On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 05:17:45PM -0400, Edward J. Huff wrote:
> > 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.

In which case, what is the difference between running a Freenet node and
running an FTP site?

Additionally, if freenet has to "route around" different nodes'
blacklists, that has some major technical consequences - one being that
it would be very advantageous for nodes to disclose their blacklists
publically, another being that we would need to have MANY MANY nodes in
the routing table, far more than is healthy normally.
> 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.

Any network that STORES FILES will have this problem. If you don't store
files, you just elevate the problem to a higher level.
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
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support

Reply via email to