On 6/7/07, Florent Daigni?re <nextgens at freenetproject.org> wrote: > * Jusa Saari <jargonautti at hotmail.com> [2007-06-07 23:23:48]: > Implementing a workaround (opennet, backtracking, ...) is only a way of > fixing temporarily the topology to the expense of both liberty (it has > to be the default behaviour as you pointed out) and safety (everyone > knows that the opennet approach has design caveats). > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" > -- Benjamin Franklin
Your use of the Franklin quote suggests that you are looking at this backwards. The alternative here is not between users using an opennet or a darknet, its between them using an opennet, or another solution that is far worse (such as a public proxy). This is the simple reality of the situation that we see time and time again whenever we bother to listen to our users. Consequently, by giving people the option of an opennet, we aren't inviting them to give up liberty, we are inviting them to increase it. Most sane people think teenagers should have access to condoms, but some people think its a bad idea, claiming that giving teenagers access to condoms will encourage them to have sex. The point, obviously, is that teenagers will have sex anyway, the only question is whether it will be safe sex. Substitute opennet for condoms, and darknet for abstinence, and you see that many of those arguing against opennet are following the exact same wrongheaded line of reasoning as those that disagree with allowing teenagers access to condoms. Ian. -- Founder and CEO, Thoof Inc Email: ian at thoof.com Office: +1 512 524 8934 x 100 Cell: +1 512 422 3588 AIM: ian.clarke at mac.com Skype: sanity
