>>>>> "SGM" == Scott Gregory Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SGM> kAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGHHHHHH. Then WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU
SGM> CREATING A CLUSTER? I'm sorry, I'm loosing my patience here.
SGM> You keep failing to address this point. The point of
SGM> creating a cluster was to protect a group of people (you
SGM> claim), but in fact it actually *increases* their liability.
But it -decreases- their chance of getting identified, in cases where
the enemy cannot seize the gateway computer.
So, the best-case scenario is that your cluster nodes are never known
outside the network, so they won't be subject to e.g. MediaEnforcer
scanning.
The worst-case scenario is that the cluster gateway is seized by an
entity with the power to seize computers, and since the machines are
"clustered" they are considered to be colluding. For example, if my
machine is in a cluster with the Baader-Meinhopf Gang's machine, I
look a lot worse than if I'd just been one of the nodes in their
routing table.
I'm not sure that I agree, though, that liability is actually
increased by being in a cluster (and by "liability" I think you mean
"risk"). It seems right now that the best-case scenario is more
probable than the worst-case one.
Also, I don't quite believe that in a country where machines get
seized, there's going to be a strong distinction between being
clustered with someone and being just randomly associated with
someone.
~Mr. Bad
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/\____/\ Mr. Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
\ / Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/ | *Stay*Real*Bad*
| (X \x)
( ((**) "If it's not bad, don't do it.
\ <vvv> If it's not crazy, don't say it." - Ben Franklin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
