On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 03:16:45PM -0400, Tavin Cole wrote: > > Whether the two are both considered "Freenet" or whether the other > > network has a different name is just semantics. > Hardly. If you wed it to the Freenet network itself, you: 1) contribute to > making it impossible for anyone but us to implement a Freenet node, and 2) > make it impossible for someone to leave their Freenet node running if > ordered to shut down their "Freesearch" node.
1) is an inevitable consequence of any improvement to Freenet functionality, and is countered by the fact that itegrating this functionality into Freenet means that there will be more nodes capable of providing this search functionality, which will be good for the network. 2) can be avoided by inclusion of a simple configuration option as to whether the node supports this functionality. > In fact I think that if you tie this into Freenet itself you are directly > undermining one of the project's goals: plausible deniability. "But I > didn't know my node was holding metadata information on those copyrighted > mp3s." "Whaddya mean, it's right here in plain text" This disadvantage of the metadata searching was pointed out in my initial post, however anyone who doesn't want to take this risk (and there are many many people taking much more of a risk with Gnutella) can just disactivate this functionality in their node. Ian. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010603/f90cec40/attachment.pgp>
