On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 12:15:54AM -0700, coderman wrote:
> LUSER: Recently a researcher released a paper detailing the weaknesses
> for a certain watermarking scheme. This violated certain
> misguided laws, and the paper was pulled. Someone told me it
> was on freenet. Do you know they key?
>
> FRED: Sure. Let me look it up. (a few seconds pass while meta data
> is scanned for the relevant terms. 'Watermarking' 'weakness', etc.
>
> FRED: The key is: mQGiBDpBoSARBADNbiv4DCFUylpLuDN53kPGpKFLm2ZLVy28AJI7.
>
>
> LUSER departs enlightened.
Or the way it's done today, on the WWW and Freenet:
FRED: Check Freenet-Cryptome. It's linked from most of the major
freesites.
LUSER: Cool, there it is. And I even know it's legitimate!
> I can picture many circumstances like this. Especially in more repressive
> countries like China, the Middle East, etc.
>
> While the implementation may leave certain things to be desired, I would
> have to say that robust searching would be benificial no matter what.
I agree, if you add a few criteria:
Searching shouldn't unduly damage the plausible deniability of
node operators.
Searching shouldn't be so expensive that it significantly
damages Freenet's performance.
Searching shouldn't introduce new attacks on orthodox Freenet
functionality.
(I'm sure there are other reasonable criteria....)
I've been too harsh on searching today. If we knew how to implement
anonymous submissions to keyindexes acceptably, perhaps my criticism of
searching would be justified. But as it stands, there is no good way to
anonymously inform the world that you've published something on Freenet.
And that is indeed unacceptable.
--
"...it must be held that third-party electronic monitoring, subject
only to the self-restraint of law enforcement officials, has no place
in our society..." Mark Roberts | mjr at statesmean.com
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
Devl at freenetproject.org
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
