On 02/08/10 19:03, Ian Clarke wrote: > 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. >
Nobody is suggesting freenet be forcibly dependant on installing TrueCrypt. It should just be the recommended advice given to anyone security-minded enough. > If we can encrypt on-disk data with relative ease, and Matthew tells > me we can, then we should. > This by itself is pointless. All it will achieve is the newbie thinking "ooo! enCRYPTion! that MUST mean i'm safe!!1!one". For example, Freemail offers a local mail service, which a mail client can pick up and cache. And the other 5-6 things Matthew mentioned in the email dated 2010-07-31 18:47. Realistically, if anyone believes there's a significant chance their machine will be seized, they should use full-disk encryption. If their environment is hostile enough, they *will* follow this advice. Or are you considering a scenario where the population is mostly apathetic to censored material, but people might access it out of curiosity if there was less chance of being caught? In this case the whole "hand-holding" thing would be useful, but still very complex to implement effectively. X
