My system IS designed to protect freedom of speech.
Actually, my goal is to "make a global file system that's impervious to the
NSA."
So yes, freedom of speech is very important to me. In fact, if my dream
becomes a reality, there will be unique challenges that the (central
security) organization must deal with. I expect China to be a much more
difficult case to deal with than America, because we are so used to having
freedom of speech. So I'm already aware of all the issues we will have to
deal with. That alone is a discussion in itself, but it will be democratic
and realistic.
The method is a bit different than yours, but the results are the same. I've
designed a separate system, out of necessity, called UNI-ID, for UNIversal
IDentification. In fact, the security portion was the last part that I
designed, and I found myself with a unique challenge. In order for the
encryption and authentication features to work, there must be a way of
uniquely identifying end users and servers, and authenticating them. Often,
security requirements will kill an otherwise good design. The location
independence dictates security: If I can get www.cnn.com's files from my
neighbor, I must have a way of authenticating them, otherwise my neighbor
can produce false files, thereby rendering the location independence
useless.
This is where the authentication system comes into play. It's also the
public key authority.
I can tell you from experience, because I've been researching the same
thing, "distributed security" is an oxymoron. Only a single security
authority can make a global file system work. Respecting peoples right to
privacy is something that will be built into the bylaws of the non-profit
foundation which will run UNI-ID. I expect us to have a working relationship
with the Secret Service, FBI, Customs, and all the same agencies of the
foreign governments. I hope to use a "virtual law firm" model, where end
users may or may not choose to sign power of attorney to us. From law
enforcements perspective, you must have a good case with good evidence
before you ask us to
I want to go into more details about the security, but you really need to
see the design to understand it.
Basically, its psuedo-anonymous. Your account acts as an email forward
service, so the world can contact you, if you choose. But UNI-ID does not
contain enough information to identify the end user. If law enforcment
demands somebodys identifcation info, because they threatenend the president
for example, then the info we have will not be enough for them to
immediately identify the person, only enough to reduce it down to a set
number of possibilities. Since this email is going out to everyone, I wont
go on for 10 pages to explain the details.
I've actually invented 2 things, the file system, and the zero-knowledge
based authentication system.
Ironically, the record industry will probably love this, because I've
addressed their concerns. Copyrights become a decryption issue with my
system, and the encryption keys (and security groups) can be obsoleted, so
once a private key is illegally distributed, it can be obsoleted.
One of my scenarios is something called "the anywhere pc", and basically it
shows how somebody can use the internet as "the primary disk", and go to any
PC connected to the internet and access their same files. The location
independence allows for this, so does the permanent caching. If you go to a
new location, such as Kinkos Copies, at first its slow while your files
transfer there. But the permanent caching then kicks in, and its fast from
that point on. Your files are encrypted, so the local copies are not a
security risk. Because the internet is the primary disk, if you don't return
to Kinkos, after time the cached (encrypted) copies will be purged.
See, I wrote the scenarios first. I WROTE THEM YEARS AGO, so I could have a
set target to stay focused on.
I never thought I'd actually pull it off (haven't yet, but it works on
paper).
Another scenario is Microsoft Office 2004, which is a native MFS aware
program. Basically, office runs from URL's at Microsoft, and end users cache
copies of the application. Only people of bought it have their UNI-ID
entered into the UNI-ID group which belongs to Microsoft, which is the set
"owner" of the files, therefore only members of the group can decrypt them.
I have come to an engineering conclusion that a global file system, with my
features and goals, cannot work without a central security authority. Yet,
the authority isn't the achellies heel of the design. The organization will
have NO access to the data for the users of the file system. We are not big
brother. However, the organization will manage the anti-virus services (a
byproduct of the design methods), and will be , more or less, the
"certificate authority" which will be used by the world to authenticate
servers and files. In fact, the design wont work without it.
Current network file systems are nothing more than local file systems,
stretched across a network. They are not bandwidth aware.
I even have a feature called Data Stream Interruption. In New York you can
be downloading a movie from a server in California. Along the way, some of
the intermediate routers notice that their networks have that movie, and
they transparently interrupt the data stream, and cancel the stream coming
from California, thus saving the bandwidth between California and that
intermediary network.
>From a bandwidth perspective, and that's my perspective, this file system
addresses the duplication problem and the wasted bandwidth.
As for my motivations, its simple: I want the credit for inventing this. I
do hope to make money off this, but in an indirect way, just like Linus
makes money off of Linux. I know for a fact that I'm sitting on something
huge, because so many others are working on the same thing. This design will
empower the entire "store solution provider" business model, and storage
area networks.
Does anybody remember when a company showed Microsoft how to do native API
translation for OS/2 2.0? It was in 1990 or 1991..
Remember what happened? Anybody know networking well enough to agree with me
that Netware rules, and Microsoft has borrowed a lot of the technology of
Active Directory? (banyan invented it anyhow), and Novell will soon die?
I'm doing the patents, because I know Microsoft tried and failed, at the
same design. I know their history, and I've got the money.
To not get the patents is stupid, in my opinion.
Remember, I intend to give the design for free, so long as the
authentication service is used, which will be for a non profit foundation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Clarke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 5:33 PM
To: Josh
Cc:
Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] RE: I've designed a global file system, it will
obsolete NFS, Gnutella, etc. I want to be assimilated by freenet!
<< File: ATT00008.dat >> On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 03:07:58PM -0700, Josh
wrote:
> I have studied the documentation, and the overlap is negligible.
So where do you see the opportunity for cooperation? Is your system
designed to protect freedom of speech? As I am sure you are aware
(having read our documentation), the goal of freenet is to protect free
speech on the Internet.
> My software patents are to deal with Microsoft, not to screw over the
world.
Deal with them how? One of the points of Open Source is that it allows
everyone to benefit form your software, even people you don't like.
> The open source community has helped to create Microsoft, they take your
> work, and add it to their own. Clearly violating the GNU license. And they
> don't even respond in kind.
I am not aware of any evidence that Microsoft has taken GPL code and
redistributed it under a different license - can you point me to some?
> Screw 'em, I've learned my lesson, my design is new and unique, so I'm
> patenting it. So I can help enforce a global standard. Otherwise NFS and
AFS
> will be enhanced with MY unique features, and I'll get jack shit out all
the
> effort I've spent.
You seem confused, first you say that the point of these patents is to
help enforce a global standard, but then you imply that it is for
personal profit. Software patents have no place in an Open Source
project.
> I'm sorry that you wont call me Ian, e-mail only accomplishes so much.
I prefer email, I find it must better for discussing technical issues
than a phone call.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
