Even if the nodes had access to the unencrypted files, content filtering
would merely make inserting kiddie porn less (bandwidth) efficient, not
impossible.
It's not that hard to turn, say, a JPEG into something resembling english
text.
Try: http://www.cs.uct.ac.za/courses/CS400W/NIS/papers99/dsellars/stego.html
-- Blair.
P.S. The efficiency of an advanced "content filter" will asymptotically
approach that of a human censor.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Joseph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, 20 April 2001 16:33
> To: freenet-chat
> Subject: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)
>
>
> Tavin Cole wrote:
>
> > > What is it with this? Are you telling me that I couldn't set up a
> P2P
> > > network that stored cryptographically hashed content and
> did routing
>
> > > like freenet, but where the nodes blocked input of non
> natural-language
> > > text files?
>
> > You could do this, but it would obviously mean the nodes would be
> dealing
> > with unencrypted files.
>
> I don't think so. The interface for entering the files would
> screen out
> things that weren't natural language, and then encrypt the
> files before
> storage.
>
> If the files are thus encrypted the system can be as secure as Freenet
> is now, right?
>
> Anyway, clearly I am not helping get my point across by emphasizing
> this. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to build such a
> system, it was
> just a thought experiment (like Einstein's Elevator or Schrodinger's
> cat) to try and think about whether images were essential for
> protecting
> freedom of speech, and now I've got some opinions on that, we
> don't have
> to think about a text-only freenet anymore. I'm sorry I raised the
> possibility in the first place.
>
> CHEERS> SAM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
>
----------
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential
and is intended for the attention and use of the named addressee(s) only.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and
may not necessarily reflect the views of Chelmer Limited.
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
- Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about... David McNab
- Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Fre... Sam Joseph
- Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Fre... Sam Joseph
- Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts ... David McNab
- RE: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts ... W. Eric C. Ferguson
- Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts ... Tavin Cole
- Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts ... moritz
- Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Fre... Sam Joseph
- Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about... Blair Strang
- Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about... Travis Bemann
- Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about... David McNab
- Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about... Mark J. Roberts
- Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about... Travis Bemann
- Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about... Mark J. Roberts
- Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about... Travis Bemann
- Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about... Mark J. Roberts
- Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about... Travis Bemann
- Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about... Mark J. Roberts
- Re: Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about... Travis Bemann
