How do they deal with the problem that data can fall out? Do they try to
provide guarantees, a la Eternity, or do they not, like Freenet?
The article doesn't go into great detail, it would be interesting though to think about it. Afew methods I can think of that could be used:
-two parties agree to keep eachother's keys (of course you only tell them the public 1/2).
-you can send out a request asking if someone has the key(s) for your backup but instead of the node sending you the key like Freenet currently does, it only says it has it (so you know your backup is currently safe / does not need to be reinserted).
It's interesting from a backup standpoint since you want to push as much data off your node as possible, so the trick of keeping the keys readonly in your node isn't applicable since you are not publishing the data you want others to see.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:47:06PM -0400, S M wrote:
> I've just read an excellent article that mentions Freenet. The article is
> primarily about an encrypted distributed backup system and how such an
> encrypted system looks like Freenet. This backup system would be another use
> for encrypted information on your hard drive for which you lack a key. If
> many people / businesses used such a system it would make it a lot harder to
> outlaw encryption / encryption when you dont have the key.
>
> This could be a killer application and possible use for a Freenet type
> system although since no one would be requesting the backup it would tend to
> fall off Freenet.
>
> Here's the link and a quick exerpt:
>
> http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/rupertgoodwins/0,39020691,39215931,00.htm
>
> A better backup can restore online freedoms
>
> [...]
>
> With Freenet, the users don't know what's in the data, nor do they know who
> provided it or where it's going, which makes it impossible to prosecute
> someone for wilfully hosting or distributing illicit material.
Hopefully.
> One potential
> solution is being discussed whereby it would be illegal to have encrypted
> material on your system to which you had no key; the argument goes that if
> you do, you must be up to no good. It's an extension of the old "if you're
> innocent, you have nothing to hide" argument for police surveillance;
> morally and logically null though it is, we live in times where such ideas
> are routinely turned into law.
>
> Yet the existence and widespread use of distributed backup would be a
> sovereign cure to such nonsense. It would demonstrate just how much
> potential for good exists if we're allowed to create and experiment with the
> tools we've developed, and not limited by moral panic or the wish of
> established interests to preserve the status quo. And my friend would no
> longer be stuck with a large collection of drinks coasters that once held
> his life's work.
It's a good idea but I don't see how you would make it sufficiently
reliable. Backups have to be reliable.
It seems like a good idea too, it would be interesting if anyone else comes up with ideas and reads the article too.
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
