On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 10:34:24AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
> We have a legislative framework which tries to ensure free-speech, and
> it has failed. In many other countries institution of such a framework
> is impossible since the government wouldn't allow it. The whole premise
> upon which Freenet is founded is that government's should not have the
> power to prevent free speech (implying that they should not have the
> responsibility of ensuring it).
I am sceptical of this line of reasoning. Freenet activity is
conspicuous--the nonstandard ports, the frequent incoming connections,
the DH exchange, the randomness of the encrypted data .... these
problems can be mitigated, but the fact remains that sneaking encrypted
data past a restrictive and paranoid ISP is something that has never
been tried in practice (or rather, on a substantial scale).
And if all else fails, and Freenet traffic is getting through, wouldn't
you pull the plug? Nationalize all computers and put them in monitored
internet cafes.
--
"...it must be held that third-party electronic monitoring, subject
only to the self-restraint of law enforcement officials, has no place
in our society..." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
