>No, this is not going in, unless it is going to be forced over my >kicking and screaming objections. There are three important reasons:
As a relatively new freenet user who is interested in the gateway feature, I'm having trouble understanding your objections. Maybe you or someone else can clarify them. >1) The effect on the opaqueness of the network is real. The network >already reveals things when data is requested, but we try to keep it at >the minimal necessary level for keeping accurate routing. I'm sure that >one could try to patch over each specific example by making the behavior >more and more complicated, but it betrays the general principle. And >note that this problem is not resolved by making the feature voluntary - >opaqueness is a global quality that effects everyone. As far as I can tell, the only thing that a potential attacker could possibly learn is the IP addresses of some gateway nodes. How can this affect anyone besides the people who have decided to run gateway nodes? >2) Other networks do this better. If you want to protect requester >anonymity for requests to unsafe resources, then there are systems that >are a lot better at it then freenet. A "Crowds" system, for instance, >does not have routing and HTL values that betray nodes that start >requests to others as we do. I believe that cDc's "peekabooty" system is >a Crowds implementation, perhaps you ought to look at that. Mixnet >systems are safer still. Yes, the design of freenet will make it perform worse at this task than some other systems. But why is this something to kick and scream about? There seems to be reason to believe that if this functionality were added to freenet, it would work and people would use it. Are you trying to imply here that this is not the case? >3) Probably most importantly, it undermines the real goals of this >project. Security and privacy for the publisher is just as great a part >of our goals as requester privacy, and encouraging freenet to be used >just as a proxy rather than an information storage network is going back >on that goal. I, for one, have not given up hope that we can make >freenet work at what it actually is. Ok, I'm a little lost here. "privacy for the publisher" and "requester privacy" are not mutually exclusive goals. Neither are encouraging use as a "proxy" or as an "information storage network." Adding a gateway feature won't discourage people from inserting data into freenet or running nodes. If anything it will do the opposite. >You should have discussed the issue here before you implemented this. >This idea is not new, so you would have had the same response right >away, and could have saved yourself the time and effort. What do you mean this idea is not new? Have there been other implementations? And, I don't think this was a waste of time or effort. Russ _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
