[freenet-support] Re: Hypothetical question...
It seems to me that finding people to communicate with (trust) is the hard part, and actually communicating with them is the easy part. The opennet allows you to not have to trust people, since everything is anonymous, and thus solves the hard problem (in addition to the easy one). The friends network solves the easy problem (communication) but doesn't help with the hard problem (finding people to trust). There is one change that I think would be good: Make it impossible to construct any given file from any given node. This turns deniability into impossibility (ie. someone can't say "the file was on the drive, and it was encrypted" they can only say "part of the file was on the drive, but we had to get the rest off the internet to get the file"). This seems to have a better chance of standing up in court. In other words, never let a given node hold any complete file. --- John
[freenet-support] Re: Hypothetical question...
Matthew Toseland writes: --snip-- > No, there will be an opennet. It will probably operate on similar > principles to the current 0.5 network, but will be 0.7. > > > > We could have a rotating public nodes system like we currently do with > > seednodes.ref, but surely this would horribly break the routing? > > Not necessarily. So the friend small-world thing is purely for the scalable darknet, and the opennet will use something like ngrouting? > We have state level internet censorship? Slight hyperbole perhaps, but the apparatus is there and it seems to be happening. Right now known child porn sites are banned at the backbone/telco level, which is fine, but this shows worrying signs of being expanded. Next on the list is any criticism of a religion deemed to be "hate speech", and porn deemed by some undefined party to be too "violent". The proposed incitement to terrorism stuff is a bit open ended too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4195332.stm OMG, must censor teh internets to protect our children because we have no parenting skills. As for the insinuation that any porn harder than is allowed to be sold in a UK sex shop must be censored, good luck censoring a third of the internet. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3871867.stm Scientologists rub their hands in glee as they gain a new weapon. Pointing out Mohammed was by modern standards a paedo == offence? Claiming the 'lost books' of the Bible that say Jesus had homosexual relations, served a hallucinogen at the last supper etc. exist == offence? Etcetera. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4247638.stm "Powers to tackle bookshops selling extremist material". So Mein Kampf is going to be a thoughtcrime here too? Maybe we could have public bonfires of the offending books while the security forces march around them and shout slogans, y'know, to drive the point home. Bob
Re: [freenet-support] Re: Hypothetical question...
It seems to me that finding people to communicate with (trust) is the hard part, and actually communicating with them is the easy part. The opennet allows you to not have to trust people, since everything is anonymous, and thus solves the hard problem (in addition to the easy one). The friends network solves the easy problem (communication) but doesn't help with the hard problem (finding people to trust). There is one change that I think would be good: Make it impossible to construct any given file from any given node. This turns deniability into impossibility (ie. someone can't say "the file was on the drive, and it was encrypted" they can only say "part of the file was on the drive, but we had to get the rest off the internet to get the file"). This seems to have a better chance of standing up in court. In other words, never let a given node hold any complete file. --- John ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
Matthew Toseland a ?crit : >On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote: > > >>Following the post named "Hypothetical question", I'd like to expose you >>a practical case : the French community. Stop me when I'm wrong. >> >>We all know each others only by Freenet and it is said that it isn't >>enough to form a darknet together, correct ? So we'll have to stay on >>the opennet which is less secure. >> >>If, by a kind of miracle, I meet someone IRL that I trust and is >>interrested in Freenet. We make a darknet together and... we're >>completely alone ! We won't even see the opennet, so we'll have no >>chance to make new connections except IRL. >> >>If the French Community decides to make a Darknet, we'll maybe be able >>to make connections to non-french users we know (but only in Freenet, >>which is a very BAD trust relationship) and to join the big darknet. But >>newcommers, how will they find us ? We won't be able to see their posts >>or sites. >> >> > >As far as the above goes, please read the responses to the other post. > > I did. So you confirm my understanding ? 99% of current Freenet users won't be able to join the darknet and will have to use opennet. >>Suppose Freenet 0.7 becomes illegal in France (what it already is, >>because of the AES 256 encryption). The opennet won't be secure for us, >>but we won't be able to join the darknet. What could we do ? Keep on >>using 0.5 ? >> >> > >The opennet will probably be more secure than 0.5. But both are very >easy to shut down, because they can be very easily harvested - all nodes >can be found easily, meaning they can be blocked, attacked, etc. > > That is why I'm searching a way for someone who is neither a member of alpha-testers/Freenet-devs, nor a very organised terrorist/paedophile to join the darknet. Do you think it would be possible for nodes in the darknet to see what happens in the opennet ? Maybe a special kind of nodes that acts as a gateway between the 2 networks : it wouldn't endanger the anonymity of thoses who are in the darknet but it would give them the ability to see the newcommers and eventually decide to invite them. My opinion is that a resistance-network has to be closed tight when war is on. But it needs to create itself before that. So if some people could choose the become some "fuses" between open and dark, the darknet would remain safe and be able to "recruit". I'm affraid that if this fonctionnality isn't enabled in Freenet, people will do it by other ways (internet forums, mailing-lists, weak encrypted emails, etc.) which are way less secure than Freenet. Or worse, some will decide to publish their keys and allow anyone to connect to the darknet through them... -- http://www.freenet-fr.org
[freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
Following the post named "Hypothetical question", I'd like to expose you a practical case : the French community. Stop me when I'm wrong. We all know each others only by Freenet and it is said that it isn't enough to form a darknet together, correct ? So we'll have to stay on the opennet which is less secure. If, by a kind of miracle, I meet someone IRL that I trust and is interrested in Freenet. We make a darknet together and... we're completely alone ! We won't even see the opennet, so we'll have no chance to make new connections except IRL. If the French Community decides to make a Darknet, we'll maybe be able to make connections to non-french users we know (but only in Freenet, which is a very BAD trust relationship) and to join the big darknet. But newcommers, how will they find us ? We won't be able to see their posts or sites. Suppose Freenet 0.7 becomes illegal in France (what it already is, because of the AES 256 encryption). The opennet won't be secure for us, but we won't be able to join the darknet. What could we do ? Keep on using 0.5 ? As I understand the theory, Freenet 0.7 will be great for pre-existing resistant-like networks, which already know each others and don't need to speak to other people. It will also be great for Freenet devs, who already know the large community of alpha-testers. But it is fully useless if you want to create from zero such a network with other good-will people, what is exactly what we'll have to do in the west during the next years. I hope that I misunderstood something and that 0.7 will be usable by other people than the devs and very organised networks. Please, reassure me. Or explain me that I should stop waiting for 0.7 and accept the idea that the only working Freenet will no more evolve.
[freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote: > Following the post named "Hypothetical question", I'd like to expose you > a practical case : the French community. Stop me when I'm wrong. > > We all know each others only by Freenet and it is said that it isn't > enough to form a darknet together, correct ? So we'll have to stay on > the opennet which is less secure. > > If, by a kind of miracle, I meet someone IRL that I trust and is > interrested in Freenet. We make a darknet together and... we're > completely alone ! We won't even see the opennet, so we'll have no > chance to make new connections except IRL. > > If the French Community decides to make a Darknet, we'll maybe be able > to make connections to non-french users we know (but only in Freenet, > which is a very BAD trust relationship) and to join the big darknet. But > newcommers, how will they find us ? We won't be able to see their posts > or sites. As far as the above goes, please read the responses to the other post. > > Suppose Freenet 0.7 becomes illegal in France (what it already is, > because of the AES 256 encryption). The opennet won't be secure for us, > but we won't be able to join the darknet. What could we do ? Keep on > using 0.5 ? The opennet will probably be more secure than 0.5. But both are very easy to shut down, because they can be very easily harvested - all nodes can be found easily, meaning they can be blocked, attacked, etc. -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20050917/414f9b71/attachment.pgp>
[freenet-support] Re: Hypothetical question...
uction of darknets all seem rational to me. It's a fact > that freenet 0.5 doesn't perform very well, is harvestable etc and these > problems need to be addressed somehow. > > > Anyway, the reason I'm asking about this is because I currently have > > Paypal set up to donate $20/month to the project, but I'm not > > sure if I like the direction it's going. > > > > Any better explanation of how this will work (mainly "how can I connect if > > I don't already know someone") would be greately appreciated. > > > > Thanks. > > > > --- John > > Bob -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20050917/8778b18f/attachment.pgp>
[freenet-support] Hypothetical question...
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 11:35:16AM -0400, John Meeks wrote: > > > On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > You will have to use the opennet, which is considerably less secure. > > I didn't realize that there will still be an "opennet". Will this be in > version 0.7, or will there be two different versions, depending on whether > you want to use the opennet/darknet? There will be a 0.7 opennet. > > Thanks again. > > --- John -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20050917/3c91daee/attachment.pgp>
[freenet-support] Hypothetical question...
at the darknet can work on its own. > > Thanks. -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20050917/4af60e35/attachment.pgp>
[freenet-support] Re: Hypothetical question...
John Meeks writes: > The new information about version 0.7 sounds pretty good, but one thing > about it concerns me. Assuming I don't know anyone who is using freenet, > how do I get onto the network? (Remember, I'm asking this about the next > version, since it says you can only connect if a "friend" lets you. > Assuming I don't have a friend already using freenet, how do I get > connected?) As I understand it there will be two options : join the opennet, which is public and harvestable like the current freenet (but hopefully has better performance etc), or join / create a private darknet which isn't. However, given that the routing model is predicated around the "friends form small-world networks" concept I think even the opennet is supposed to be joined via the noderefs of friend(s). This is of concern to me as well, I don't know anyone IRL who runs freenet. We could have a rotating public nodes system like we currently do with seednodes.ref, but surely this would horribly break the routing? > This change worries me (unless I'm mis-understanding it), since it > basically ties the network to a group of real-life friends, it creates a > nice friendly map that the authorities could use to find everyone > interested in a given subject. I don't think the Chinese government would > have any problems getting someone's computer and seeing all the "friends" > it lists. The idea of darknets is that they're not practical to detect. Assuming this is the case, if e.g. CCP busted one darknet-running dissident through some other means and got the chance to examine their computer, they could also find others in that darknet. Hopefully dissidents in such situations have the sense to organise like terrorist cells so that damage is limited in this case. > In short, it seems like this change would create a set of isolated > networks, and remove the plausable deniability of the previous network. True to some extent, but the whole point of darknets is that they are isolated and secret. There is already a seperate freenet 0.5 network in China. An opennet node could be run to push content from darknets onto the public network, or vice versa, although this is probably risky for a dissident to do. > The "network of trust" concept seems to me to be deeply flawed, since > spies have been able to infiltrate even the most guarded networks of > "friends" (ie. the Mafia, the Manhattan project, etc). Trusting "some guy > I met on the internet" doesn't seem like something I'd really want to do. Yeah, I could find freenet people on the 'net but not IRL, and as you say this makes strong trust difficult. Obviously core project people are trustworthy but if we all connect to them then AFAICS routing breaks (plus their nodes would likely be DDoS'd ..) > I guess another way to look at it is that the network seems to be going > towards being more useful for people in countries like China and less > useful for people in the US. Plausable deniability is more useful in the > US, whereas secrecy is more useful in China. While I feel for people in > China, I myself am in the US, and so therefore look at the project from my > point of view (especially in the current political climate). It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that freenet could be banned in western countries too. The UK gov for example is reactionary, authoritarian and power hungry - all it would take is one high-profile paedophille case or suchlike to whip the tabloids up into a frenzy, and a wish list bill pre-written by the security services could probably be rushed through parliament. We already have state level internet censorship and monitoring. The US is much the same, in spite of supposed constitutional free speech protections. > I'm also a bit concerned about the constant restarts, it seems that the > project is following the "fad security of the month" (although networks of > trust were around with PGP like 10 years ago). Well, as you see there will still be an opennet sort of like the current freenet. The reasons given over the months for the other changes and in particular the introduction of darknets all seem rational to me. It's a fact that freenet 0.5 doesn't perform very well, is harvestable etc and these problems need to be addressed somehow. > Anyway, the reason I'm asking about this is because I currently have > Paypal set up to donate $20/month to the project, but I'm not > sure if I like the direction it's going. > > Any better explanation of how this will work (mainly "how can I connect if > I don't already know someone") would be greately appreciated. > > Thanks. > > --- John Bob
[freenet-support] Re: Hypothetical question...
Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: --snip-- > No, there will be an opennet. It will probably operate on similar > principles to the current 0.5 network, but will be 0.7. > > > > We could have a rotating public nodes system like we currently do with > > seednodes.ref, but surely this would horribly break the routing? > > Not necessarily. So the friend small-world thing is purely for the scalable darknet, and the opennet will use something like ngrouting? > We have state level internet censorship? Slight hyperbole perhaps, but the apparatus is there and it seems to be happening. Right now known child porn sites are banned at the backbone/telco level, which is fine, but this shows worrying signs of being expanded. Next on the list is any criticism of a religion deemed to be "hate speech", and porn deemed by some undefined party to be too "violent". The proposed incitement to terrorism stuff is a bit open ended too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4195332.stm OMG, must censor teh internets to protect our children because we have no parenting skills. As for the insinuation that any porn harder than is allowed to be sold in a UK sex shop must be censored, good luck censoring a third of the internet. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3871867.stm Scientologists rub their hands in glee as they gain a new weapon. Pointing out Mohammed was by modern standards a paedo == offence? Claiming the 'lost books' of the Bible that say Jesus had homosexual relations, served a hallucinogen at the last supper etc. exist == offence? Etcetera. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4247638.stm "Powers to tackle bookshops selling extremist material". So Mein Kampf is going to be a thoughtcrime here too? Maybe we could have public bonfires of the offending books while the security forces march around them and shout slogans, y'know, to drive the point home. Bob ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Hypothetical question...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Matthew Toseland wrote: > You will have to use the opennet, which is considerably less secure. I didn't realize that there will still be an "opennet". Will this be in version 0.7, or will there be two different versions, depending on whether you want to use the opennet/darknet? Thanks again. --- John
Re: [freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
Matthew Toseland a écrit : >On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote: > > >>Following the post named "Hypothetical question", I'd like to expose you >>a practical case : the French community. Stop me when I'm wrong. >> >>We all know each others only by Freenet and it is said that it isn't >>enough to form a darknet together, correct ? So we'll have to stay on >>the opennet which is less secure. >> >>If, by a kind of miracle, I meet someone IRL that I trust and is >>interrested in Freenet. We make a darknet together and... we're >>completely alone ! We won't even see the opennet, so we'll have no >>chance to make new connections except IRL. >> >>If the French Community decides to make a Darknet, we'll maybe be able >>to make connections to non-french users we know (but only in Freenet, >>which is a very BAD trust relationship) and to join the big darknet. But >>newcommers, how will they find us ? We won't be able to see their posts >>or sites. >> >> > >As far as the above goes, please read the responses to the other post. > > I did. So you confirm my understanding ? 99% of current Freenet users won't be able to join the darknet and will have to use opennet. >>Suppose Freenet 0.7 becomes illegal in France (what it already is, >>because of the AES 256 encryption). The opennet won't be secure for us, >>but we won't be able to join the darknet. What could we do ? Keep on >>using 0.5 ? >> >> > >The opennet will probably be more secure than 0.5. But both are very >easy to shut down, because they can be very easily harvested - all nodes >can be found easily, meaning they can be blocked, attacked, etc. > > That is why I'm searching a way for someone who is neither a member of alpha-testers/Freenet-devs, nor a very organised terrorist/paedophile to join the darknet. Do you think it would be possible for nodes in the darknet to see what happens in the opennet ? Maybe a special kind of nodes that acts as a gateway between the 2 networks : it wouldn't endanger the anonymity of thoses who are in the darknet but it would give them the ability to see the newcommers and eventually decide to invite them. My opinion is that a resistance-network has to be closed tight when war is on. But it needs to create itself before that. So if some people could choose the become some "fuses" between open and dark, the darknet would remain safe and be able to "recruit". I'm affraid that if this fonctionnality isn't enabled in Freenet, people will do it by other ways (internet forums, mailing-lists, weak encrypted emails, etc.) which are way less secure than Freenet. Or worse, some will decide to publish their keys and allow anyone to connect to the darknet through them... -- http://www.freenet-fr.org ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Hypothetical question...
The new information about version 0.7 sounds pretty good, but one thing about it concerns me. Assuming I don't know anyone who is using freenet, how do I get onto the network? (Remember, I'm asking this about the next version, since it says you can only connect if a "friend" lets you. Assuming I don't have a friend already using freenet, how do I get connected?) This change worries me (unless I'm mis-understanding it), since it basically ties the network to a group of real-life friends, it creates a nice friendly map that the authorities could use to find everyone interested in a given subject. I don't think the Chinese government would have any problems getting someone's computer and seeing all the "friends" it lists. In short, it seems like this change would create a set of isolated networks, and remove the plausable deniability of the previous network. The "network of trust" concept seems to me to be deeply flawed, since spies have been able to infiltrate even the most guarded networks of "friends" (ie. the Mafia, the Manhattan project, etc). Trusting "some guy I met on the internet" doesn't seem like something I'd really want to do. I guess another way to look at it is that the network seems to be going towards being more useful for people in countries like China and less useful for people in the US. Plausable deniability is more useful in the US, whereas secrecy is more useful in China. While I feel for people in China, I myself am in the US, and so therefore look at the project from my point of view (especially in the current political climate). I'm also a bit concerned about the constant restarts, it seems that the project is following the "fad security of the month" (although networks of trust were around with PGP like 10 years ago). Anyway, the reason I'm asking about this is because I currently have Paypal set up to donate $20/month to the project, but I'm not sure if I like the direction it's going. Any better explanation of how this will work (mainly "how can I connect if I don't already know someone") would be greately appreciated. Thanks. --- John
Re: [freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote: > Following the post named "Hypothetical question", I'd like to expose you > a practical case : the French community. Stop me when I'm wrong. > > We all know each others only by Freenet and it is said that it isn't > enough to form a darknet together, correct ? So we'll have to stay on > the opennet which is less secure. > > If, by a kind of miracle, I meet someone IRL that I trust and is > interrested in Freenet. We make a darknet together and... we're > completely alone ! We won't even see the opennet, so we'll have no > chance to make new connections except IRL. > > If the French Community decides to make a Darknet, we'll maybe be able > to make connections to non-french users we know (but only in Freenet, > which is a very BAD trust relationship) and to join the big darknet. But > newcommers, how will they find us ? We won't be able to see their posts > or sites. As far as the above goes, please read the responses to the other post. > > Suppose Freenet 0.7 becomes illegal in France (what it already is, > because of the AES 256 encryption). The opennet won't be secure for us, > but we won't be able to join the darknet. What could we do ? Keep on > using 0.5 ? The opennet will probably be more secure than 0.5. But both are very easy to shut down, because they can be very easily harvested - all nodes can be found easily, meaning they can be blocked, attacked, etc. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Re: Hypothetical question...
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 03:53:27PM +, Bob wrote: > John Meeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The new information about version 0.7 sounds pretty good, but one thing > > about it concerns me. Assuming I don't know anyone who is using freenet, > > how do I get onto the network? (Remember, I'm asking this about the next > > version, since it says you can only connect if a "friend" lets you. > > Assuming I don't have a friend already using freenet, how do I get > > connected?) > > As I understand it there will be two options : join the opennet, which is > public > and harvestable like the current freenet (but hopefully has better performance > etc), or join / create a private darknet which isn't. However, given that the > routing model is predicated around the "friends form small-world networks" > concept I think even the opennet is supposed to be joined via the noderefs of > friend(s). This is of concern to me as well, I don't know anyone IRL who runs > freenet. No, there will be an opennet. It will probably operate on similar principles to the current 0.5 network, but will be 0.7. > > We could have a rotating public nodes system like we currently do with > seednodes.ref, but surely this would horribly break the routing? Not necessarily. > > > This change worries me (unless I'm mis-understanding it), since it > > basically ties the network to a group of real-life friends, it creates a > > nice friendly map that the authorities could use to find everyone > > interested in a given subject. I don't think the Chinese government would > > have any problems getting someone's computer and seeing all the "friends" > > it lists. > > The idea of darknets is that they're not practical to detect. Assuming this is > the case, if e.g. CCP busted one darknet-running dissident through some other > means and got the chance to examine their computer, they could also find > others > in that darknet. Hopefully dissidents in such situations have the sense to > organise like terrorist cells so that damage is limited in this case. > > > In short, it seems like this change would create a set of isolated > > networks, and remove the plausable deniability of the previous network. > > True to some extent, but the whole point of darknets is that they are isolated > and secret. There is already a seperate freenet 0.5 network in China. An > opennet > node could be run to push content from darknets onto the public network, or > vice > versa, although this is probably risky for a dissident to do. > > > The "network of trust" concept seems to me to be deeply flawed, since > > spies have been able to infiltrate even the most guarded networks of > > "friends" (ie. the Mafia, the Manhattan project, etc). Trusting "some guy > > I met on the internet" doesn't seem like something I'd really want to do. > > Yeah, I could find freenet people on the 'net but not IRL, and as you say this > makes strong trust difficult. Obviously core project people are trustworthy > but > if we all connect to them then AFAICS routing breaks (plus their nodes would > likely be DDoS'd ..) > > > I guess another way to look at it is that the network seems to be going > > towards being more useful for people in countries like China and less > > useful for people in the US. Plausable deniability is more useful in the > > US, whereas secrecy is more useful in China. While I feel for people in > > China, I myself am in the US, and so therefore look at the project from my > > point of view (especially in the current political climate). > > It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that freenet could be banned in > western countries too. The UK gov for example is reactionary, authoritarian > and > power hungry - all it would take is one high-profile paedophille case or > suchlike to whip the tabloids up into a frenzy, and a wish list bill > pre-written > by the security services could probably be rushed through parliament. We > already > have state level internet censorship and monitoring. The US is much the same, > in > spite of supposed constitutional free speech protections. We have state level internet censorship? > > > I'm also a bit concerned about the constant restarts, it seems that the > > project is following the "fad security of the month" (although networks of > > trust were around with PGP like 10 years ago). > > Well, as you see there will still be an opennet sort of like the current > freenet. The reasons given over the months for the other changes and in > particular the introduction of darknets all seem rational to me. It's a fact > that freenet 0.5 doesn't perform very well, is harvestable etc and these > problems need to be addressed somehow. > > > Anyway, the reason I'm asking about this is because I currently have > > Paypal set up to donate $20/month to the project, but I'm not > > sure if I like the direction it's going. > > > > Any better explanation of how this will work (mainly "how can I connect if > > I don't
Re: [freenet-support] Hypothetical question...
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 11:35:16AM -0400, John Meeks wrote: > > > On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > You will have to use the opennet, which is considerably less secure. > > I didn't realize that there will still be an "opennet". Will this be in > version 0.7, or will there be two different versions, depending on whether > you want to use the opennet/darknet? There will be a 0.7 opennet. > > Thanks again. > > --- John -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Integration in 0.7
Following the post named "Hypothetical question", I'd like to expose you a practical case : the French community. Stop me when I'm wrong. We all know each others only by Freenet and it is said that it isn't enough to form a darknet together, correct ? So we'll have to stay on the opennet which is less secure. If, by a kind of miracle, I meet someone IRL that I trust and is interrested in Freenet. We make a darknet together and... we're completely alone ! We won't even see the opennet, so we'll have no chance to make new connections except IRL. If the French Community decides to make a Darknet, we'll maybe be able to make connections to non-french users we know (but only in Freenet, which is a very BAD trust relationship) and to join the big darknet. But newcommers, how will they find us ? We won't be able to see their posts or sites. Suppose Freenet 0.7 becomes illegal in France (what it already is, because of the AES 256 encryption). The opennet won't be secure for us, but we won't be able to join the darknet. What could we do ? Keep on using 0.5 ? As I understand the theory, Freenet 0.7 will be great for pre-existing resistant-like networks, which already know each others and don't need to speak to other people. It will also be great for Freenet devs, who already know the large community of alpha-testers. But it is fully useless if you want to create from zero such a network with other good-will people, what is exactly what we'll have to do in the west during the next years. I hope that I misunderstood something and that 0.7 will be usable by other people than the devs and very organised networks. Please, reassure me. Or explain me that I should stop waiting for 0.7 and accept the idea that the only working Freenet will no more evolve. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] "Could not find the Main class" error
Hi, I had problem installing Freenet because it will fail to download software during installation. Matthew helped me with that so I copied some of the software it was having difficulty with in the installation directory but now at the end of the installation I get the following error: "Java Virtual Machine Launcher: Could Not Find the Main Class. Program will exit." BUt the program continues its installation and is installed but whenever I try to start the program I get the above mentioend JVM Launcher error. I upgraded my JVM to the latest thinking that it was perhaps my JVM error. Thanks, Jim
Re: [freenet-support] Hypothetical question...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Matthew Toseland wrote: > You will have to use the opennet, which is considerably less secure. I didn't realize that there will still be an "opennet". Will this be in version 0.7, or will there be two different versions, depending on whether you want to use the opennet/darknet? Thanks again. --- John ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Re: Hypothetical question...
John Meeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The new information about version 0.7 sounds pretty good, but one thing > about it concerns me. Assuming I don't know anyone who is using freenet, > how do I get onto the network? (Remember, I'm asking this about the next > version, since it says you can only connect if a "friend" lets you. > Assuming I don't have a friend already using freenet, how do I get > connected?) As I understand it there will be two options : join the opennet, which is public and harvestable like the current freenet (but hopefully has better performance etc), or join / create a private darknet which isn't. However, given that the routing model is predicated around the "friends form small-world networks" concept I think even the opennet is supposed to be joined via the noderefs of friend(s). This is of concern to me as well, I don't know anyone IRL who runs freenet. We could have a rotating public nodes system like we currently do with seednodes.ref, but surely this would horribly break the routing? > This change worries me (unless I'm mis-understanding it), since it > basically ties the network to a group of real-life friends, it creates a > nice friendly map that the authorities could use to find everyone > interested in a given subject. I don't think the Chinese government would > have any problems getting someone's computer and seeing all the "friends" > it lists. The idea of darknets is that they're not practical to detect. Assuming this is the case, if e.g. CCP busted one darknet-running dissident through some other means and got the chance to examine their computer, they could also find others in that darknet. Hopefully dissidents in such situations have the sense to organise like terrorist cells so that damage is limited in this case. > In short, it seems like this change would create a set of isolated > networks, and remove the plausable deniability of the previous network. True to some extent, but the whole point of darknets is that they are isolated and secret. There is already a seperate freenet 0.5 network in China. An opennet node could be run to push content from darknets onto the public network, or vice versa, although this is probably risky for a dissident to do. > The "network of trust" concept seems to me to be deeply flawed, since > spies have been able to infiltrate even the most guarded networks of > "friends" (ie. the Mafia, the Manhattan project, etc). Trusting "some guy > I met on the internet" doesn't seem like something I'd really want to do. Yeah, I could find freenet people on the 'net but not IRL, and as you say this makes strong trust difficult. Obviously core project people are trustworthy but if we all connect to them then AFAICS routing breaks (plus their nodes would likely be DDoS'd ..) > I guess another way to look at it is that the network seems to be going > towards being more useful for people in countries like China and less > useful for people in the US. Plausable deniability is more useful in the > US, whereas secrecy is more useful in China. While I feel for people in > China, I myself am in the US, and so therefore look at the project from my > point of view (especially in the current political climate). It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that freenet could be banned in western countries too. The UK gov for example is reactionary, authoritarian and power hungry - all it would take is one high-profile paedophille case or suchlike to whip the tabloids up into a frenzy, and a wish list bill pre-written by the security services could probably be rushed through parliament. We already have state level internet censorship and monitoring. The US is much the same, in spite of supposed constitutional free speech protections. > I'm also a bit concerned about the constant restarts, it seems that the > project is following the "fad security of the month" (although networks of > trust were around with PGP like 10 years ago). Well, as you see there will still be an opennet sort of like the current freenet. The reasons given over the months for the other changes and in particular the introduction of darknets all seem rational to me. It's a fact that freenet 0.5 doesn't perform very well, is harvestable etc and these problems need to be addressed somehow. > Anyway, the reason I'm asking about this is because I currently have > Paypal set up to donate $20/month to the project, but I'm not > sure if I like the direction it's going. > > Any better explanation of how this will work (mainly "how can I connect if > I don't already know someone") would be greately appreciated. > > Thanks. > > --- John Bob ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Hypothetical question...
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 10:26:40AM -0400, John Meeks wrote: > The new information about version 0.7 sounds pretty good, but one thing > about it concerns me. Assuming I don't know anyone who is using freenet, > how do I get onto the network? (Remember, I'm asking this about the next > version, since it says you can only connect if a "friend" lets you. > Assuming I don't have a friend already using freenet, how do I get > connected?) You will have to use the opennet, which is considerably less secure. > > This change worries me (unless I'm mis-understanding it), since it > basically ties the network to a group of real-life friends, it creates a > nice friendly map that the authorities could use to find everyone > interested in a given subject. I don't think the Chinese government would > have any problems getting someone's computer and seeing all the "friends" > it lists. They would have even less problems with the network as it is now. If I had access to the firewall rules I could block freenet, even in the absence of session bytes and other easy identifiers, in a day. > > In short, it seems like this change would create a set of isolated > networks, and remove the plausable deniability of the previous network. No. Firstly, there is no reason why the "isolated networks" cannot grow to be fairly large, and less reason to expect them not to link up and form even larger networks. Secondly, there will be an open network for those who require it; it will be easy for the chinese government to block it, the RIAA to DoS it, etc, (no more so than it is with freenet 0.5 however), but it will still exist. Thirdly, even in its initial iteration, the darknet retains security as long as your neighbours do not actively attack you. > > The "network of trust" concept seems to me to be deeply flawed, since > spies have been able to infiltrate even the most guarded networks of > "friends" (ie. the Mafia, the Manhattan project, etc). Trusting "some guy > I met on the internet" doesn't seem like something I'd really want to do. Cellular structures have been used throughout history. They are extremely resilient. Of course it is possible to attack them. But it is expensive. Whereas attacking the current freenet is EASY and CHEAP, because you can very quickly establish the location of every node on the network. If it is dangerous to run a node as such, then darknet is the ONLY option which can survive. Where you met somebody is irrelevant. I have casual acquaintances and good friends both "in real life" and on the internet. Depending on your level of paranoia, and where you live, you might want to connect to one or the other. > > I guess another way to look at it is that the network seems to be going > towards being more useful for people in countries like China and less > useful for people in the US. Plausable deniability is more useful in the > US, whereas secrecy is more useful in China. While I feel for people in > China, I myself am in the US, and so therefore look at the project from my > point of view (especially in the current political climate). There is a genuine concern that you will be particularly vulnerable to attack by the people you are directly connected to. It is very difficult to secure the network against local traitors. As far as "the current political climate" goes, if it is easy to destroy freenet, and if freenet is sufficiently useful and widespread to pose a serious threat to the powers that be, do you think that it will be tolerated? Either in China or in the US, in the pessimistic long term view propagated by most people on this channel? > > I'm also a bit concerned about the constant restarts, it seems that the > project is following the "fad security of the month" (although networks of > trust were around with PGP like 10 years ago). It doesn't have anything to do with the security fad of the month. It has to do with the unfortunate reality that any fully open system can be blocked very easily. Which means that an open freenet might be useful for a while in the West, but it will be blocked *very* easily in the less-free-world. > > Anyway, the reason I'm asking about this is because I currently have > Paypal set up to donate $20/month to the project, but I'm not > sure if I like the direction it's going. > > Any better explanation of how this will work (mainly "how can I connect if > I don't already know someone") would be greately appreciated. You can connect to the open network. Random matchmaking is not reasonable on the darknet, because we require a small world topology for routing to work. And I don't want to have the opennet connected directly to the darknet, because we need to show that the darknet can work on its own. > > Thanks. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature __
[freenet-support] Hypothetical question...
The new information about version 0.7 sounds pretty good, but one thing about it concerns me. Assuming I don't know anyone who is using freenet, how do I get onto the network? (Remember, I'm asking this about the next version, since it says you can only connect if a "friend" lets you. Assuming I don't have a friend already using freenet, how do I get connected?) This change worries me (unless I'm mis-understanding it), since it basically ties the network to a group of real-life friends, it creates a nice friendly map that the authorities could use to find everyone interested in a given subject. I don't think the Chinese government would have any problems getting someone's computer and seeing all the "friends" it lists. In short, it seems like this change would create a set of isolated networks, and remove the plausable deniability of the previous network. The "network of trust" concept seems to me to be deeply flawed, since spies have been able to infiltrate even the most guarded networks of "friends" (ie. the Mafia, the Manhattan project, etc). Trusting "some guy I met on the internet" doesn't seem like something I'd really want to do. I guess another way to look at it is that the network seems to be going towards being more useful for people in countries like China and less useful for people in the US. Plausable deniability is more useful in the US, whereas secrecy is more useful in China. While I feel for people in China, I myself am in the US, and so therefore look at the project from my point of view (especially in the current political climate). I'm also a bit concerned about the constant restarts, it seems that the project is following the "fad security of the month" (although networks of trust were around with PGP like 10 years ago). Anyway, the reason I'm asking about this is because I currently have Paypal set up to donate $20/month to the project, but I'm not sure if I like the direction it's going. Any better explanation of how this will work (mainly "how can I connect if I don't already know someone") would be greately appreciated. Thanks. --- John ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] "Could not find the Main class" error
Hi, I had problem installing Freenet because it will fail to download software during installation. Matthew helped me with that so I copied some of the software it was having difficulty with in the installation directory but now at the end of the installation I get the following error: "Java Virtual Machine Launcher: Could Not Find the Main Class. Program will exit." BUt the program continues its installation and is installed but whenever I try to start the program I get the above mentioend JVM Launcher error. I upgraded my JVM to the latest thinking that it was perhaps my JVM error. Thanks, Jim ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] rfi: FCP API for 0.7
Sorry, there isn't much solid documentation yet. I will write something up soon as there have been several requests. On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:35:22PM -0700, Vanessa wrote: > Anything you can say on this or provide me with some pointers to where I > might be able to find some answers? Not necessarily specs, but something > that will give a bit of confidence things will be allright or how things > API related will progress? > > Thank you > > "It would be nice indeed and a positive sign if something was said about > what to expect on the API. It will not be something esoteric, it will be > like what it is now as seen from a functional level, I guess. > > Maybe the messages being exchanged will have a different format but that > will not cause much trouble. Just make sure the FCP parts are properly > isolated and the distance will be relatively short, I hope." -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20050917/c7f11f9e/attachment.pgp>
