Evan Daniel wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Zero3<ze...@zerosplayground.dk> wrote:
>> Evan Daniel skrev:
>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Zero3<ze...@zerosplayground.dk> wrote:
>>>> Matthew Toseland skrev:
>>>>> Also the uninstall survey has dried up, there are very few responses
>>>>> now, too few to be useful. Maybe we should always show it if opennet was
>>>>> enabled? Or would even that be too much?
>>>> Please don't. It is very hostile (usability wise) to automatically pop
>>>> up these kind of surveys. Not even speaking of the fact that we
>>>> effectively would stab uninstalling users in the back by automatically
>>>> contacting freenetproject.org (which *MOST LIKELY* will be monitored in
>>>> hostile regimes).
>>> If the user was running opennet in a hostile regime, they already shot
>>> themselves in the foot. Loading that web page won't make things any
>>> worse.
>> Surely there is no point in nailing the coffin an extra time by connecting
>> to something as obviously Freenet-ish as our official home page?
>>
>> I don't think we should assume that because opennet was enabled, the user is
>> caught anyway, and thereby thinking that we might as well use the
>> opportunity to ask for his uninstallation feedback ("Thanks. You just gave
>> me 10 years in prison. Best regards, Mr. Wong" ;)).
>
> If he turned on opennet, then it downloaded the seednodes list from
> that server, right? I suppose there's some chance he installed it in
> a safe regime, moved to a hostile regime that monitors the web server
> but not the seednodes, didn't turn off opennet, and is now
> uninstalling -- but that seems like a rather unlikely case.
Wrong. I have Opennet enabled without use of seednodes. If i go offline for a
while it does take some time for the node to learn about opennet through
darknet
peers, but opennet does not imply seednodes.
node.opennet.enabled=true
node.opennet.connectToSeednodes=false
> Besides, if you're uninstalling, you're not doing anything illegal any
> more. I don't think I've heard about people disappearing just for
> visiting a single web page, even in rather oppressive regimes. The
> problem is running Freenet, not visiting the web site (though that
> might get you noticed).
>
> We should worry about our users' security. However, if we don't
> collect survey data, it's harder to improve Freenet. That has
> security implications as well: if Freenet isn't usable, our potential
> users are using less secure alternatives (or not communicating).
> Security risks are worth worrying about, but sufficiently tiny ones
> don't outweigh things that are useful for other reasons, imho.
>
> Evan Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> Devl mailing list
> Devl@freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>
--
http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast
http://www.freedomporn.org/ Freedom Porn, anarchist and activist smut
"None of us are free until all of us are free." ~ Mihail Bakunin
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
