On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 02:13:14AM +1000, James Buchanan wrote: > Jes wrote: > >If you help pedophiles, you also help the guys who are paid to kidnap, rape > >and murder children. Do you really think those children (who could be > >yours) > > Paid to kidnap, rape and murder children? *How* do you know that? Like > homosexuals are paid to kidnap, rape and murder men? Like heterosexuals > are paid to kidnap, rape and murder women? (Who could be your wives or > husbands?)
You are saying that there is no professional child porn market? So all the stuff I get in my inbox advertising russian juveniles involved in depraved acts is bogus? I find that difficult to believe. > > >have freedom of speech? If so, keep using freenet and increase your data > >store > >to 100GB, so it can contain many child porn movies... > > Boo hoo. Get over it? You don't have to watch the goddamn things, > nobody does. There are videos of beheadings and all sorts of ugly shit > at rotten.com, but nobody gives a fuck about that, do they? If you have > videos of child murder, nobody gives a shit. You can collect all sorts > of disgusting film and other material, but someone sucking a boy's dick > will make you the scum of the earth, eh? Funny. People get off on all sorts of things. I suggest that most of the above is in fact illegal, if it involves children. The US courts have held that there need not be nudity for an image of a child to be pornographic. And many depraved activities which some freenet sites appear by their titles to depict are surely pornographic that do not involve the above. All I am saying is: 1. If they get it from Freenet, they probably aren't paying for it. This is by no means an iron-clad guarantee that it won't eventually result in revenues for professional child pornographers. 2. It may be worth it. If you run a postal system, if you run an internet router, you are bound to pass some packets, or letters, that contain such filth sooner or later. This does not mean that we should not have postal systems, nor does it mean we should not have the internet or the phone system. Nor does it mean that we should open all snailmail and read all email to prevent this. People have envelopes for reasons of privacy. The difference between Freenet and a postal system is that Freenet provides anonymity, untraceability, to its users. Arguably the postal system does this to some level, and certainly there are other anonymizing services on the Internet. And there have historically been and continue to be good reasons for anonymity. And even large files can be sufficiently in the public interest that anonymity for their publishers is useful. We are working on a way to make Freenet much harder to shut down even in regimes where it may be illegal. If we succeed, then this will make it much more useful, potentially, in areas such as China, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, where the state imposes severe restrictions on freedom of speech, yet internet access is available to a rapidly increasing proportion of the population. But even in the West, there is speech that is dangerous to publish: - Criticising major corporations e.g. Diebold (voting machine scandal) - Criticising the Church of Scientology (remember Google blocking xenu?) - Reverse engineering software to determine whether it is secure, or whether it contains backdoors - Talking about the Official Secrets Act in the UK (there have been websites which have had to move) - Discussing suspected criminality where it may be hazardous to openly do so, where there may be government or police complicity, or where you do not yet have sufficient evidence, and cannot gather it without help. - Publishing information in the public interest from your employer, whether he be corporate or government. And so on. As far as large files go.. large files are _easy_. We provide means to download them for several reasons: A. There are large files that are obviously in the public interest. The Diebold files fall into this category. B. There are large files which it would be useful to be able to host without having to pay a massive bandwidth bill. There are other solutions to this, of course, but Freenet, if it worked well, would be a reasonable, meritocratic solution to the problem. C. People will send big files over Freenet anyway. It is best if we provide some means for them to do so. D. For purposes of Freenet 0.5/0.6, anything over 1MB is a big file. For purposes of Freenet 0.7, anything over 32kB is a big file. Anything over ~ 20MB is a huge file (needing multi-layer splitfiles). E. Freenet may well turn out to be an efficient means of hosting large files. Bittorrent is good, but only for files of popularity over a certain significant level. Whereas the threshold with Freenet is significantly lower, because of having usually-on nodes, with large datastores, and because content is distributed according to the routing algorithm, rather than purely according to who fetches it and doesn't delete it. I'm speaking in terms of potential here, of course. Right now, the main reason freenet has such a high proportion of sensitive content is that it is slow. When it is faster there will be more non-sensitive content, and more content which is sensitive but whose author wants a large audience. Small files are hard. What is hard is making the network itself work well. Whereas large files you don't care too much about latency, and you can use huge redundancy and massively parallel requests to maximize bandwidth. > > (Please don't kill me; I'm just using my freedom of speech) > > Ditto. > > Cheers, > James Buchanan -- 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 chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
