On Tuesday 28 October 2003 06:44 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Don't we want Freenet to be as self contained as possible, without > > all the issues of depending on the regular web for anything besides > > initial download? > > Ah, so we already *have* to access the regular web to start at all? > Interesting... > > Yes I know. Distribution servlet! How about providing the initial bookmarks > only by the distribution servlet? So every node operator can decide with > which bookmarks he wants to feed to the newbie. And it's unlikely that > the operator provides questionable bookmarks as they are tied to his > IP address.
Ok, If we are using th distribution servlet to send out a script which the other computer runs, then we need to trust the computer you are getting it from. If you have to trust that computer, then why do we pull the JARs from the FreenetProject site? Because we want to make sure they are up to date. So then it would be usefull to have all the latest Freenet stuff in Freenet. The best way to do that would be to have a project page. If there is a project page, then most of this argument goes away. > >> Some old reasons to have no bookmarks on the Web Interface: > >> > >> - Legal issues. If I were a bored lawyer I'd try to sue Freenet > >> for linking to sites that link to child pornography. Be it legal > >> or not, it would make too much fuss Freenet shouldn't have to > >> face. > > > > There is unlikely to be much way to get around this. > > Around what? Linking to sites that link to sites that link to sites ... > (etc) ... that contain illegal material? Right, there is only one way > at all: Not to link at all! That's what I want when I say "Don't ship > FProxy with bookmarks". If something is illegal that links to something that links to something that links to something that is illegal. Then in whatever country that has that law, the internet itself is illegal. If that is the case, you can't get a connection to run or get Freenet in the first place. So I don't think the project needs to be worried about the laws in such places, as there would be no leagal way for those people to have gotten the "Illegal software" from you in the first place. ( and if they are already breaking the law to run Freenet, I don't think that they will complain about it linking to potentially illegal material.) So if we were to have a Project page that had all the latest versions of Freenet and links to all of the various indexes, ( and if people were really anal you could separate all those that don't censer their content onto a subpage.) > > SeXe42k (or whatever he calls it now), for one, has > > both illegal porn and interesting non-adult material, > > and is heavily linked to. And you'd have to push TFE, > > TFEE, YoYo, and other non-censored directories down > > into the underworld to avoid the charge that you are > > linking to them. And the chances of that happening > > are a joke. > > Yes, let's all hope that it is a joke when they are really after us. > > Just like I said. It doesn't matter if it is legal or not to link to > sites that link to sites etc... It *is* a way to (successfully or not) > attack Freenet and its developers and could make unnecessary trouble. > > Currently I have the impression that with only 3 clicks from the Web > Interface you get to questionable material. That is a very nice thing > for the 9 o'clock news. "Install Freenet and child porn is only 3 clicks > away!" > > Well anyway. I think Ian is well aware of the possible threat but he > wants to keep the initial bookmarks as long as possible because of user > friendliness. > > jnk _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
