> Yes, it is. What precisely is not encrypted?: I was under the impression that key requests themselves were not encrypted and might be matched by a determined eavesdropper to eg a requested known nasty freesite (which is encrypted)?
> There are plenty of technical measures to prevent this; one is the > encryption of ALL node to node links. ie what I was asking about. > Hehe, since BEFORE 9/11, interception warrants in the UK are issued by > the police, for the police, and supervised by a small group of civil > servants. ;) > > I'm not surprised, hehe. I mean, why bother with civil liberties and all that? Such a nuisance. As Orson Wells ( I think it was) said: "Police work is only easy in a police state" (or something like that). > That's unpleasant. Here, the defence of accidentally visiting a child > porn site is quite viable. Accidental might be ok in NZ? What the NZ decision referred to was the difference between content only in the eg browser cache versus the accused's intentional act of saving to disc. The former never used to be sufficient evidence on its own - there needed to be (mens rea) intentionality demonstrated by eg saving to disc (or I suppose sufficient downloads). But then they decided that intentional looking was enough on its own. These decisions have a habit of migrating, might've already. Anyway I didn't intend to limit the issue to pathetic kiddy/p. The same legal principles could be applied to any number of "unacceptable" materials, and let's not forget civil suits either where the burden of proof is usually easier. It's this general trend in the user's legal accountabilty for data requests that can be used to achieve many ends. > > Put all the above together and smell the coffee. > > There are vulnerabilities, of course. But none as obvious as not > encrypting inter-node traffic. I certainly hope I was blabbing out my arse and something like Stunnel would be redundant because there is no way of eavesdropping on a single node over time to match requests to known freenet data?? If so, why do papers on freenet always mention local eavesdropping as "exposing"? BTW, how does Open SSL compare with freenet tunneling? _______________________________________________ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
