>>>>> "B" == Brandon <blanu at uts.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
B> I think the default answer to the question should be on. When a
B> privacy violation occurs, it will be reported as a horrible and
B> fundamental flaw in our architecture which can only be solved
B> by this host of P2P solutions companies.
Yeah, well, it seems like if we have filtering ON, and we say, "We'll
take care of you," then any sploits will appear all the more
dangerous.
It might be better to say, "Here are some dangers of using
fproxy. Note, these are 'dangers' if you're concerned about your
anonymity, not dangers to your computer or whatever. [dangers here]
Here are some things we've provided to help out [filter,
proxy]. HOWEVER, these are not 100% foolproof solutions, and any time
there is some danger of anonymity compromise. Although it is our goal,
we cannot recommend Freenet for people who need 100% anonymity."
Or something like that. Put the problems up front, and don't let
someone get the drop on us with (say) an <img> tag attack.
~Mr. Bad
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Bad <mr.bad at pigdog.org> | Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/
freenet:MSK at SSK@u1AntQcZ81Y4c2tJKd1M87cZvPoQAge/pigdog+journal//
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
Devl at freenetproject.org
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
