On Saturday 19 Feb 2011 00:58:16 Dave U. Random wrote: > toad i havent trusted you since 0.7 began and i may never trust you agian. > this is part of why.
Sad, but not my problem. Lots of people don't trust me, quite a few people go well beyond that position. Occupational hazard. :) > > quote from a slashdot comment by http://slashdot.org/~paganizer > http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=547480&cid=23344166 > > >Back around when the developers started talking about the darknet concept > >in the first place the stated reason for doing so was so that child > >pornography could be blocked. Which is good. But if you can block kiddy > >porn, you can block anything. which is bad. I know dark net is not > >anonymous and private, whatever their present day arguments are, because > >that was their stated intent. > > i very much remember this talk of blocking kiddie porn being part of what > darknet and other 'features' of 0.7 was supposed to accomplish. granted, > kiddie porn is evil and deserves to be blocked. however as the quote points > out if you can block that you can block anything. > > i also remember statements of intent to block or make difficult trading of > copyrighted files. while trading such may be illegal and even wrong in some > cases, that stated goal is contrary to freenet's purpose. None of the above is even remotely true. What is true is: - In ALL versions of Freenet, you are vulnerable to your peers - correlation attacks, which we've known about for a long time (though not been certain as to difficulty) and more sophisticated things we've discovered more recently. This is simply because Freenet is not a mixnet. Not that mixnets are necessarily safe either. - Some time in 2005 I started to realise that opennet Freenet had precisely zero chance of evolving into something which is hard to block and hard to attack. - Me, Oskar and Ian took the project in a new direction: A more or less full rewrite, focused on darknet, with a new routing algorithm devised by Oskar which made darknets navigable. - Some time after this, I speculated on a darknet-based system, which on my blog I called Hereticnet (and you can still see that blog post), which would include some form of "community standards" censorship. This would share many of Freenet's technologies but would be distinct from Freenet. I may have suggested it as an addition to Freenet in the original mailing list posts, but even if that is true, I quickly moved to the position that it would be a distinct system. I also pointed out that it relies on so much Freenet technology that it would be a long way in the future. There was very strong opposition to this on the mailing lists and it was not pursued. > > that author was right, i remember those stated intents and no matter how > well archives have been scrubbed others remember them too. Most of the archives of devl are not maintained by us. There are many such archives on many sites. Having said that some third party archives allow for removals when there is the support of the list operators, and we have on one occasion used this - because somebody didn't want Freenet to come up when employers Googled him. IMHO that was probably a mistake. Of course, you are not going to believe anything I've said here: Obviously I must be lying, I must have edited the history, and so on. And Ian, Oskar and everyone else is conspiring with me to bring about censorship! What exactly my motive might be is rather unclear: You can't even say it's religious fundamentalism in the light of my recently abandoing the faith. Maybe I'm working for the NSA. But maybe it was worth the effort for the sake of other people reading this exchange.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
