Slashdot Log In
Ian Clarke and Freenet in the Crosshairs
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:02 AM
from the the-changing-of-the-times dept.
from the the-changing-of-the-times dept.
EMIce writes "John Markoff of the New York Times writes of Ian, "Though he says his aim is political - helping dissidents in countries where computer traffic is monitored by the government, for example - Mr. Clarke is open about his disdain for copyright laws, asserting that his technology would produce a world in which all information is freely shared. ... Now, however, Mr. Clarke is taking a fresh approach, stating that his goal is to protect political opponents of repressive regimes." Wasn't freenet originally about dissent? Mr. Markoff appears to be re-writing a history that he probably only knows through a handful of lexis-nexis searches." Update: 08/01 18:32 GMT by T : Ian Clarke wrote to point out his comment posted to the story which lays out the actual subject of his Defcon talk.
Related Stories
[+]
New "Dark" Freenet Available for Testing 424 comments
Sanity writes "The Freenet Project has just released the first alpha version of the much anticipated Freenet 0.7 branch. This is a major departure from past approaches to peer-to-peer network design, embracing a 'scalable darknet' architecture, where security is increased by allowing users to limit which other peers their peer will communicate with directly, rather than the typical 'promiscuous' approach of classic P2P networks. This means that not only does Freenet aim to prevent others from finding out what you are doing with Freenet, it makes it extremely difficult for them to even know that you are running a Freenet node at all. This is not the first P2P application to use this approach, other examples include Waste, however those networks are limited to just a few users, while Freenet can scale up almost indefinitely. The new version also includes support for NAT hole-punching, and has an API for third-party tool development. As always, the Freenet team are asking that people support the development of the software by donating."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Ian Clarke and Freenet in the Crosshairs
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 493 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Notable quote (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://das.doit.wisc.edu/)
Yeah.
Because the United States and China are so similar when it comes to oppressing free speech and jailing political dissidents. It's clearly impossible in the US to criticize the government, or even have imagery of the president with a bullet hole in his head on the tob banner of your web site [immortal-technique.com].
If anyone can give actual provable examples of the US government abridging Constitutionally protected free speech, I'd love to hear it.
(Note: traveling to Afghanistan, training in Taliban camps, and planning to blow up buildings in downtown Chicago with radiological dirty bombs is not "free speech".)
If you're looking for trampling of free speech, you needn't look to the government; you need only look no further than our own academic institutions [thefire.org].
Re:Notable quote (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Notable quote (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://xptical.org/)
If you have a group, say the Republicans, trying to have a meeting. Then another group, say PETA, wants to protest. The city says that PETA can have a protest, but it must be a few blocks away from the Republicans.
What right to peacibly assemble has been infringed?
None.
The guys at PETA want to disrupt the Republican's right to assemble. Not the other way around. By seperating the groups, everyone can assemble and no one has their rights removed; either by the government or by each other.
Now, you can be an anarchast and claim that anyone should be able to assemble at anytime, but that'd just lead to chaos. The Republicans would be trying to talk while the PETA guys are yelling. The PETA guys would get their asses stomped by the Republican rednecks. Someone would kill a dog or eat a steak just for show. It'd be terrible.
Seperating the groups does not mean that anyone's right to speech has been removed.
Echelon and the Patriot Act (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday August 01 2003, @07:18PM)
Truth is, the U.S. is probably locked down a bit tighter than China these days. Does China have one of these [fas.org]? Through Echelon and the Patriot act, you can say the wrong thing and have nice black suits show up within 24 hours to take you away without a warrant, hold you indefinitely without a trial and completely ignore any constitutionaly protected rights you think you might have.
That is America today and some people are not so happy about it. People like Ian are sticking their necks out and being good Americans. You aren't trying to tell us he's not a PATRIOT are you?
Re:Echelon and the Patriot Act (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is the FBI's evidence against Richard Jewel:
I remember believing our leadership "must have some evidence" of WMD in Iraq!Re:Notable quote (Score:4, Informative)
Alien and Sedition Acts [wikipedia.org], specifically the Sedition Acts. From wikipeida:
The Sedition Act made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against government or government officials.
I think that qualifies.
Re:Notable quote (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Notable quote (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.error-417.com/blog/ | Last Journal: Thursday July 28 2005, @12:43PM)
None of which are forms of speech protected by the Constitution.
Re:Notable quote (Score:5, Insightful)
That depends. Is your wife a CIA agent?
Re:Notable quote (Score:4, Insightful)
So now, the whole Iraq issue is that they violated the UN Security Council resolutions? Oh my, how did I miss that?
Of course Iraq was violating the post-Gulf War resolutions. The reason given to go to war, however, was to prevent an existing and immediate threat of materializing. Wilson's trip was to investigate a specific report, not whether Iraq had tried to buy uranium at some time in general.
As for impropriety, this is always determined by the power and decision making structures involving the participants. Was Valerie Plame the person who initiated the trip? Did she make the decision who will go on that trip? Was she in the position to make that decision? AFAIK, the answer of all three questions is "No."
As to the childish reasoning that she only got involved because the White House wanted to discredit Wilson's article, why does the administration have a need to discredit the truth? (BTW, this is where the Senate's report is relevant - even with Iraq's violations of the UN resolutions, there was, and is no evidence that they did anything with their nuclear program). Even if you really believe that it was simply incompetence not to know about the rules regarding CIA operatives' identities (i.e. always assume it is secret, unless specifically told otherwise), it is still criminal incompetence.
To get back to the original issue - "outing" Valerie Plame was a goivernment retaliation against a published article. Whether it was to discredit the author, to ruin his wife's carrier, or to endanger her life, it doesn't matter - it is still a free speach issue, especially since the intelligence supports the aformentioned article.
Re:Notable quote (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday December 02 2003, @06:03AM)
1. I didn't know we were only talking about Bush.
I referenced Bush because he's the one who is setting up the "Free Speech Zones" that we were discussing. This is where anyone who would make him look bad on television is confined (i.e. those who would boo him, those who would wave banners where the cameras could see, etc.) Anyone wanting to assasinate him is, allowing for sanity, not going to make themselves part of this group. They'll make themselves part of the flag-waving, cheering crowds who are aloud in media range of the president.
As to integrating into a huge mob of people? Absurd! You pull out a gun in the midst of a crowd of protestors, point it at the president and see how quickly you get mobbed and flattened. And if you did, see how quickly you can run away through that "huge mob" you describe. And you see all those coppers who are positioned to keep order? Do you see where they're keeping order? That's right - they're paying special attention to the protesting people, as they always do.
Trying to use a mob of protestors as cover for an assasination is only a hinderance compared to not using them.
The only scenario in which a mob will be a benefit to an assasination, is when it's a mob of people who all want to assasinate the president. And if that's the case, it ain't assasination you're dealing with. It's an intifada.
Re:Notable quote (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://ingles.homeunix.net/)
Ah, you refer, I presume, to Jose Padilla? Good. I've been wanting to ask some questions of someone so well-informed on the matter.
Note: he may well be guilty. The administration may well have evidence to that effect. I hope that is the case, as the idea that they would just imprison a guy for three years with no evidence is even scarier.
But if they have evidence to justify such an imprisonment, then what possible excuse can there be for not putting him on trial with it?
Just a few off the top of my head. (Score:5, Informative)
In other notes we have violations of due process in the case of Jose Padilla and other U.S. Citizens. For example Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." Which requires jury trials for those accused not secret military tribunals. Amendments V and VI also speak to this subject:
And before you jump on the point I would point out that the Military Tiribunals are not being convened against members of the U.S. Military ('
In service in war or in time of public danger') so that clause of Amendment V doesn't give carte Blanche for them.
On another note both the USAPATRIOT act and various federal laws dealing with drugs routinely allow for the unwarranted search and seizure of private property in some cases such property is not returned even when no conviction takes place. This would be (IMHO) a violation of Amendment IV of the constitution which states:
While we're on the topic of drugs. Excessive punishments and jail times have routinely been employed in this area noteably including California's 3-strikes policy which leads to life in prison even for 3 minor crimes (any 3 frauds including possession). Agasin in my opinion this would be a severe issue with Amendment VIII:
As a key point I would also mention this amendment:
Mitnick Exploitation Guy? (Score:5, Informative)
The writeup for this article is confusing (Score:2)
(http://www.buran.org/)
Isn't that exactly what protecting dissent is? A very common definition of the word is someone who disagrees with the reigning government in their country. So I don't see this sudden change of motive that is being implied here.
Re:The writeup for this article is confusing (Score:5, Insightful)
The writeup isn't confusing...the article itself is, and purposefully so.
From TFA: In the second sentence, Mr. Markoff insinuated that the original purpose of Freenet wasn't to protect political opponents of repressive regimes, when in fact Freenet's stated purpose was always, and still is, to combat censorship.
In other words, Mr Markoff is intentionally distorting established history for his own ends, but given his history, that's not too surprising.
Don't help Markoff (Score:2)
Remember in Takedown when Mitnick beat up Shimomura? I'll bet that we'll be seeing a best-selling novel by Markoff in which Clarke is a heroin-dealing child pornographer. Just give it time.
So anyone.. (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Thursday September 29 2005, @09:52PM)
Last few times I tried it I could never get it to REALLY connect, just spurts, an image here, an image there.
Usenet: first and last p2p network (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://istnw.blogspot.com/)
A Problem Freenet Faces (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to accurately discuss Scientology you need access to documents they claim are copyrighted and sell only at extornist prices. Open informed discussion brings lawsuits.
Yet free speech via Freenet brings charges that it is just a method used to violate copyrights.
How do you reconcile these two, divergent views?
Freenet's unavoidable accusations (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://t3.dotgnu.info/ | Last Journal: Monday September 26 2005, @06:32AM)
* Child porn
* Political propoganda
These are two of the untouchable evils that are used to condemn Freenet. The rest of the world really doesn't see the point of an organized data store distributed accross machines based on constancy of use.
After all, political dissidents are an essential measure of the health of a country. One with too little or too much of those indicate either fascism or anarchy. Democracy essentially says that the minorities shall not get what they want (ie the minority is defined as people who voted for something other than the majority) - it should technically have some disgruntled citizens. If you believe otherwise, please stop buying more shiny things.
Anyway, like I like to say "Technology is a sword, both sides use and misuse it". And the essential sarcastic comment about "Freenet can be used for terrorist communications".
As opposed to... (Score:2)
Slashdotters, in turn, appear to comment on the story they probably only know through reading the headline or the submitted blurb.
- shadowmatter
Obvious? (Score:3, Informative)
(http://slashdot.com/)
Fundamental problems (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.seizurerobots.com/)
If you're going to transmit data from point A to point B, points A and B have to know something that makes the other unique among all possible points.
If you're going to make the network 100% anonymous and available, it'll get blocked by administrators afraid it will be abused, like Tor.
How long until the courts squish it? (Score:3, Interesting)
When freenet becomes common enough, government and industry will have to resort to Old Fashioned Police work, trying to trick file sharers into trusting them, then exploiting that trust in an investigation. I have no doubt that we will see that for highly objectionable content, such as child porn and terrorist communications. It won't be worth it for infringement cases, though.
The real question is whether the courts will be bold enough to make the technology unlawful based on the widespread criminal uses that are sure to develop. Stay tuned.
Blah blah blah... (Score:1, Troll)
(http://www.kickthebobo.com/erotech/index.html | Last Journal: Thursday November 15, @02:53PM)
The way I see it, (and the people who originally drew up the concept of copyright), a copyright should protect the rights of the person who CREATED the work. Not the assumed rights of the distributors. Not the guy making millions while doing nothing. If it's a song, then the people involved in the actual act of composing, performing, producing and recording the piece should be covered by copyright. Not the corporation.
(Note: the following statements do not apply 100% across the board, but they do apply in the majority of cases) The problem with our society is that we have a surplus population of useless morons who have no ability to actually do anything productive. They are the "middle men". All they do is insert themselves into the middle of a transaction and do everything they can to make it seem like they have value. But they don't. For example, take the long distance business. We used to have a system that "just worked". It was called the Bell Telephone Company. Yes, it was a monopoly. But, the level of service provided was world class. Then the great American terrorist Ronald Reagan, broke up the monopoly and created the hellball we have today. All in the name of "competition". So what do we wind up with twenty some years later? We have a handful of really big, greedy corporations who provide shitty service.
Where's the competition? Oh yeah... that's right. I almost forgot about all the "mom-n-pop" long distance RESELLING outifts. They offer you long distance at various rates differing by only a few cents here or there. And they provide even shittier service because a lot of times their tehnical people are complete bumpkin morons. (Where I work, we have a nickname for AllTel in Southern-Ohio: Fred's Phone and Feed Service [in case you can't tell, I hate country folk]) We actually had one of their "technicians" attempt to test a T1 line with a butt set. So all of these small long distance services RESELLING you long distance that they bought in bulk from the big greedy corporations offer what exactly? Their long distance service sucks. Their technical expertise sucks. And for the quality of service, their prices suck. The situation is even worse with cell phones. Just think about how many shitty places there are to buy your cell phone service from with how many millions of plans. That's NOT helpful.
So... back to the whole file sharing concept and copyright. The RIAA and the MPAA are the useless middlemen in this whole fiasco. They have realized just how irrelevant they could become if the artists took the power of distribution into their own hands. The only way to preserve their stranglehold on the business it to outlaw the technology that could get the artists wider exposure without help from the RIAA or MPAA. So they focus on the piracy instead of working to make a system that actually works for them and accepting that they may have a smaller role in the future. They want it all. But in all of this, copyright has been twisted in order to protect the "rights" of a corporation. The artists get shit upon. In most cases musicians don't get to keep a lot of the money they make because they wind up paying it back into their record label for supporting them. It's an ugly and scammy system that's basically run by thugs. They are corporate rats that are pretty much a mafia that needs to be rubbed out. All this bullshit about P2P folks not believeing in copyright is total smoke and mirrors. Copyright in it's original form was fine. As it stands right now, it's terribly broken since it protects the people who need the least protection and ensures that the original artists don't get much unless they tow the party line. It's fucked.
Interesting assertion... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the Wayback Machine archive of May 2000 [archive.org]:
Another page from the Wayback Machine [archive.org]:
Freenet's political goal isn't revisionist history. Implying that it's intended for copyright infringement is.
In Sweden... (Score:2)
Markoff Chain of Fools (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/~Doc%20Ruby/journal | Last Journal: Thursday March 31 2005, @01:48PM)
He's planting a corporate flag in the conventional media wisdom of what people can do online. How many people will fear to exercise our actual rights, because they bought into Markoff's lies?
What's changed in Freenet? (Score:1)
(http://elgoog.rb-hosting.de/)
What the talk was actually about (Score:5, Informative)
(http://locut.us/~ian/blog/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 20 2005, @02:26PM)
This new design for Freenet is different, it is a globally scalable invite-only Darknet. Oskar Sandberg and Ian Clarke have developed a method to route messages through a "fixed links" P2P network in a scalable way. This is non-trivial as most scalable P2P search algorithms (such as that previously employed in Freenet, and other Distributed HashTable algorithms) rely on being able to choose which peers are connected to each-other. Its like trying to create signposts for a gigantic maze in an entirely decentralised way.
We hope to make a paper describing this available through the Freenet website [freenetproject.org] in the next few days.
-Ian
More information (Score:4, Informative)
(http://locut.us/~ian/blog/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 20 2005, @02:26PM)
Abstract:
It has become apparent that the greatest threat toward the survival of peer to peer, and especially file sharing, networks is the openness of the peers themselves towards strangers. So called "darknets" - encrypted networks where peers connect directly only to trusted friends - have been suggested as a solution to this. Some, small-scale darknet implementations such a Nullsofts WASTE have already been deployed, but these share the problem that peers can only communicate within a small neighborhood.
Utilizing the small world theory of Watts and Strogatz, Jon Kleinbergs algorithmic observations, and our own experience from working with the anonymous distributed data network Freenet, we explore methods of using the dynamics of social networks to find scalable ways of searching and routing in a darknet. We discuss how the results indicating the human relationships really form a "small world", allow for ways of restoring to the darknet the characteristics necessary for efficient routing. We illustrate our methods with simulation results.
This is, to our knowledge, the first time a model for building peer to peer networks that allow for both peer privacy and global communication has been suggested. The deployment of such networks would offer great opportunities for truly viable peer to peer networks, and a very difficult challenge to their enemies.
Blog Entry:
I started the Freenet Project in 1998 with the goal of building a network for truly free communication, and of all the things we have learned since then, perhaps the most salient is that the biggest threats to P2P networks come not from without, but from within the network itself. This is something that the current file sharing networks are now learning the hard way, with those organizations who wish to stop them now infiltrating the networks to sue individual users for providing certain files. And while Freenet has always been designed to protect the identity and security of people who access and publish information from attackers and prying eyes, it's design has never been able to protect the identity of people who operate nodes in the network from one another.
Recently Oskar, who was one of the original contributors to the project and who is now working on his PhD in Mathematics, and I have been discussing the mathematical mechanics behind large scale networks. As a part of this discussion it dawned on us, that because science now believes that human relationships really do form a "small world" (between any two of us, there are only six degrees of separation), with the right algorithms it should be possible to find data fast even in a network where peers only ever talk to peers that they already know and trust. We believe our methods for doing this provide to key to making peer-to-peer networks that are both dark and searchable: secure and efficient. For those who wish to constrain the free flow of information, such networks could be the biggest nightmare of all...
Does this really help dissidents? (Score:1)
"I am in a repressive state and I have a computer infrastructure that can't be monitored easily, what tool can I use to allow it to transmit documents and other dissident material?"
The problem with the question is that it is all too clear that repressive states are fully capable of finding out you are using Freenet because they assume that any non-standard traffic is forbidden and firewall you or conduct random sniffing. About the only place this is useful is a place like the US or Western Europe where the government doesn't have this broad power. And in those places, you hardly need Freenet to express ethical dissent.
So, what Freenet becomes is a place where people in places where strange traffic patterns won't often be catalogued pass documents that they would not otherwise be passing. And if political documents are protected by free speech legislation, what is left? The answer is all too often things that are not really free speech like child porn and your other less-than-ethical fringe activities.
Look, I'm not saying that people envisioned Freenet as a place for kiddie porn and terrorists, and I'm sure that there are people dutifully engaged in posting valid dissident material on Freenet. I totally believe what they are trying to accomplish is what they say they are trying to accomplish. However, it's never going to gain widespread acceptance if you find yourself faced with anonymously hosting repugnant material on your machine, or heck (irony) material that is even disinformation against your own cause. Sure, you don't *know* you have those images or movies on your machine, but you know they are a) out there and b) you know you have almost no way of keeping that data off your machine. Therefore, you have to assume that you are hosting that material, by default.
So, in the end, Freenet ends up as a completely neutral transmission means, much like the rest of the Internet, except it's slower and it's harder to tell where things originated from. Of course, that last part helps you very little in a state where it's perfectly legal for them to arrest you for simply using Freenet or any encryption.
You want secure transmission? I suggest putting encrypted messages into the bits of a big fat JPEG image of Chairman Mao and slapping it in the Mao Fans Yahoo groups site. I'm sure the Communist Party will be more than happy to give you millions of the images to work with for free.
stay clear of John Markoff (Score:2)
(http://crashrecovery.org/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Markoff [wikipedia.org]
So stay clear from John Markoff, he's even worse than a government chill.
Robert
You don't have to register to read (Score:1)
Click me! [nytimes.com]
Dissent? Not with Freenet (Score:2)
The other problem with Freenet is that it appears to be predicated on the oppressive government's willingness to play by the rules of due process. So you can't say which Freenet machine(s) contains the offending information? Clarke seems to think that an oppressive regime like mainland China will just throw up its hands and give up. Much more likely is that everyone using the software will be considered a subversive, and they'll all be sought out and shut down by state security. Oppressive regimes wouldn't be oppressive if they were fastidious about applying due process and avoiding collective punishment, now would they?
Software can and does change the world, sometimes in dramatically beneficial ways. But it does so in large part because the industrialized world consists primarily of relatively free countries. Repressive countries will be no more affected by software like Freenet than China is affected by FREE TIBET bumper stickers on American cars.
Where to draw the line? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.gemstate.net/friends | Last Journal: Tuesday September 11, @10:32AM)
Someone complained that about the preventing protests too close to the president. How do they feel on limiting how close protesters can be to abortion clinics? Another talks about how valuable hiding you identity is when you speak but how do they feel about Microsoft funding studies about Linux? I have seen people post that allowing kiddie porn is a price they are willing to pay for free speech. If I had the home address and phone number of someone that was unpopular on Slashdot should I have the right to post it? Should I have the right to lie about them?
Which information (Score:2)
Where in his plan does he explain how he gets rid of rabid ideologies, murderous theologies, tribal animosities and the endless hunger for greed, blood, devastation, death, war and horror? I'm curious to see how he solved that bit.
Because we live in a world where certain secrets must be kept lest those with the lesser intellects (which is nearly the same set as those most willing to kill and/or die for their favored set of fairy tales or ideological flim flam or just good old personal selfishness) will bring it all crashing down.
What amazes me is how highly educated and intelligent men can be so naive. I guess they project themselves onto all of humanity, and forget that the greater mass of hyumanity is really just a pack of troglodytes.
Did anyone else... (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Sunday April 20 2003, @09:38PM)
There is just this culture of freedom that people feel they're entitled to, and they don't want anyone looking over their shoulders.
Re:Heh... (Score:1)
(http://www.google.com/)
Yeah.
Re:Just switch it off (Score:3, Funny)
(Last Journal: Tuesday June 01 2004, @05:25PM)
Re:"cause" and "effect" (Score:2, Insightful)
"So anyone have any anecdotal examples of were Freenet has actually helped any Dissidents?"
That's a tough one, since the absence of evidence is the entire point of the system.
Re:Just switch it off (Score:2, Funny)
In order for
That way, at least some of them will understand what you are trying to say.
So please, the next time around, put [sarcasm] tags around your post, followed by a short disclaimer that your post is indeed intended to be sarcastic and maybe add a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm [wikipedia.org] for good measure.
Hope this helps.
You've missed the point (Score:2)
Can anybody actually FIND an example of Freenet being used for political reasons (i.e. dissidence)?
No.
Reason being, it's Freenet's purpose to keep the dissidents anonymous. If you could find an example, it wouldn't be working.
Re:Heh... (Score:1)
(http://www.benjcurry.com/)
Re:Ignore Markoff (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Wednesday October 08 2003, @01:45PM)
Well said Kevin. Atta boy.
Re:Heh... (Score:1)
No, he's not [sourceforge.net] . You're missing something fundamental (or just choosing not to care). There is no way, at all, to differentiate CP from anything else that might pass through freenet nodes. Or, put another way, anything that can be used to classify CP as un-free speech can be used to classify anything else as un-free speech. Until AI image-recognition algorithms become extremely sophisticated, we have to choose between: a) our benevolent government (as well as our employers, depending on what we say) deciding what sort of speech is acceptable or b) agreeing that everything is "free" and hope for the best. So, in answer to your question (which you probably weren't really asking), no, as much as they don't like it (and beleive me, they torture themselves over this issue on the freenet mailing lists - especially Matthew Toseland), this is not up for review because it's an undecidable problem.
Re:"cause" and "effect" (Score:2)
(http://shaunc.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday June 18 2005, @01:47AM)