Greg,
Thanks for your reply unfortunately I did not frame my question very
well. I was already aware that freenet's de-centralised strucuture and
the inability of centralised control. I'll comment and query your
responses to the original questions.
Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > To help facilitate this progects such as apt-get and mail
> > should be concentrated on first, therefore when the inivitable assault
> > begins freenet users and developers will be able to point at all the
> > innocent uses it's being put to.
>
> You're discussing two distinct things here -- the development work on
> Freenet, and the sites that are published by Freenet users.
>
> By its very nature, Freenet resists any attempts to control the content
> published to it. Even the Freenet developers can't stop users who
> insert content to which they (the developers) may object. Ian Clarke
> in particular has confirmed this point many times in interviews and
> discussion.
Whilst Freenet dev work and publishing are seperate would it not be
possible for the use, developement, and using of one's platform as
"nodes" to be considered in legal terms to co-conspiritors in "crime
and/or civil offense" (civil cases in uk are on balance of probabilities
not beyond reasonable doubt).
>
> > Also site authers should refrain from
> > inserting files of legaly dubious nature unless they really do believe
> > they have a genuine reason to do so. After all the lower the content of
> > "illegal" stuff is the less reason there will be to take action against
> > it.
>
> It could also be argued that everyone should publish all the "illegal"
> (or potentially illegal) information they can get their hands on.
>
> Why? To force a confrontation with authority. To overthrow these laws
> which try to make information illegal. To restore freedom.
>
> But this is a tactical discussion, and I'm not quite sure Freenet is
> ready for that step yet. Anyone who's actually *used* it extensively
> knows it's not the second coming of Napster.
>
> At least not yet.
This is the exact area that I'm getting at in my original and badly
worded question. By ".....that everyone should publish all the
"illegal" (or potentially illegal) information they can get their hands
on...." this would give those who wanted to the legal starting pistol.
Imagine some tv court drama;
" it's sole purpose your honour is the desemination of illegal
material. It contains the vilest of smut, pilfered intelectual
property, -depriving I may add the rightful owners of the fruits of
their labour, and finally material of the most seditious nature".
Those who have an interest in killing Freenet would be doing this and
also looking at your reply that you gave me as a show of intent.
This is why I think people who have a interest in Freenet's success
should be very careful regarding how they use and how they present it's
reason for being.
>
> > Finally a question related to the above, can isp's some how block
> > freenet ie by blocking freenet signals
>
> The default Freenet port is 19114. But there's nothing requiring you
> to run your node on that port, and in fact the Windows installer defaults
> to selecting a random number. An ISP could block port 19114 (outgoing
> or incoming or both), but they can't block *every* port without breaking
> everything else.
>
> Freenet 0.3 relies on a centralized repository of node addresses, to let
> the nodes find each other. You can also specify a list of nodes, should
> you learn of some by out-of-band means.
>
> Freenet 0.4 is supposed to eliminate this centralized repository, but
> it's still in development.
Going further would it be possible to reverse engineer the Freenet's
node server to act like a normal node but for the following little
extras: The ability for the node owner to tell it to "goble up"
information packets corresponding to specified key names which it may
have on the hard disk. (This order is not broadcasted onto Freenet
itself to avoid the propogating effect of a key request). The next extra
is that will act to any outside requests for specified keys by giving a
negative response to the request without broadcasting the request
further. Imagine further there a lot of such "official" nodes were set
up that they had very high bandwidth connections and large storage
capabilities compared to the average abilities of "unofficial" nodes.
Wouldn't this cripple Freenet's capabilities? Lastly and the most
sinsiter would be a Freenet worm or virus attack where nodes are
directly targeted?
Well I better go and do some work now. I apologise for the length of
this message.
Regards from
Patrick
--
Commercial Export http://www.idealx.com
Ingenieur Commercial Export http://www.idealx.org
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
