On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 06:20:11PM -0700, Mr.Bad wrote:
> >>>>> "MJR" == Mark J Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> MJR> Not much compared to the many uses thought-criminals have for
> MJR> anonymity.
>
> I think you're totally wrong, man.
Sorry, rightness hasn't been a criterion for a freenet-chat post in a
long time. :P
Anyway, I admit my error and distortion. Anonymity is useful for more
than foiling the secret police, though I admit a strong affinity for
that; and if Freenet was only useful for thwarting government censorship
I would support it just as much.
My point, which I think is valid, is that Freenet's mission statement is
explicitly abetting criminals, given that publishing some data is
illegal; and thus "being careful about what we say" is unproductive. The
Freenet Project is a criminal organization.
> As to crypto: Hooke's law was initially published as a cryptogram, and
> not discovered for several years later. Leonardo Davinci kept all his
> notes in cyphertext. Any other science published anonymously,
> pseudonymously, cryptographically? I dunno.
The passage gracing my .sig for the moment was locked in a desk by its
dying writer, and upon his death in 1677 was shipped, desk and all, to
his Amsterdam publisher. All this after fleeing from excommunication and
religious murder.
> It might be cool to have a page on FreenetProject.org that talks about
> why anonymity is important.
You volunteering? :^)
--
"Laws which can be broken without any wrong to one's neighbor are
counted but a laughing-stock; and so far from such laws restraining the
appetites and lusts of mankind, they rather heighten them." --Spinoza
PGP signature
