Tim Murray wrote: > Sam Joseph wrote: > > If you send an image > > of me being brutally raped to somebody who gets off on looking at that > > kind of thing, then you are hurting me. Maybe you can say that I > > shouldn't care, but you can't tell me that you are not hurting me. > > > > What happens to my right to not have those kinds of images of myself
> > shown to other people? > > > > Think about the situation where someone gets images of me without my > > permission, and distributes them ... > We always knew Freenet would be used for generaly evil things, like child > pornography. It's simply inevitable being that there are people around who > create and consume that kind of information, and not making Freenet would not > stop them. Sure, but it might make it easier for those people to distribute the material without being called to account for it. > We simply hope that any such abuse of Freenet is far outweighed > by the potential ammount of good it can bring. If you don't think the good > in Freenet will outweigh the bad, don't use it (which you apparently have > already done). I'm not trying to argue that you shouldn't build Freenet, or that people in general shouldn't use it. Clearly any technology can be used for good or bad. One of the things with Freenet that distinguishes it from some others, is that when I use it I am putting resources into a common pool (I guess I can set my local cache size to zero), and although some of those resources get used for good things, others get used for bad. I was trying to discuss with you guys why I should feel uncomfortable about the idea that I have child porn on my hard disk. What you are saying Tim, is that that is a necessary evil if we want to ensure free speech. Now maybe it is and maybe it isn't but it seems to me that a far more effective way to support free speech would be to go around trying to convince people it's a good idea, rather than trying to create a system that forces it down their throat. There are plenty of societies and cultures that don't believe in the Western liberal doctrine of free speech etc. Who are you to decide that those cultures are outright wrong, and put the values of the individuals above that of the socieyt? I'm not saying that you shouldn't. I just want you to be aware that you are making a value judgement. It seems to me that you have already decided that anonymous free speech is something that should be forced on all societies independent of whether they ask for it or not. Now don't get me wrong, I repeat, don't get me wrong. I personally think that free speech (although not necessarily the anonymous part) is a very good thing, it's just that you are setting yourselves up for confrontation with a lot of cultures that may just go around and prevent people from running Freenet nodes at all, what does that solve? You are taking on a confrontational stance, that invites confrontation. Seems to me that the purpose of free speech, basic human rights and so forth is better served by discussing ideas with people rather than creating secure channels of anonymous file distribution. CHEERS> SAM _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
