On Thu, 24 May 2001 08:26:51 +0100 "Patrick Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> It means that if there is a risk of my losing my job because of
> what's on my
> hard drive, I need to know that Freenet uses some secure encryption
> method.
> As was pointed out, there is no risk here.
Yep. :)
>
> Not sure about your point about control of the internet. No-one
> controls
> the phone network or postal network yet that is no bar to freedom of
> speech.
The internet is controled by the government, and the government has the
right to tap a phone line doesn't it? So they have control of phone
systems too. As to the postal network, I suppose that is true, unless
you work for a government facility that has secrets to hide, like in the
military, then your every piece of mail is read and censored before being
sent or recieved. So there goes freedom of speech by phone and by mail.
Lets see, they have the ability to monitor internet traffic, thanks to a
little black box that they now have the right to force ISPs to install
into thier hardware, I think it is called Carnivore. The ability to
monitor communications and the ability to track communications is the
ability to censor. Plain and simple. You cannot guarantee freedom of
speech when censorship is being used, or the right to use it whenever you
want is reserved. And you cannot use censorship when you have guaranteed
freedom of speech as freenet does. They cannot co-exist. You can only
have one or the other, not both. To say you can is an outright lie!!
> Freenet will be an interesting technical project but it neither adds
> nor
> takes away from freedom anywhere. The truth is, by the time you
That is NOT correct by any means. The government has the ability to
monitor all unencrypted traffic on the internet, AND they supposedly have
the right to secretly demand the decryption keys from you. This is bad,
very bad. It is like they are saying that only THEY should have the
right to privacy or secrecy, and that anyone else who even attempts to
ensure thier own privacy or secrecy is in violation of the law.
Freenet is the ONLY system that GUARANTEES freedom of speech to anyone
who is able to use the internet. Those who are not able to use the
internet because of corporate or government firewalls or laws about
unauthorized modem use are going to be left outside the culture of
freedom. I think it would be a good idea to try to expand the freenet
concept to wireless communication technology which can be masked as
regular, perfectly normal, and legal communications. Like perhaps
searching for local transmissions, then doing a piggy-back kind of deal
where the original signal is modified and overriden, but, the signal
isn't modified enough to cause any concern among anyone who might be
monitoring the signals. I've seen someone do this kind of stuff on Star
Trek and stuff so I don't know if it can be done, but I hope it can. :)
> need to be
> untraceable, you already have lost your freedom. Its the ability to
Freedom of speech is not the ability to communicate openly, freedom of
speech is the ability to communicate unharrased and unharmed by anyone,
about anything you want to communicate. In China this is impossible. If
you speak openly against the governemnt, your either imprisoned for life,
tortured to try and get names of co-conspirators out of you, or killed
outright, or some combination of those. In the US if you say "I'm going
to assasinate the president, hehehe" with a little disclaimer at the
bottom that you are just kidding, you would probably be found and
arrested on charges of threatening the president. Or some such crap. If
you come up with a way to power your house or car easily and cheaply you
will most likely be hunted down by Big Auto or Big Oil or both and they
will find some way of silencing you, legal or not. You don't just need
Freenet in order to protect you from Governments, but also to protect
yourself from criminals and secret agencies who answer to no one.
Do you really believe that the KGB wouldn't have hunted down and killed
any who dared to cross them or steal data from them? There are too many
people out there who would gladly kill to keep their secrets, are you
actualy saying that one shouldn't worry about them and that therefore
freenet should be nothing more than a hobby or favorite pastime?!
> be open
> about your identity that constitutes freedom.
Being open about your identity doesn't constitute freedom, it constitutes
utter stupidity when people are out to hurt or kill you if they can find
you.
Freedom is the ability to do anything you want as long as you are not
hurting anyone else. True freedom does not exist in this or any other
country as long as people have the ability to kill you or imprison you,
or shut you up despite the fact that you haven't hurt anyone else.
Take the drug war for instance. How does smokeing marijuana hurt anyone
else but yourself, unless you are subjecting people around you to
second-hand smoke? It doesn't. So then why is it illegal to even use it
for medical purposes? We here in Arizona believe that it should at least
be legal for medical purposes, and have passed state lagislature that
allows it. But the Federal Government disagrees and will find, arrest,
and prosecute anyone who tries to get or use marijuana for medical
purposes.
I don't see how marijuana is any different from tobacco or alchohol.
They all do just about the same thing, they are all harmfull in one way
or another, and all are addictive. You can't use this argument to make
marijuana illegal, but keep those other two items legal. It is
hypocritical to do so.
I mean, why did we reverse the alchohol prohibition? Could it be because
alchohol was in such high demand that the black market and organized
crime just exploded and became way too much for the government to handle?
Could it be that the government even began to have internal corruption
problems because of organized crime basicaly paying off, threatening, or
killing anyone in the government who could possibly have anything to do
with the alchohol prohibition enforcement?
And what happened to that black market and organized crime when the
alchohol prohibition was finaly reversed? It dissappeared. All the
killing, the mobs, the alchohol smuglers, the secret breweries, the very
badly brewed and distilled beverages that caused people to become sick
and even die from varios poisons and crap, what happend to all that? It
went away, and was forgotten. But now we have all the same crap that we
had with the alchohol prohibition, only it is other drugs now.
The illegal drugs are in high demand here in the US, and so the black
market has adjusted to that demand and has been feeding it. There is
organized crime that is paying off, threatening, or killing anyone
haveing to do with the illegal drug enforcement. People are getting ill
and dieing from bad batches of illegal drugs. People instead of being
helped to kick the habbit are simply being locked away and the keys are
being thrown away. We are throwing away human beings by the thousands.
How often does an alchohol drinker kill someone to get money for more
alchohol? How often does an alchohol drinker kill or hurt someone to
keep from getting caught for purchasing or useing alchohol? How often
did that kind of thing happen during the prohibition?! The illegal drug
community and the war on drugs is EXACTLY like the alchohol prohibition.
Why have we not learned from our past stupidity? Why must this country
be so full of complete morons?!
And as long as we are banning stuff that hurts us, why haven't we banned
tobacco? Could it be because tobacco users are so widespread that any
legislation to make the growing, distribution, purchase, or use of
tobacco illegal would be thrown out before it ever had a chance? I think
so.
Why can't we make illegal drugs legal, but force manufacturers to put
warnings on the lables, just like on alchohol and cigarretes? Put
something like "Surgeon General's Warning: Smokeing marijuana can cause
damage to your lungs" and "Do not operate heavy machinery under the
influence of marijuana." and stuff? I mean, please, you see warnings
like this on alchohol and cigarretes and ads for them all the time. And
how about makeing it so that some of these drugs cannot be purchased
unless you have a perscription?
The main bad thing about the drug trade are the monopolies, or drug
cartels, who control huge territories, and can therefore fix the price to
whatever they feel like. The drug price would drop dramaticaly by
makeing drugs legal, and enforcing good competition in the drug industry.
Then users would not only be able to purchase drugs without haveing to
steal to support their habbit, they would also be able to kick the habbit
without fear of any legal repurcusions. As it is now, if you are hooked
on drugs, you are more likely to be thrown in prison for life for a
non-violent drug possesion charge than you are to get any help in kicking
the habbit.
And since when does a marijuana user commit violent crimes under the
influence, other than stupidly operating heavy machinery which happens
with alchohol users too? Should we make alchohol illegal again simply
because of drunk drivers? There is already a law that sais you can't
drive under the influence of drugs like marijuana, for obvios reasons.
Do we really need to ad possesion of and conspiracy to sell illegal drugs
to that? I don't think so.
Ok, I've said my anti-war-on-drugs rant, I'm done.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
