On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 05:17:45PM -0400, Edward J. Huff wrote: > On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 16:35, Toad wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 04:31:11PM -0400, Edward J. Huff wrote: > > > On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 16:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I'm not sure where your 'village' is but here it works much > > > > the same way actually. But the problem is that there is no > > > > machine that can just tell us what your intent was. So what > > > > your intent was has to be inferred from your actions and your > > > > knowledge. The fact is that everyone knows there lots of > > > > illegal stuff floating around freenet, and one can simply > > > > not avoid responsibility for a crime by deliberately ignoring > > > > what is obvious. > > > > > > > So even though you didn't want to transmit kiddy porn you > > > > made the choice to run a freenet node fully aware that it > > > > could and would result in KP being distributed. That right > > > > there is enough to establish intent. > > > > > > Ok, suppose most users of freenet decide to unite against > > > kiddie porn by using TFE, YOYO, etc., to learn as many KP keys as > > > possible, and delete these keys from their datastores and patch freenet > > > so it won't carry them. Now even so, some KP will be distributed, but > > > only so long as the keys are unknown to the general population of > > > freenet users. Now what do you say about intent? > > > > What happens when users start deleting less obviously problematic files > > such as warez and mp3z? What happens if they disagree over what should > > be deleted? And as far as child porn goes, don't you think a lot of it > > will be "underground" i.e. not readily available from TFE? There was an > > IIP board dedicated to such things... Anyway, if we start self > > censoring, we have two problems: > > 1. Everyone will have a different idea of what should be censored. > > In that case, freenet will route around the most restrictive nodes. > Censorship will only be effective if a clear majority of nodes elect to > censor the content.
Perhaps. If Freenet is that smart. There are two possible technical ways
to do this:
1. If nodes censor a LOT of content, their estimators will fall, so we
will route around them.
2. Per-node failure tables.
>
> > 2. Anyone who censors child porn but not warez, or warez but not decss,
> > or decss but not $cientology copyrighted papers, can be compelled to
> > censor the rest, since it is also technically illegal.
>
> That is not a problem with my suggestion. It is a problem with the
> fundamental design of freenet. A system which avoids this problem would
> have to make it impossible to tell at all (not just impossible to be
> 100% certain) who is requesting content and who is supplying content.
> It would have to be impossible to tell what content is passing through
> each node. ("Impossible" means without compromising a substantial
> fraction of all nodes).
That would make Freenet's other goals unattainable.
>
> Freenet does not achieve this, except when the crypto key (the part
> after the comma) is not published. Once the crypto key is published, it
> is no longer impossible to tell what is passing through the node.
>
> > If we are to "cooperate" in the sense you suggest, we cannot simply
> > block child porn. We would have to block *anything that is illegal
> > in the node op's jurisdiction* !
>
> That is up to each node operator. Failure to block some content -- like
> mp3's -- is a lot less serious than failure to block other content --
> like kp. The node operator might decide to take the risk in the name of
> civil disobedience for some content but not other.
>
> This decision _is_ forced upon the node operator by the design of
> freenet. A different design might avoid the problem by making it
> actually impossible to do selective censorship.
No, it is only forced on the node operator if:
a) We implement such a system voluntarily, or
b) We are compelled to implement such a system in court.
Please read my other mail on this topic.
--
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 [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]
