Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Software The Internet Technology

After 3 Years, Freenet 0.7 Released 365

Posted by timothy
from the layers-on-layers dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

After 3 Years, Freenet 0.7 Released

Comments Filter:
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @04:03PM (#23342268) Journal
    because it was uploaded via freenet?
    • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @04:08PM (#23342348) Journal
      ... because it was uploaded via freenet?

      No.

      It's because the previous article was the release candidate and the official release came out today.
      • OK. Then my earlier skewering of Freenet 0.7 was a candidate skewering, and this will be the release skewering.
        This is going to be frustrating for me because I'll get at least one post with something like this in it: "It is really funny and annoying at the same time when some pseudo-informed trolls from 0.5 throw around false information constantly. These people maybe want to get some technical knowledge on networking prior to spreading bullshit."

        Before I really get into this, I have to point something out; to really have some idea of the reality of the situation in regards to Freenet, you have to install it and run it at least for a day; I think it pretty much reguires you run FROST (freenets main messaging & file sharing system) as well. There are 2 main freenets, the 0.5 network and the 0.7 network.

        freenet 0.7, and darknet, is insecure. With a Darknet system, your node PRIMARILY communicates with the other members (around 10) of your darknet; you are supposed to know & trust people in your darknet. So around 15 nodes.
        Freenet 0.5, which is opennet, communicates with all other 0.5 nodes it knows about, with no preference except for tested routing speed. This works out these days to around 35 random nodes.
        The basic concept is this: you request some information on Freenet with your client. your node sends out a request to neighboring nodes; if that node has the information, it sends the information to your node, you get it. If your neighboring node doesn't have it, it sends out requests to it's neighboring nodes to see if they have it. this process continues until the information is found.
        The principle that makes this all work for illegal information is reasonable deniability; the information in your node is lightly encrypted, but the main thing is that no one can prove you are the one that put it there; your node could have received a request from another node looking for the information, and stored a copy of it.
        (this is vastly simplified. I will likely get a post or two from 0.7 zealots pointing out picayune discrepancies)

        With open net, this works. you communicate principly at random with other nodes. In order to prove you requested the information the Powers That Be would have to control the majority of the nodes in the open net and statistical analysis.

        With Darknet, you have a limited set of nodes. Statistical analysis is easier.

        I used "tibetan freedom fighters" in my last post, I'll use "secret plans to attack Iran" (SPAI) today.
        You post your .pdf of the SPAI on Freenet 0.5 in Frost. Other 0.5 users see the key(link) and click on it. their nodes request the random nodes they know about to give them the info. The contacted nodes then ask other nodes, who then ask other nodes, until they find it. The information then travels back to your node, caching its self on the requesting nodes on the way to your node. eventually, you get it.
        On the NSA run node, they see requests for the keyfile come in. they can tell which node the request came from, but they can NOT tell if your node was the original requesting node; likewise, they can't tell if your node is the original posting node.

        With 0.7, it works a little simpler. When the NSA node see a request, they know with a approximate 2 in 3 probability that the information requested came from a member of the same darknet that their node is on. And they know the IP address of the darknet members. Do I really need to point out anything more on this?
        (By the way, if I have a substantially flawed understanding of this, PLEASE point it out).

        The above point is why the 0.5 network, which, by the way, WORKS for messaging and file sharing (something the 0.7 network has a little trouble with right now), has possibly more users than the 0.7 network. I would say it with certainty, but there really is no way to tell. I know my node connects with about 350 other nodes on a regular basis.

        0.7 has better methods of hiding a node from outside monitoring, but the methods do not re
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Do you know that you can use the 0.7 open net?
        • by evanbd (210358) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @07:38PM (#23344652)

          If you don't like darknets, don't turn them on. I think you're wrong, but I won't bother refuting that point here. Freenet 0.7 gives you the choice of darknet mode, opennet mode, or a mix. As a corollary, there aren't discrete "darknets" but rather one large network with a mix of darknet and opennet connections (for the most part; there may be a handful of small poorly-connected darknet subnets).

          I do not recall any freenet developer talking about implementing any sort of blocking; nor have they done so. Unless you can back up that statement, I will be forced to conclude you are trolling. As you say, the ability to block anything, no matter how abhorrent, implies the ability to censor valid political speech and is therefore a bad thing for a network like freenet.

          Also, I suggest you try out FMS as a replacement for Frost / Thaw; it is far more spam resistant for a variety of reasons.

          I really don't understand this continued bashing of 0.7; now that it has implemented a proper opennet feature, with the ability to turn off the darknet option, what is the complaint?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by slimjim8094 (941042)
          Well.... I'm not gonna flame you, but you're not 100% correct

          Basically, the entire POINT of a darknet is you don't connect to the FBI nodes. You connect to the nodes of close, close friends and so on. It's like the Kevin Bacon game, carried out to about 50 iterations or so - hopefully you can get to everything you want, that's a lot of people.

          So the FBI nodes don't get connected to because you have spent significant face-time with your good buddies and decided to connect on Freenet, and they did the same wi
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by ultranova (717540)

          (By the way, if I have a substantially flawed understanding of this, PLEASE point it out).

          Very well. Whatever the merits or demerits of darknet might be, the default in 0.7 is to work as an opennet. So your criticism only holds if you went and added darknet nodes and disabled opennet by yourself.

          Back around when the developers started talking about the darknet concept in the first place the stated reason for doing so was so that child pornography could be blocked.

          Freenet dev newsgroups are archived

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08, 2008 @04:07PM (#23342330)
    All I got was - Access to this site has been blocked by your system administrator (i'm at work).
    • I'm not at work and the website works, I can confirm that there's something to see here.
      • I'm not at work and the website works, I can confirm that there's something to see here.
        But because it's on freenet, you can't confirm what it is you're seeing or who posted it?

        Meh. If it were really free, you wouldn't even be able to confirm that there is something to see.
    • by eln (21727) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @04:21PM (#23342500) Homepage
      Sounds like you could use some sort of "free network" to get around your employer's attempts at censorship. Unfortunately, as you've just discovered, no such thing exists.

      Oh well, back to the grind.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08, 2008 @04:12PM (#23342402)
    If you don't have many real-life friends how are you ever going to find the darknets, and the content on them? If you only connect with a few people, that's not going to help you find very much content is it? Is there a big "greynet" where everyone has somehow established a level of trust (proved they are not gov't agents or lawyers), and at the same time there are enough people that there is likely to be some content worth finding?
    • by HappySmileMan (1088123) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @04:18PM (#23342476)
      To be honest Opennet seems much more fitting to their philosophy than Darknet, but for some reason or another they really want people to switch to Darknet. They even disabled the option to use Opennet in previous builds, until users complained. Generally you have no reason not to use Opennet, unless you're really paranoid, or in a country that forbids Freenet by law.
      • by emag (4640)
        Or you're like me, and probably the only one in your well-known peer group that would be using/promoting Freenet. Whee, I can share the same vacation photos and bad camcorder movies, only much more slowly and unreliably, if I use only Darknet.

        I wonder if my current machine will have the same major load issues that 0.4? had with the machine I tried that one on...
      • by Sanity (1431) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @04:34PM (#23342674) Homepage Journal
        We hadn't "disabled" opennet in previous builds, it just hadn't been implemented yet.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          And by making the default number of nodes much smaller (10x) and the splitfiles having many more parts (16x) corrolation attacks are far, far easier now three years down the road than they were on 0.5, which is presumaly why the "insecure" mode is so heavily adviced against everywhere. Nevermind that having really trusted friends as friends on Freenet means you'll all get raided while having random peers act as "trusted" friends probably means some of them are doing nasty stuff and will get you raided. I'd
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by evanbd (210358)
            In most jurisdictions, being friends with bad people is not sufficient evidence in itself for a warrant; the authorities need some other evidence. I don't see why moving to Freenet instead of hanging out in coffee shops or whatever would change that.
    • If you don't have many real-life friends how are you ever going to find the darknets, and the content on them?

      The same way you find friend codes for Animal Crossing: Wild World or any other Nintendo WFC game that doesn't have opennet. You ask people with whom you maintain face-to-face contact. If you want to use Freenet, how likely is it that zero of the ca. 150 people in your monkeysphere [wikipedia.org] does not also want to use Freenet?

  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @04:18PM (#23342464) Homepage
    ...without disclosing the fact that I want to hide the fact that I'm hiding something?

    Because, of course, if I haven't got anything to hide, why would I want to hide the fact that I'm hiding something?

    Maybe Freenet 0.8 will provide a way to hide the fact that I'm hiding the fact that I'm hiding something.
  • by sm62704 (957197) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @04:28PM (#23342586) Journal
    The result of this realization was a ground-up redesign

    They ground up the redesign? ;)
    • by PhrostyMcByte (589271) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Thursday May 08, 2008 @04:34PM (#23342678) Homepage

      Freenet is an important concept. On it you get complete freedom of speech: the ability to discuss and spread your ideas, with full anonymity and freedom from censorship. Of course, this means that you will probably come across things on it that will go against your beliefs. While nothing forces you to actually visit these freesites, you will have to come to terms that this might be cached on your computer even without you visiting them. But this is important to freedom of speech: if people where able to censor anything, the system just wouldn't work.

      So why does Freenet fail? Lack of documentation. I don't mean ease of use in the interface - I mean for the protocols and network design. A system as important as Freenet -- one that people expect unfaltering anonymity and security from -- should be rigorously and meticulously documented.

      But it's not. In fact, if you bring it up with the Freenet developers they will gladly tell you this is intentional -- that they use security through obscurity [wikipedia.org] to guard against someone finding a way to break the system.

      So -- do you trust your freedom with the competency of a handful of developers to make a good design? I don't. I want as many people looking at the system as possible. I want people to really bash on it, to try to break it. This gives me confidence, not worry, because problems will be solved sooner than later.

      This would also open up the possibility of more than one client to access the network. If you have two separate clients that implement the same strict protocol and one of them messes up, it's likely to be caught far sooner than with just one. An immediate example of where this would have helped is with a bug that existed in 0.7's AES implementation for a very long time, where the data wasn't being encrypted properly.

      The Freenet developers don't want multiple clients either -- again, they worry that one might break the network. This line of thought is incomprehensible to me, because as a developer I would want things that could break my network to be discovered as soon as possible so I could fix the design.

      Sure, you could look at the source code. It is Open Source, after all. But what if you don't know Java? I don't particularly want to learn Java just so I can review Freenet's code. As a C++ developer I might be able to read and understand most of it, but I don't trust myself to review something so important without years of prior Java experience -- the chance that I'd miss something is just too great.

      • by amphibian (691159) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @04:51PM (#23342870)
        It is not true that we practice security through obscurity. It *is* true that we haven't documented Freenet to the point that it could be reimplemented easily from the documentation. We don't want other node (not client) implementations right now, because Freenet is very much still a work in progress, and as a distributed, emergent system, lots of node implementations all of which implement slightly different behaviour (but the same protocol) would be a major problem: It would make it even harder for us to evaluate the effect of changes in the routing algorithm, for example. As a C++ developer with experience in security software, you'd be fine, java is easy, although there are some more interesting bits.
        • So in other words, once you hit 1.0 (or whatever version) this policy is likely to change and you'll start writing good documentation and encouraging other implementations?

      • that they use security through obscurity to guard against someone finding a way to break the system.

        I brought this up on the FreeNet mailing list many years ago, and I got a different answer. The context of my post then was that I'd like to try reimplementing the core (the "node") in C to see if I could achieve any sort of speedup that way. Maybe I could, maybe I couldn't - there wouldn't be any harm in trying, and it would be a fun intellectual challenge. Of course, to do so, I'd need to have a good un

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by amphibian (691159)
          Freenet is still under development, even at the network level. So the protocol - the node's actual behaviour - changes relatively frequently. Why is that so surprising? And you probably didn't get much help because the devs weren't interested in taking a year to rewrite freenet to get back to where they were already at. On the other hand, if you want to know how a part of the system works, and it's not obvious from the code, you just have to ask.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Yep, assuming that you're Toad from the list, that's pretty much what you said back then.

            I've added you to my friends list as my small token of appreciation for the great service that you're doing for humanity - if there's any cosmic justice in the world, you and Ian will both be remembered by history as heroes of the 21st century.

            But I still think you're wrong about developing multiple client implementations.

            • by evanbd (210358)
              As in you think toad (yes, that's the same poster) should be developing alternate implementations or rewriting in C? Or you think that someone else, like you, should be? If the latter... Why aren't you? If the former, I respectfully disagree.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by evanbd (210358)

        There are two issues here. One is that the network isn't as robust as would be ideal; there are legitimate concerns about buggy implementations causing problems. A lot of the work debugging freenet goes into things that are essentially emergent behavior, and the bugs get even harder to track down on a non-homogenous network.

        The second is one of documentation. Yeah, it's practically nonexistant outside of the source code. But my impression from discussions (none recent) of alternate implementations was

      • by Sanity (1431) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @05:11PM (#23343130) Homepage Journal

        In fact, if you bring it up with the Freenet developers they will gladly tell you this is intentional -- that they use security through obscurity to guard against someone finding a way to break the system.
        I'm the coordinator of the Freenet project and I'm calling bullshit on that one. I very much doubt any Freenet developer said that, and if they did, they weren't speaking on behalf of the project.

        Yes, Freenet's low-level protocols could be better documented, but they are a work in progress, and in almost constant flux.

        As for security through obscurity, we go to great lengths to explain to people how Freenet works, you can find a bunch of papers, and video lectures on our "Papers" page [freenetproject.org]). Take a look at this video [freenetproject.org] from three years ago explaining the 0.7 design before we'd even begun to code it.

        Yes it would be wonderful if every tiny detail could be documented meticulously, but before we document it we have to design and test our ideas, and that means developing and releasing the reference implementation.

        • Yes it would be wonderful if every tiny detail could be documented meticulously, but before we document it we have to design and test our ideas, and that means developing and releasing the reference implementation.

          Conversely, does that mean that when the reference implementation is done you'll document the protocols? If so, that's great! (And it would be an excellent idea to mention that in a FAQ somewhere, I think.)

      • correction (Score:2, Redundant)

        by PhrostyMcByte (589271)
        Apparently the op I was talking to in #freenet wasn't a developer, so practicing security through obscurity isn't intentional.
  • by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @04:29PM (#23342598)
    I've been reading through their site and like the straight-forward writing style:

    "Hopefully the installer will open the page for you, so you won't be reading this."

    "Insecure mode should work automatically once enabled, so the rest of this page is about connecting to Friends."

    Or how about the java error message:

    "The JVM you are using is known to be buggy. It may produce OutOfMemoryError's when there is plenty of memory available. Please upgrade..."
  • by scruffy (29773) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @05:13PM (#23343164)
    I am impressed by Freenet's devotion to freedom of speech, but if my computer is hosting content, I should have the freedom to choose what that content is. Freedom of speech does not mean I should have to provide any resources to help you. This is where Freenet goes overboard. Freedom of speech is not an absolute.
    • Very insightful (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dreamchaser (49529)
      I would mod you as insightful if I had points. While Freenet has legitimate uses, everyone knows that it's also used to trade things like child porn. I won't pontificate about the latter other than to say that I would choose to *not* serve up any chunks of children getting abused. Nor would I want to transmit any pieces of a bunch of other illegal or immoral or dangerous things.

      Freenet is a non-starter for me for that very reason. Thank you for elucidating it so nicely.
      • by Abcd1234 (188840)
        I would choose to *not* serve up any chunks of children getting abused

        I agree. Serving up pieces of children is not only immoral, it's also impossible.

        But we're talking about photos, here. Pictures. Bits. Since when did bits hurt anyone? Sure, *creating* those bits may hurt someone, but that's why such acts are illegal and should be discovered and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by erlenic (95003)
          I can appreciate what you're saying, but continuing to share those photos is violating the privacy (an essential liberty) of those children without their informed consent. It certainly does pale in comparison with actually creating the photos, but I still consider it a violation of an essential liberty through force.
    • Freedom of speech is not an absolute.

      Congratulations... you missed the entire point.

      I may not agree with what you want to say, but as American (once upon a time, a long time ago, in a land far far away) you should be willing to die for that right.

      Whether what you say causes a fight and then a lawsuit, or if it obstructs someone else's inalienable rights and causes your arrest is one thing. Preventing you from saying it is another.

      Alas, America today is "Give me the liberty to buy shit, or at least try not to bother me while I watch TV." True

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dreamchaser (49529)
        Actually, you missed his entire point. You have freedom of speech, but not freedom to make other's repeat your free speech. Additionally, it's already been established that certain things (like the child porn example I used), are NOT protected by free speech. The same goes for certain other types of expression such as yelling FIRE in a crowded theater when there is none.

        The founding fathers recognized this fact and realised that government was a necessary evil that by it's very definition restricts or mo
        • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Sanity (1431) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @05:40PM (#23343522) Homepage Journal

          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 [wikipedia.org] 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? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by dreamchaser (49529) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @05:44PM (#23343580) Homepage Journal
            "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."

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

            "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?"

            No, I just don't want to serve bits of child porn JPG's from my computer, in the context of this discussion.

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

            Fair enough, but you still understood the intent of the example.

            "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."

            I never said that you didn't. I was pointing out that rights can be moderated by goverment, by design. That was at the heart of the debate leading up to the US Constitution. Just how much can Government control rights, and what rights does Government have? Your claim that I was making a strawman arguement was in fact a strawman arguement itself.

            Thanks for the civil debate though. It's often lacking these days. I have to go to dinner now so if I don't reply again you'll know why. Be well.
            • Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Sanity (1431) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @06:07PM (#23343814) Homepage Journal

              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: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by syousef (465911)
            So you don't mind if your ISP blocks your access to websites they don't like, or drop emails they disagree with?

            Error: Bad analogy detected.
            Detail: You pay your ISP to provide you with a service, that service being access to the Internet. In contrast you don't pay other freenet users (unless you choose to consider the bandwidth you allocate as payment)
    • by Knara (9377) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @05:30PM (#23343402)

      Translation: I'm for freedom of speech, so long as it is speech I agree with.

      Apparently you are not the target audience for freenet. Or the 1st amendment, for that matter.

      • No, he said you can say what you want to say, just don't make HIM repeat it if he doesn't want to.
      • Not so fast (Score:3, Interesting)

        by westlake (615356)
        Translation: I'm for freedom of speech, so long as it is speech I agree with.
        Apparently you are not the target audience for freenet. Or the 1st amendment, for that matter.

        Freedom of speech does not mean - nor has it ever meant - that I have to open my home to provide services for the pornographer.

        I can support the Chinese dissident through other channels and other means and still give the boot to Freetnet - without apologizing to you or anyone for the choices I have made.

        The 1st Amendment limited the

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Freedom of speech is not an absolute.

      Well, either it's an absolute, or it doesn't exist at all.

      However, as another poster noted, you can easily control what's hosted on your node - if you don't request something, it doesn't get on your node. But once you request it, you start hosting it for others.

    • by Sanity (1431) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @05:32PM (#23343434) Homepage Journal

      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: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Chris Burke (6130)

        Freedom of speech is not an absolute
        If not, then who gets to choose what speech is permissible?
        Me.

        Trust me, all problems will be fixed if you just give me the power to decide what is permissible and what isn't.

        All problems that prevent me from ruling the world and crushing you puny mortals under my boot, that is! Mwa ha ha ha ha!

        Wait, did I type that or just think it?
    • Freedom of speech is not an absolute.

      If that's the case, then how do you decide where to draw the line?

    • by Kjella (173770)

      I am impressed by Freenet's devotion to freedom of speech, but if my computer is hosting content, I should have the freedom to choose what that content is.

      Then don't be a freenet node. I would just like to point out though, that many hosting companies have no idea what they're hosting. Most if not all will let you upload passworded files which you can then point your friends to and tell the password directly, without ever revealing it to the hosting company.

      Freedom of speech does not mean I should have to provide any resources to help you.

      Nobody requires you to be a part of the network, but when you do the resources tend to get pooled. I make some resources to Freenet, and Freenet makes some resources available to me. While Freenet is the

    • by Tetsujin (103070)

      I am impressed by Freenet's devotion to freedom of speech, but if my computer is hosting content, I should have the freedom to choose what that content is. Freedom of speech does not mean I should have to provide any resources to help you.

      You have the freedom to not run Freenet. You don't have to provide any resources at all. So what are you complaining about?

      Have you also failed to realize that if all the peer nodes had the luxury of picking and choosing what content to support, that it could become significantly harder to find peers willing to serve the content you want?

    • by Idaho (12907)

      Freedom of speech is not an absolute.

      Actually, I think it is. But apart from discussing that point, which will probably lead us nowhere, let's look at this practically.

      If you would know exactly what your freenet node is currently storing, first of all this would completely defeat the plausible deniability feature of freenet. The point is that, since you don't know what content you're hosting, and in addition it is very hard to prove whether *you* requested the content that's on your node or whether it is ju

  • by BobMcD (601576) on Thursday May 08, 2008 @05:26PM (#23343340)
    On the one hand, 'censorship = bad'. On the other, I really feel like I have no fear of any reprisals using my current internet technologies.

    So, short of content I could publish and/or access without Freenet, what am I missing? And more to the point, is it worthwhile to fire up a node to find out?

    It seems like the sort of thing I'd be in favor of, and would like to support, but at the same time I can't imagine a worthwhile use for it in my own life.

    Am I alone here?
  • So before you go off ranting about eeeevuuulll child porn you should consider that people get the Abu Ghraib treatment every day all over the world for simply attempting to HIDE their communications.

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...