On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Donald Buczek <buczek at molgen.mpg.de> wrote: > I'm not really into freenet yet, anyway I'd like to ask your comments on > this idea of mine: > > If I understand things correctly: > > Currently, if you can read the data stored on a node, you can tell, > whether is contains data you know the hash of. So node owners may get in > trouble, because they can be proven to posses certain data. The > possession itself might be illegal or lead to oppression, even if the > owner can not really be proven to have knowledge of the data or to have > requested it. > > Whatever, it would be much better, if a stolen data store would not > reveal its content. > > My idea how this could possibly done is this: > > Whenever some new data has to be inserted into the network, first > another chunk already in the network (in the nodes cache) is randomly > chosen and the new data is XORed with the old chunk producing a new > chunk. This new one is stored in the network. The information published > to retrieve the data is a pair of hashes to the old and the new chunk. A > client needs to retrieve both chunks to rebuild the data. (so requiring > up to doubled time and bandwidth, but not doubles storage)
This is exactly how OFF System[1] / Monlith[2] works. I don't think this would help at all. When the law say possession without knowledge can held guilty, there is no reason why this can be legal. Yale law school's LawMeme[3] have some discussion on this. You may found Schneier's article[4] interesting too. [1] http://offsystem.sourceforge.net/ [2] http://monolith.sourceforge.net/ [3] Archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20040812103610/http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1487 [4] http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/03/monolith.html > Whats is the point? The Point is, that possession of a chunk in the > datastore is not related to just the single file, the bad guys might > know about, but it might be related to many other data as well, the bad > guys don't know about or don't have problems with. > > You see: CHUNK1,CHUNK2 might combine to a problematic piece of data. > But CHUNK1 and CHUNK3 combine to some other data. So do CHUNK2 and > CHUNK4. So, possession of CHUNK1 and CHUNK2 does not prove, that the > problematic data has been produced or that the owner knows anything > about the fact, that they could be combined. CHUNK1 and CHUNK2 might > have been stored to serve some other data, even if other related chunks > can no longer be found in the cache, because they were displaced. All > chunks are just random data, they can be XORed to generate just > anything. The "poison", the difference between good or bad, is only in > the references, not in the data itself. > > I think, when existing chunks are chosen as partners for new data from > the inserting nodes cache, chunks will cluster together in different > contexts. If two chunks are "near" to each other, because they were > needed together to build one set of data, they will likely be used > together again to build new sets of data. So later its quite likely to > have CHUNK1 and CHUNK2 together in the cache for multiple sets of data. > > Is this understandable at all? What do you think? > > Sincerely > D. Buczek > > -- > Donald Buczek > buczek at molgen.mpg.de > Tel: +49 30 8413 1433 > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech >
