On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 10:34:09PM -0400, An Metet wrote: > ok people, i've seen enough of this talk to not only be made ill by it, but > to reach a point of having to say something. > > > first off, censoring freenet is a bad idea, period. > > it matters not the reason, means, whatever. > > freenet is about free speech. > > if you don't like that free speech, then don't knowingly request it. >
Fair enough by me. > I think that previous suggestions should be implemented: > > Additional layering of encryption to handle keys in local datastore. > make it so that it is 'unreasonable effort'(as in mathematically almost > impossible) for anyone including developers to determine what is in local > store of any one node. That's mathematically impossible. If the node knows what's in the store (and it needs to to function), then the operator can find out. The only workaround is for the store to be wiped on every startup using an ephemeral key. The cost of this in terms of data longevity means that it's probably not a preferable option. > > then when riaa or whoever comes along and says 'get rid of that', > we turn to them and say 'that is not possible unless you know how to break > 128bit encryption' > > i also suggest SSL connections node to node so that ephemeral diffie > hellman keys make the job even more difficult. Eh? We use DHAES already. Link level encryption is as strong as can reasonably be expected. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
