Author: toad Date: 2009-01-21 00:46:18 +0000 (Wed, 21 Jan 2009) New Revision: 25165
Modified: trunk/website/pages/en/faq.php Log: Different kind of anonymity, delete note at end re anonymity Modified: trunk/website/pages/en/faq.php =================================================================== --- trunk/website/pages/en/faq.php 2009-01-21 00:34:49 UTC (rev 25164) +++ trunk/website/pages/en/faq.php 2009-01-21 00:46:18 UTC (rev 25165) @@ -453,8 +453,8 @@ Freenet is designed to resist censorship. The network must therefore be robust, and content must be distributed without requiring a central server, whether anonymous or not. Defences focus -generally on a distant attacker attempting to find the source of some content (e.g. a whistleblower). Tor on the -other hand is designed to anonymise real-time data streams, and assumes that +generally on a distant attacker attempting to find the source of some content (e.g. a whistleblower). +Thus it provides a different kind of anonymity to Tor, which is designed to anonymise real-time data streams, and assumes that there is a "free world" where a large number of nodes can be run in the open without any threat of their being shut down. Freenet also has no concept of a "client": all participants are nodes, relaying requests for other nodes as well @@ -596,8 +596,7 @@ of attack, we are interested in hearing about it. Please keep in mind what Freenet is and what it is not, however. No single network can offer everybody -everything, and there are security issues (like anonymity, discussed -above) that Freenet, +everything, and there are security issues that Freenet, by it's nature, may not deal with to extent you might wish. If this upsets you, all of our code is freely available, so you are free to take as much of it as you like and write your own distributed network _______________________________________________ cvs mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvs
