On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:44:42PM +0200, Newsbyte wrote: > >I have yet to be convinced that the law requires a layer of meaningless snake oil. > > Then it's up to you that, a) it's not snake oil and/or b) that it's not meaningless. > > As I've explained before, I think it's not a matter of if, but of when Mr. Riaa will > begin with the same tactics as they do now on the regular internet. You claim it's > not that easy, and I believe you on your word, but Mr.Riaa and his ilk are not ALL > stupid ninkenpoops, even if they act like they are most of the time. Finding out the > CHKs is not THAT difficult, that it's beyond the means they have. > > As you said yourself: nothing is totally safe and secure; it allways depends on what > means someone has and effort he is prepared to do for breaking the security. > > Currently, it's well within the means of Mr.Riaa to use the same tactics as he is > already doing, even when it's harder. This means, that it's well within their means > to make it very annoying for the users, which ofcourse will reflect badly on > Freenet, and it's usefulness. > > I predict this will happen as soon as Freenet becomes wildly used. It is a too > obvious weakness to miss, and too obvious to let it stand. Sooner or later, we will > have to deal with it.
The weakness is insoluble. Unless nodes run 24x7 for LONG periods, and encrypt the entire store with an ephemeral key, thus wiping it on startup. > > > (I prefer sooner). -- 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]
