Well, obviously the context isn't ideal, but its really is a solid benefit to the fundamental architecture of Freenet, and probably one we don't really highlight enough.
I sometimes get the sense that there is an anti-Freenet snobbery among some of the more "academic" onion routing based tools, because they can prove that their systems provide anonymity, within well defined (and for the most part, totally unrealistic) constraints. Freenet's approach tries to be a more pragmatic one, based on the general principal that a useful but imperfect anonymous system, is better than none at all, or a system that is perfect according to very narrowly defined criterial and use-cases that few if any people actually comport with. I think this issue is a good example where Freenet is preferable for a very practical reason that would probably bore the crap out of most people who study anonymity systems from an academic perspective. Of course, we all think that child pornography is disgusting, and we wish we lived in a world where it didn't exist etc etc etc But child pornographers, in many ways, are the canary in the coal mine for anonymity systems; Many of them are tech savvy, they have tech savvy adversaries, and obviously they are as highly motivated not to get caught as almost anyone. if these people have decided that Freenet is the best tool for them, then it's a pretty powerful endorsement, albeit from an extremely unsavory group of people. Ian. On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > Re: bad PR for freenet on Slashdot > From: > redbull at efWjUA~iOGl7afilkLeYJvWwGX7~GrDoZQd0qUYSfZ0 > Date: > Friday 02 May 2008 01:04:54 > Groups: > freenet > Followup-To: > freenet > References: 1 2 3 > frogger at lY4SBJ0hg2L7moUkJq~uXc56BjQD5r6b~~WCHTBC4Wg wrote: > > At Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:51:38 +0000 starobrno wrote: > > > >> Why is this bad PR? If all pedos suddenly left Freenet i would be very > >> worried. I mean, it is supposed to protect people from being executed by > >> evil dictators. > >> If Freenet couldn't even protect the anonymity of people who like to > >> look at naked children it would not be really bad. > > > > It hurts the spread of Freenet. Many people are not willing to run a node > > because of this... content. > > > > So it's bad for Freenet. > > > > IMHO the reason that content is on Freenet is exactly because Freenet > achieves higher degree of publisher anonymity and is easier to use than > I2P/Tor, at least for static content. > > I experimented with servers on i2p (eepsites) and Tor (.onion) in the > past. Setting up such a server is far more complex than inserting a > freesite and publisher anonymity is far lower. Why ? > 1) You need to run a webserver somewhere 24x7 if you want your site to > be usable ==> need for a server > 2) Extra Software. Only i2p brings a minimalistic built-in web server, > for tor you have to run your own web server. > 3) Avoiding identity leaks by web server software is complex. apache, > php, phpbb developers never considered identity leaks a security > problem! in anonymous network it *is*, and a benign error message could > easily disclose the web server location. > > This is a very real problem. Recently, someone started an anonymous I2P > site... well, it was supposed to be anonymous but one script on his > server could load a file from external URL... I think you guess the rest > ;) you could read the story here http://forum.i2p2.de/viewtopic.php?t=2574 > > The only way I can think of to prevent identity leaks completely is to > run a web server box (real or virtualized) in a DMZ with no internet > connectivity. Something like this: > ---[internet]---[gateway box I2P/Tor]-->[Firewall]-->[Anonymous server] > > Firewall should allow only connections from I2P box to the Anonymous > server, but not vice versa. This way anonymous server itself can't find > out where it is, but this takes significant effort. > > And even _then_, my server was a kind of experimental box and didn't > have any real content on it. But if I would be one of those guys with > illegal content, I personally would be afraid to serve it via this box, > because there is Murphy law and something could go wrong ;) > > Now, compare all this complexity and risks with Freenet, where someone > could just insert files from his laptop, delete the files, and go offline. > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > -- Email: ian at uprizer.com Cell: +1 512 422 3588 Skype: sanity
