On Monday 12 Dec 2011 02:24:17 Dennis Nezic wrote: > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:05:36 -0500, Chris wrote: > > > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 16:36:53 -0500, Chris wrote: > > > > > > It's not that they "think" it's hopelessly insecure. It really > > > is :p. I mean, it might still be "good enough" -- but there are > > > actual, well-known, unsolvable problems with the opennet idea. > > > Which that FAQ should have explained :p. > > > > I'm not arguing it is or isn't. Everything is relative though. > > No, everything is not relative :P. Opennet *is* pretty easily > exploitable by design. This isn't a problem with freenet in particular > -- but of any untrustworthy network. (Opennet does actually have a > minimal amount of trust in it -- via the seednodes. But it's easily > exploitable. A darknet is the way to go. (The only reason why the > opennet is still around is because people are lazy and complacent.))
It's a specific problem with not being a mixnet. Unfortunately mixnets are either not scalable or easily blocked or both. However IMHO Freenet can be useful even without being a mixnet. > > > > Nobody is saying you don't need public support (at least until you > > gain power). > > It's the first and main thing you need, before you decide to take any > action. (Unless that action is supposed to persuade them -- which > anything violent or controversial probably almost certainly won't.) Hmmm... when was this email written? ;) > > > If the government is killing off or arresting the organizers then > > gaining popular support is difficult or impossible. > > Well, if they're organizing to "get the revolution rolling", then of > course that's an assured fail. If they're organizing to peacefully > teach people, then yea, arresting those people will hamper things. This > is where freenet might come in. What happened in practice is they posted to facebook pages (sometimes in their real name, sometimes Facebook turned a blind eye, but it is likely to crack down on it now outside of countries where it has no legal exposure and it is fashionable not to cooperate with the authorities), they got traced by the regime and executed, but then their families came out, along with the families of all the people kidnapped and shot by the government at demonstrations... What you really need in such a communication tool is *popularity*. The problem with Facebook is that you are at the whims of a corporation trying to make a profit, whose main asset is *your private information*. The problem with Freenet is even if we get it working well (and we're a long way off that), if it's popular the government will just block it by various rather expensive brute-force methods and bill the customers for the oppression. But generally, the more popular Freenet is, the more useful it is for political purposes. And yes, things like subversive blogs are important. Even in the west, where people get fired, prosecuted etc for blogging about work. > > > The problem is that many people are going to be in great danger as > > they will be physically doing things that might get detected. > > People should not be doing things "physically", before the philosophy > is firmly entrenched in the minds of the people. If the people are > still brainwashed, than any action you take will only make your > position look worse. First you have to undo their brainwashing. Hence blogs etc.
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
