and the real world to prevent disgusting things from happening or being posted? Or should we address the problems behind the content, such as the abuse of children? We can continue to ignore the problems that are out there by censoring them away, or we can recognize that there exists a major problem, and then go on to solve it.
"While I'm sure there are lots of chinese people who will find value in it, "
Well, yes... considering the fact that it saves their lives . Quit living in your tiny little world and open up a little bit, just for once, hmm? Just recently, a Chinese dissident was jailed for posting "subversive" materials on the internet. Had this person had access to, and used Freenet, they would still be promoting democracy, instead of wondering how many times the guards will be back for torture sessions this week. People in China and other places DO use Freenet to communicate safely with one another. In places like China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc, speaking out means you're going to die. How it is you can simply brush aside the fact that Freenet saves peoples' lives every single day is beyond me.
" there are lots of child pr0nographers rubbing their dirty little fucking hands with glee. "Oh look, something free and uncensored! Better puts some child porn on it! (uploads)."
Again, the same can be said of the internet. How many sites have been busted for selling access to child pornography? How many years did those places operate with impunity? How many others continue to go undetected by law enforcement? How many others pop up on the regular internet every single day? Obviously there are those who use Freenet for things that disgust most of us, but those people will find ways to distribute that content regardless of Freenet's existence. The capture of one, or ten, or a hundred, or a thousand does little to stem the tide. Until we address the underlying problem, the content will always exist.
"Yeah, free speech is nice, but at the same time providing free speech to child pornographers and Nazis is both hypocritical and wrong."
Your definition of hypocrasy is flawed. Hypocrasy is to pretend to be or believe something which you are not, or do not believe. It would be hypocritical of Freenet to advertise free speech, and then censor that with which it does not agree.
What you mean to say is that you don't like those who would produce or distribute child pornography, and you don't like Nazis, and you wish that they would be quiet and go away. Guess what - I wish the very same thing. The difference is, I'm not willing to call for the downfall of something that saves lives every single day simply because some people use it to say or distribute things that turn my stomach. It's people like you who think that censorship stops at things with which they disagree. In fact, there will always be someone wanting to censor the very things you hold most dear, because they find it offensive. Do you believe in God? There will always be an athiest who doesn't want you 'indoctrinating' their child, and thus wants you banned from saying the word under any circumstances. You don't believe in God? There will always be someone who finds the very thought so utterly repulsive that they want you jailed for even menti
Lets start by censoring Slashdot. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd like to be on that government so I can censor your post as my first action. What you seem to not be capable of understanding is that FreeNet exists not as a habor for kiddie porn and terrorists but as a harbor for each and everyone one of us humans on planet earth.
It just so happens that decent people are so afraid of the bad people that they are willing to sacrifice their Freedom for security. You want the government to rule over you, you do not care about freedom and I don't see how you or people like you are any different than the Chinese.
You must understand that forces within our government currently want to control every aspect of the internet, companies like Microsoft and the RIAA want to control the internet, and the only group of people who want to stand up for YOU the internet user is FreeNet.
Look, if you want censorship on Freenet, ask Ian Clarke to build personal Freenet filters which can filter out all content you dislike. This is the solution, personal filtering of the net. This is the same solution we use in the real world, we personally filter ourselves out of bad environments and away from bad people.
There are plenty of murderer killer rapist people who you could hang with in the real world, and no one stops you from joining them. It's up to you to decide for yourself right from wrong, not the government, not the internet government, not Ian Clark, not the technology. It's not the gun that kills people, its people who kill people. Remember that its not the FreeNet that rapes kids, or launches terrorists attacks, its the people.
FreeNet WILL become a Haven for hate unless YOU actually make use of FreeNet. It's your choice, but either way FreeNet will be created so you can either help put good content on it, or you can let all the bad people claim it and whine and complain how its a haven for them instead of for you.
Re:Disappointed in Freenet (Score:5, Insightful)
"I've never driven, or for that matter seen, the 2004 Jaguar XKR, but I looked at it on a website. I've got to say, the thing is a total piece of junk. The radio looks like it probably doesn't give good sound, the seats don't appear very comfortable, and I seriously doubt it rides very well either. Plus, judging by the way the engine looks, it probably doesn't have any power at all. I don't understand why anyone would even bother considering to buy one"
"The last release on that page is dated July 17, 2003."
The last major release was then. That being said, the very fact that we're not even at 1.0 means that major changes happen all the time. Had you bothered to look further, or perhaps subscribed to the devl list, you'd see that stable receives updates about once a week on average, and unstable is updated almost daily. Each 'minor' update contains numerous bug fixes, and often contains new routing features or additions to the protocols. The current stable release is 5070, which was released today. The last stable release was put out about 3 or 4 days ago. The rapid, sustained development of Freenet continues to be the fastest I've ever seen, of any project I've ever followed.
"And by Clarke's own admission in his 'State of the Freenet' letter, it doesn't work very well. He *thinks* this new algorithm will solve the problems, but nobody knows that for sure."
You're taking the letter very much out of context. Again, reading the devl mailing list would provide you with far better understanding of the issues surrounding Freenet's development, problems, and solutions.
"Is Freenet so hard that this many programmers can't deliver a working version in close to a year?!"
This, you discern, without even having tried it? That's incredible. Listen, put down the 3-way call with Kenny Kingston and Ms Cleo, and ask some people who actually run Freenet. Or, wait a week or two for the Slashdot-Freenet overload to die down a bit (takes a little while for the network to adjust to massive influxes of new people), and *gasp* download the program so you can try it for yourself?! In case you're wondering, Freenet has worked to varying degrees since I started using it about a year ago. As the protocols and code is adjusted, things either get really good, really bad, or somewhere in between. When you're doing something this brand new, and making major changes all the time, there's nothing else to be expected. As of right now, stable is working fairly well (was working outstanding a few weeks ago), and unstable is working even better.
"The goals of Freenet are lofty, and for that maybe they deserve more patience, but when does the community just cut and run?"
I would assume that most 'cut and run' within a few days of downloading the program at this point. Why? Because it's not a simple AOLesque installation. It requires some configuration, some manual configuration, a bit of knowledge, and a lot of patience. There is a large group of die-hard Freenet users, such as myself, that would need to have serious, prolonged problems with the software before thinking about giving up on it. Most of us have talked with Toad and Ian enough to know that we're not being jerked around, and that this thing is going to move forward to the benefit of many, many different people. They're open and honest about progress and problems, and they both make themselves available all the time. Toad, especially, has gone the extra mile with me on a few different occassions to make sure that I was able to solve problems I was experiencing. I didn't get a 'RTFM', nor a non-response, and I certainly didn't get ignored. My mail to the support list has always been answered with much help from numerous people. I couldn't possibly fault any
Re:Freedom of hate? (Score:3, Insightful)
So are you saying any speech that doesn't promote your idea of freedom should be outlawed?
Re:The problem I have with FreeNET is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You people should be ashamed of yourselves. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You people should be ashamed of yourselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
We cannot forget that while we need to aspire to freedom of speech as much as possible, it should not encroach on the freedom of others in society.
If you're sleeping in your house and I start yelling at you through the window like a fucking moron, let's see how you like that.
If someone is doing brainsurgery on you with a speech-controlled robot and I run past the O.R. purposefully yelling "LABOTOMY LABOTOMY LABOTOMY" that's not free speech at work and should not be protected.
When free speech is only a cover for destroying the essential FREEDOMS of others, it is not free speech at all, but the cry of a coward to cover up a crime.
And yes, child pornography is an example of just that. Freedom of speech cannot be used to defend this because you've severely curtailed the Freedom of the child. Directly or indirectly don't try to fool yourself.
What's even worse, is in your black&white world, you don't even consider the case of when an individual exercising his right to 'free speech' prevents another individual from exercising his right to 'free speech'.
This can happen in a room, out on a street, online, in print and many other situations.
Now it is not my intention to set up a straw man, so I will quote you directly:
So, which is it?
(a) Tool X can be used for illegal things and therefore should be banned.
(b) Tool X can be used for illegal things. It does, however, serve useful, legitimate purposes. Keep it legal.
How about we include many other options.
(c) We keep Tool X legal, but regulate it's uses and take action against individuals who we deem misuse it like we've done with other things in the past.
or
(d) We keep Tool X legal, but reshape it so it becomes impossible to do illegal things with it while still retaining the benefits of the legal aspects.
Freenet is not a solution to our problems. It's designed to treat a symptom of curtailed freedom of speech, but it comes with side-effects(like yes child porn).
Why don't we instead concentrate on treating the disease so that we can avoid having our freedom of speech curtailed and also avoid the side-effect of letting people commit crimes.
By the way, I actually think freenet is a really cool project and am in no way against it's development. I'm just trying to show you that the debate you think is old hat, is in no way settled and should be encouraged, not discouraged like you're doing.
Re:The problem I have with FreeNET is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah! And I'd rather not have kiddie porn travelling by mail. If we need to end the postal system, so be it, it's for the children. Come to think of it, those vile kiddie pornographers are using encryption to hide their behavior. Let's ban encryption too. Some are even using the Internet, let's ban that. And they're using cameras to take those pictures, time to ban cameras.
Hmmm, now that I think about it, human beings are a common threat in the sexual abuse of humans. We better get rid of people ASAP.
Ultimately your argument is, "But what about the chiiiiiildren!" There are lots of tools used by criminals. Yes, child pornographers use Freenet. It's unfortunate, but it's not the fault of the tool. Terrorists use airplanes and box cutters, but no one is trying to ban them.
Re:You people should be ashamed of yourselves. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem I have with FreeNET is... (Score:2, Insightful)
She was over the age of consent. The movies are child pornography.
Check your own facts. Yours are in error as regards to law.
There is no such legal thing as "kiddie" porn. Only child pornography. The age in question is 18. Parent poster also used the term child porn, not "kiddie."
Personally I myself do use the term "kiddie" porn to distinguish between items depicting prepubesent children and the underage, but sexually mature. I think it's a valid distinction.
But that distinction is social, not legal.
KFG
Re:Freenet. Pull the plug before someone gets hurt (Score:2, Insightful)
Leaving your argument aside, you don't actually know how freenet works.
'Direct' requests to a node are not necessarily answered by that node. There is no way for a particular attacker to know whether the node it requested the data from answered it directly from it's data store or routed the request to another node which subsequently answered it.
Isn't that how it's always been.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Small works well. Then, every time there's something that spurs a lot of interest, the performance is abysmal. Now I'm sure the same excuse that this is just temporary growing pains will come up again, but I for one have lost faith in that.
To me, it looks like Freenet has got fundamental scaling issues, as it would appear from the circle of people I know, that Freenet regains its past performance about the same time that the numbers using it are back to where it was.
It's very easy to make something work well on a small scale - small enough, and even a dumbfire search (pick a route at random) works. Rate limiting, load balancing and getting the most out of each node is good, but I don't think it'll solve the real problem.
I'm not saying I have the answers to make it so that it *does* scale well. But I think I've understood enough of what Freenet does to realize it *won't* scale well. Ah well...
Kjella
I can't believe this is Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what? Before you ask or accuse, I don't like the idea of child porn. Duh. Does anyone other than the small minority of people who have some deep seated issue? Quit parroting every politico seeking reelection.
Just because you find ponography (to you) of any sort, doesn't mean that something like Freenet is bad or not needed. There is an ever increasing inabillity to exercise free speech every day. Read your ISP's TOS. Try and get a letter to the editor printed that is critical of the paper. Try to buy an ad during the SuperBowl.
Why isn't this figured out by now? I kill someone with a hammer. Oh, outlaw hammers! Nevermind that with that same hammer I could help fix a poor family's house. I know, "But you still killed someone with the hammer!"
It's rather obvious to me that those who would filter free speech are the world's biggest pussies. Frankly, I enjoy and use my human! (NOT GOVERNMENT GIVEN) right of free speech every day.
Those who would filter it miss the whole point, and miss the irony of the fact that they are encouraging the removal of any personal responsibility, free action or speech.
Yeah! Freedom of Speech is great as long as I like it! You can recite that over and over, when you're in prison for saying something that your new leader didn't like.
That is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Basicly, Freenet is open to libel, slander, fabrications, pump&dumps, fraud, disclosure of trade secrets, personal information and whatever else you can imagine that involves misuse of information.
It's not just the kiddie porn. And if you want to combine the two, imagine photoshopped kiddie porn of you and your kids. Wouldn't be able to stop that either.
Freenet is merely one of many ways to achieve the same though. You might want to ask some of the free webspace providers if they ever had cases of encrypted/password protected files being traded over their webspace.
The uploader doesn't know the downloader and vice versa, and the hoster doesn't know the content. Throw in some anonymous proxies and basicly noone knows nothing.
Freenet just claims to be a little better at it than that. And a little simpler rather than having people find proxies on their own. It is merely so disturbingly visible to people - kinda like Napster was, despite all the mp3 trading on irc/ftp/usenet before that.
Kjella
Re:if certain people (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think Freenet is about 'avoiding responsibility', I think it is about protecting yourself from those who find your opinions 'distasteful'.
Yup. Sadly, that may include pictures of porn. And it may include photos and reports of people getting killed for going to a democratic rally.
Porn will be made and distributed with or without Freenet. What about censored, unpopular, unjust information?
It's easy to sit back in your Aeon chair and say, "Well if they can't be bothered to run over to the local AP wire office, then their story must be false."
That's exactly what the government wants you to think, no tinfoil hat needed.
Re:The problem I have with FreeNET is... (Score:2, Insightful)
In this one you also confuse issues of 16 and under 16.
I might add that so long as your morals are not in contradiction to the law you are certainly free to apply them as you will.
My own morals, for instance, prevent me from eating meat. I do expect those morals to apply to you, however.
KFG
Pull the plug? no my friend (Score:2, Insightful)
Do NOT underestimate the intelligence of these so called "n00bs", people are capable of making their own decisions. Look at file sharing in general, it is associated with a strong youth/anti-authoritarian streak in america today. Do you think that simply because people are not technically literate they do not see the content on p2p/freenet and understand that the material is dangerous to themselves?
Are you saying they, the masses, do not see what they are doing?
Why do they still use those technologies? because they psychologically don't give a flying fuck what the government says. We are a morally bankrupt society that will take what it can get and always eyes politicians and the government with a certain distrust.Fuck it, I say do foist these technologies onto the noobs, they can make a decision on their own,let it pervade the technosphere, let the information flow where it will.
Oh, by the way
"it's your door, not theirs, that will be broken down. If Ian and Matt want to take such a radical stand for free speech, let them host the illegal content, and let them take the risks."
What does it matter to you what people do? Your commentary almost sounds like those opposed to peer2peer networks in general. Are you opposed to p2p? Are you opposed to freedom of information? Should there be restrictions on what a person can KNOW?
Now pull the plug before someone gets killed.
people are dying every fucking day.
Re:The problem I have with FreeNET is... (Score:3, Insightful)
"What FreeNET is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, you mean like the Internet? Or maybe you mean SCO's definition of Linux? Or maybe how China looks at any sort of freedom of expression that isn't sanctioned by the gov't?
I'm NOT taking anything to extremes here - as I sometimes do to prove a point - these are all realistic and reasonable examples. I could also mention guns (if you outlaw guns than only...) or even democracy itself (even well educated people can make stupid decisions!)
Child porn and other filth exist because there is demand for it. Arrest the bastards responsible when possible - what else can be done? Should we also ban digital cameras and/or color printers because of their possbile infringing uses? There is a point at which we must realize that technology will bring us both good and bad consequences - but this does not mean that it is necessarily evil.
Is your argument about Freenet that it can be used to distribute bad stuff, or that YOU can't find any other legitimate use for it?
Excellent point (Score:3, Insightful)
Your point about even viewing kiddie pron being a crime is at the heart of why their "studies" are fundamentally flawed. Anyone who has any "evidence" that kiddie pron is a massive problem is themselves guilty of viewing it, possibly downloading and categorising it. How did they do their study? By guessing how much is out there?
To me, kiddie pron seems an invaluable tool to frame someone (as with Scott Ritter) such that the court of public opinion will convict them regardless of the real truth of planted evidence. The fact that no one acknowledges this scares me, because it means no one will question when some is found on someone's computer, whether it really WAS downloaded by the person found with it.
Re:The problem I have with FreeNET is... (Score:1, Insightful)
"Yeah, I could drop all the random port stuff, but then nobody'd *ever* be able to use one and it'd break 1/2 of the applications we use."
Greaaaat solution.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Questionable content (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of hate? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's your decision, and your right. That's why that warning is there in the first place.
There are some people who believe that freedom of speech is the most important thing to support, that when people have the ability to share what information they want, and keep private what they want, that the rest can be dealt with.
Beyond that, your post degenerates into general uselessness. The idea that allowing Nazis (or anyone else you don't like) to speak constitutes oppression is stupid and wrong. Nobody is forced to listen; if anything, it would serve as a warning for most people of this putative Nazi threat. People are generally not as stupid as you think -- unless they're thoroughly conditioned.