Ian Clarke: > I pointed out that Freenet was still in development, but they assured me > that everyone using it is informed-of and fully accepts the risks.
Even the most perfect Freenet implementation cannot conceal the identities of the participants. I've heard reports about ISPs blocking emails concerning Freenet. Whether this is widespread, and whether it reflects any specific official directive regarding Freenet use, I do not know. (As a digression, keyword blocking is in every case only useful for intimidation. An employee whose obscene joke to a coworker is blocked by a mail filter may scramble it to avoid the filter, but in doing so he reminds himself that the management disapproves.) I mention this in order to demonstrate that Freenet has been noticed by the wrong people. I cannot predict whether, when, or where the next move shall be made. The best way to transfer files is to do so between trusted parties with the aid of steganography. This is not as cumbersome as it first seems. Web servers can be programmed to steganographically encode arbitrary documents into downloaded files. There are certainly other possibilities; the basis of all must be to make the transaction impossible to automatically detect. These servers would ideally be run on the same host and port as other popular services; mere connection logs would not tell apart licit and illicit use. I'm no authority on this principle, but it seems as though even a bad implementation of it, wherein transactions might be detected with some clever code, would be far preferable to Freenet, which reveals everyone through the simple act of making a request. _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
