On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:03:15PM -0000, Thrasher Remailer wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >Here's a really whacky idea I came up with on the train back from > >Strasbourg (please read the whole email before flaming me): > > I'm not going to flame, but I cannot begin to state how strongly I disagree > with this idea or any idea even remotely like it. > > >Personally I support Freenet being uncensorable and providing > >untraceability for posters, because there is no way to prevent > >censorship abuses by the powerful (including governments and > >corporations), while still allowing censorship to prevent e.g. > >child porn. I propose below a means that could provide some form of self > >regulation, under locally democratic control, which would provide a > >powerful deterrent to people posting objectionable materials. This is > >only possible because of the trust relationships underlying a scalable > >darknet such as Freenet 0.7/Dark. There is an argument that unpopular > >content will fall out of the current Freenet; it won't if the original > >insertor keeps on pushing it back in. Maybe, just maybe, we can have our > >cake and eat it too. The result would be that freenet could be far more > >mainstream, usable by far more people (e.g. oppressed religious groups in > >china are likely to object to all the kiddy porn on freenet), and its > >content would reflect what its users want rather than what the state > >wants. > > Essentially, this will destroy freenet's original purpose. > > You propose introducing traceability. Bad Idea. The whole point of freenet > is that it's users are NOT traceable and can remain fully anonymous. You > spoke of only people you trust being able to know your IP, I don't trust > ANYBODY!
In order to participate on the darknet, you will need to connect to a few people who you actually know in the real world or online. This is so that the network can survive harvesting attacks and therefore survive its own illegality. That is independant of the content of this email; it is already decided, and it is essential for freenet to be usable in places where it will be illegal. As far as sanctions go.. if a complaint is upheld, the node's premix key would be known, meaning that those nodes directly connected would know that the node that inserted that objectionable content is the one they are connected to, and should effectively disconnect from it (broadcasting the node's IP address is an extreme sanction that damages the network and would therefore not be allowed on some darknets, and require a very high supermajority on others). > > I use freenet because I can function anonymously, I rely on the fact that > freenet's distributed nature makes it impossible to identify or take action > against the insertion of any particular content. > > Granted, there are people abusing that to insert wide varieties of porn, > including c.p. but you see, that's a price that has to be paid. If freenet > is to be what it's stated purpose is, then the ONLY action that can be > taken in regard to content that somebody finds objectionable is to not > request it. One can also help push older objectionable content out by > continuing to insert quality content. They will simply reinsert it. Freenet does not provide for meritocratic censorship by the masses through content falling out if the content author is actively reinserting. Why do you think that information that really is in the public interest would be blocked? > > The problem with tracing and taking action against objectionable content is > that the definition of objectionable content has a tendency to change. > > Today the bad thing is c.p., tomorrow it's a certain political view, next > it's something else... and so on. And if the mainstream consensus is that far out, then it's time to fork from the mainstream darknet. Each darknet forms a community with its own standards, and if you don't like it, you fork. If you, as a block, post something which they don't like, the likely result is that they will sever connections with you, so the two darknets go their separate ways (and you have some recruitment issues). > > I'm thinking ahead to when the thing that is illegal to distribute is > certain Christian teachings. Given a system like you describe it is true > that a lot of c.p. can be removed. However that same system would cause > the deaths of a lot of people in the eventual Hyper-Anti-Christian world > that is developing. > > Please pray and reconsider. Do you honestly think that we can help the oppressed Church with a system which openly distributes child porn? A large majority of them would not use it on ethical grounds, certainly once they see what's on TFE. I will certainly pray before implementing anything this radical. -- 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]
