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.

Attachment: 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]

Reply via email to