>>>>> "SGM" == Scott Gregory Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Me> But it -decreases- their chance of getting identified, in
Me> cases where the enemy cannot seize the gateway computer.
SGM> Why would they not be able to seize the gateway computer?
Like, if they were an entity without military or state powers. Like,
the police, the IRS or FBI, the Black Hand or the People's Red Army
*would* be able to (physically) seize the gateway computer.
But the DVDCCA, a bunch of haX0rs, a litigious rock and roll band, an
industry cartel, an ISP, or the local newspaper would not. Each of
them could still cause a major hassle for a node operator, though.
Me> (and by "liability" I think you mean "risk").
SGM> No, I mean liability, because you are tied to the actions of
SGM> the cluster-mates, where you have no relationship with
SGM> references on your node.
This is a very good point. Having evidence that you've made some
out-of-band arrangements with other node operators would be somewhat
incriminating -- probably some kind of collusion.
However, does this detriment really cancel out completely the benefits
of clustering?
~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
