|
If things become legally difficult, then Freenet
may need to have steganography features added.
I'm no crypto expert, but as far as I know,
steganography is a class of technologies which allow hidden data to be invisibly
buried into completely unrelated data.
For example, info can be disguised as 'white noise'
buried into raster rows of webcam feeds, or as imperceptible distortions in
guitar chops in public domain MP3 feeds. This is only limited by the
imagination.
"If you repress a religion, you will make it
stronger".
-- Frank Herbert,
Dune
Cheers
David
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 1:25
PM
Subject: [freenet-chat] Re: Chad, Ian -
Legal Issues
I too, am doing a final project on Freenet for my Intellectual
Property and Digital Media course. Specifically, I want to look into the
following question:
"Can Freenet
succeed in protecting itself from the inevitable onslaught of litigation from
copyright holders -- and, more broadly, are the solutions for the digital
copyright crisis to be found in technology rather than legislatures and
courts?"
Personally, I think if there are recipes floating around for
something U. Sam would not like people knowing, it could be made illegal and
enforced through paroling spiders readily provided by M$ or something similar.
Course, I wouldn't want Freenet (as a manifesting digital reality) to be
responsible for bringing on this total invasion of privacy...
What's
the general response within the Freenet development group to simply
illegalizing Freenet and any other anonymous distributed networks? Sad it
would be, but I don't think big guys mess around when it comes to national
security.
Are there any law bums out there who see this more clearly
than I? given the recent Napster rulings, etc?
I'd like to think the
software can keep itself alive; are we really believing this
possible?
Hans
|
