On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab at web.de> wrote: > On Sunday 01 August 2010 12:14:51 Ximin Luo wrote: >> So yes we should just > drop "physical security". To do it properly we'll >> have to ?fuck with parts > of people's machines we really shouldn't be >> fucking with; and if they are > that paranoid (I am) they should just >> encrypt their entire disks, which > will cover non-freenet stuff too. > > For me that would take away one of the > main strengths of freenet: People need only install one program and have > anonymous and mostly secure communication right away. > > Why throw away one > of the strength freenet already has? > > Freenet can only attain the goal of > spreading uncensorable information, if it is really easy to use. Else it can > only reach the geek part of the population.
I agree. The unix philosophy of "one tool for one task" is all very well for the typical unix user who is comfortable stringing multiple tools together, but that isn't our target audience. Installing and running Freenet shouldn't require that a user install a bunch of other tools and do a load of configuration, because the reality is that most people won't bother. If we can encrypt on-disk data with relative ease, and Matthew tells me we can, then we should. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: ian at sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588
