On 28 Jun 2006, at 02:23, Lars Juel Nielsen wrote:
On 6/28/06, Volodya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I have never heard or read that Toad said that, but the
response
> to anyone that did say that is that the darknet is there so that
it is
> available to those that need it. If people don't need the security
> offered by participating in a darknet, then they should use the
opennet.
But that is a silly argument. Why have FProxy filtering content.
If people want security
they can just view sites in plain text, can't they. But currently
you aren't even warning
people asking them what do they want to do with external links,
but simply remove them.
The reason for that is that when people ask somebody like me what
to use for their
anonymity on the internet, i tell them about freenet, with the
opennet i will have to
mention that they should make sure to go for darknet if they want
to be truly anonymous.
If you are approaching this from perspective "but people want it"
then a lot of people
want blocks to be marked by the extension of the file, so that
they can say "i only want
MP3 in my datastore" are you planning to implement this? Then why
are you still going for
the opennet?
I'd much rather we only have darknet, opennet will be less secure and
less robust, a somewhat acceptable price for the ease of use, the
unacceptable part of the price is how much it will hurt the darknet by
taking all the users but those who truely neet it away.
Why do you assume the two would be mutually exclusive?
You assume that if we deny people the opportunity to connect to an
opennet, then they will join the darknet - but this simply isn't what
we are seeing in practice. If we deny people opennet functionality,
then they create their own opennet using public link exchange
mechanisms which are cumbersome, extremely easy to compromise, and
lead to poor network topology.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
