Re: [freenet-chat] Node operators responsibility
In local.freenet, you wrote: >How does PrintKeys work? How can someone find out exactly what keys are >stored in my node without running requests useing a keylist? And even if >they COULD print up the KSKs and SSKs and stuff, how do they know that >those keys are accurate, truthfull, representations of the CHKs they >point to? A KSK that sais it is a Win95b CD-ROM archive could just be >pointing to a 150k virus instead. PrintKey checks a keyindex obtained from somewhere (or generated yourself) against your store. Sure, key names don't mean anything, but they may be a hint to the content. And if the Freenet-server can get at the data, someone els can, to. >And as for encrypting my store, I am useing PGPdisk, which means that my >entire datastore and all of the settings and stuff are encrypted How come your freenet_node works? If the store is encrypted, the node shouldn't be able to read anything. I hope you see the point. As long as the node can get automatically to your data, someone else can, too. E.g. the feds busting in your door ;) -- Volker Stolz * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * PGP + S/MIME ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Reasonable use Issues.
"Mark J. Roberts" wrote: > > I'm no lawyer, so I shouldn't babble about how to handle lawsuits. I'll > confine myself to observing that the Freenet philosophy > > to guarantee consenting individuals the free, unmediated and > unimpeded reception and impartation of all intellectual, scientific, > literary, social, artistic, creative, human rights, and cultural > expressions, opinions and ideas without interference or limitation > by or service to state, private, or special interests > > is very clear, and any claim that we were really very fond of copyright > law would be incredible. > > Again, I agree, if we omitted the "state" from that passage, it would > still be plausible. And then we should take reasonable steps to allow > the government to censor, since we obviously don't mind. You are the very quintessence of a political cop. Seth Johnson ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Reasonable use Issues.
What about, straight up: Political organizing. Sheesh. Seth Johnson Greg Wooledge wrote: > > Mark J. Roberts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > The goal of Freenet is anonymous publishing and reading. What use do > > law-abiding people have for anonymity? Not much. Not much compared to > > the many uses thought-criminals have for anonymity. > > This answer is not sufficient. Consider: > > * Employees who endure inhumane or even illegal practices in their >workplace might be afraid to speak out because they cannot face >the economic consequences of termination. > > * Victims of incest, sexual assault or physical abuse may be afraid >to speak out because they are embarrassed or ashamed. > > * Citizens who suffer human rights violations at the hands of their >government may be unable to speak out without facing torture or >death. ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Reasonable use Issues.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 06:20:11PM -0700, Mr.Bad wrote: > > "MJR" == Mark J Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > MJR> Not much compared to the many uses thought-criminals have for > MJR> anonymity. > > I think you're totally wrong, man. Sorry, rightness hasn't been a criterion for a freenet-chat post in a long time. :P Anyway, I admit my error and distortion. Anonymity is useful for more than foiling the secret police, though I admit a strong affinity for that; and if Freenet was only useful for thwarting government censorship I would support it just as much. My point, which I think is valid, is that Freenet's mission statement is explicitly abetting criminals, given that publishing some data is illegal; and thus "being careful about what we say" is unproductive. The Freenet Project is a criminal organization. > As to crypto: Hooke's law was initially published as a cryptogram, and > not discovered for several years later. Leonardo Davinci kept all his > notes in cyphertext. Any other science published anonymously, > pseudonymously, cryptographically? I dunno. The passage gracing my .sig for the moment was locked in a desk by its dying writer, and upon his death in 1677 was shipped, desk and all, to his Amsterdam publisher. All this after fleeing from excommunication and religious murder. > It might be cool to have a page on FreenetProject.org that talks about > why anonymity is important. You volunteering? :^) -- "Laws which can be broken without any wrong to one's neighbor are counted but a laughing-stock; and so far from such laws restraining the appetites and lusts of mankind, they rather heighten them." --Spinoza PGP signature
Re: [freenet-chat] Reasonable use Issues.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 07:31:24PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > Mark J. Roberts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > The goal of Freenet is anonymous publishing and reading. What use do > > law-abiding people have for anonymity? Not much. Not much compared to > > the many uses thought-criminals have for anonymity. > > This answer is not sufficient. Consider: > > * Employees who endure inhumane or even illegal practices in their >workplace might be afraid to speak out because they cannot face >the economic consequences of termination. > > * Victims of incest, sexual assault or physical abuse may be afraid >to speak out because they are embarrassed or ashamed. > > * Citizens who suffer human rights violations at the hands of their >government may be unable to speak out without facing torture or >death. > > Anonymity can enable these people to be heard. A, hyperbole is the official language of freenet-chat, haven't you heard? ;) Maybe it changed when I wasn't looking... You're right, there are significant uses for anonymity that don't fall under the category of government-prohibited speech. > > There is absolutely no need to be "careful" because the code speaks for > > itself. Freenet is a network designed to help criminals evade the > > police. > > Of the three examples I gave above, only the last one casts the user of > Freenet in the role of the "criminal". But I doubt anyone reading this > would say that the Freenet user should be forced to divulge her identity > in that case. /me turns off his freenet-chat flamethrower. I'm no lawyer, so I shouldn't babble about how to handle lawsuits. I'll confine myself to observing that the Freenet philosophy to guarantee consenting individuals the free, unmediated and unimpeded reception and impartation of all intellectual, scientific, literary, social, artistic, creative, human rights, and cultural expressions, opinions and ideas without interference or limitation by or service to state, private, or special interests is very clear, and any claim that we were really very fond of copyright law would be incredible. Again, I agree, if we omitted the "state" from that passage, it would still be plausible. And then we should take reasonable steps to allow the government to censor, since we obviously don't mind. -- "Laws which can be broken without any wrong to one's neighbor are counted but a laughing-stock; and so far from such laws restraining the appetites and lusts of mankind, they rather heighten them." --Spinoza PGP signature
Re: [freenet-chat] Reasonable use Issues.
> "MJR" == Mark J Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MJR> Not much compared to the many uses thought-criminals have for
MJR> anonymity.
I think you're totally wrong, man. As an American, I reserve a right
to privacy -- a right to say, "None of your fuckin' business." I don't
care if it's my credit card data or my opinion about the 49ers, I
expect to be able to keep what I want private, and to communicate what
I want to other people without snooping eyes getting all nosy.
Even people whose ideas are illegal aren't necessarily evil
themselves. The fact is that many of the people whose ideas have
shaped our world were persecuted for their beliefs in their own
time. These aren't perverts, terrorists, or serial killers -- they
were labor advocates, philosophers, feminists, scientists.
There is -plenty- of use for anonymity for those who may not be
"thought criminals" in the eyes of the law. For example, people with
unpopular political, sexual, or religious beliefs/practices can use
anonymity to express their ideas without putting themselves at social
or even physical risk.
It'd be interesting to make a list of famous people who published
works anonymously or pseudonymously in the past. I can think of a
couple right off:
- Ben Franklin
- L.L. Zamenhof
- The Marquis de Sade
- Lenin
- Deep Throat (from Watergate)
- Joe Klein ("Primary Colors")
Obviously, pseudonyms have been a majorly important part of computer
culture for years and years. BBS handles, AOL screen names, login IDs,
etc. People get up in arms when even their basic personal information
is leaked from Web sites to marketers or law enforcement.
Of course, anyone who uses a handle is a big loser. But still.
It'd probably be worth mentioning the most famous "anonymous",
Alcoholics Anonymous. People in AA don't give out last names, because
of the stigma attached to alcoholism. These aren't bomb-throwers and
pedophiles -- they're just people who need to talk to each other but
don't want their life ruined by being branded the town drunk.
As to crypto: Hooke's law was initially published as a cryptogram, and
not discovered for several years later. Leonardo Davinci kept all his
notes in cyphertext. Any other science published anonymously,
pseudonymously, cryptographically? I dunno.
Hmm... trying to think of other sympathetic historical figures who
communicated anonymously. The Underground Railroad?
It might be cool to have a page on FreenetProject.org that talks about
why anonymity is important.
~Mr. Bad
--
~
Mr. Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/
"Your description of coffee is how you interpret Sex."
-- "Personality Quiz" chain letter
~
___
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Reasonable use Issues.
Mark J. Roberts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > The goal of Freenet is anonymous publishing and reading. What use do > law-abiding people have for anonymity? Not much. Not much compared to > the many uses thought-criminals have for anonymity. This answer is not sufficient. Consider: * Employees who endure inhumane or even illegal practices in their workplace might be afraid to speak out because they cannot face the economic consequences of termination. * Victims of incest, sexual assault or physical abuse may be afraid to speak out because they are embarrassed or ashamed. * Citizens who suffer human rights violations at the hands of their government may be unable to speak out without facing torture or death. Anonymity can enable these people to be heard. > There is absolutely no need to be "careful" because the code speaks for > itself. Freenet is a network designed to help criminals evade the > police. Of the three examples I gave above, only the last one casts the user of Freenet in the role of the "criminal". But I doubt anyone reading this would say that the Freenet user should be forced to divulge her identity in that case. -- Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody." [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- The Red Hot Chili Peppers http://wooledge.org/~greg/ | PGP signature
Re: [freenet-chat] Reasonable use Issues.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:13:45AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This is why I think people who have a interest in Freenet's success > should be very careful regarding how they use and how they present it's > reason for being. The goal of Freenet is anonymous publishing and reading. What use do law-abiding people have for anonymity? Not much. Not much compared to the many uses thought-criminals have for anonymity. There is absolutely no need to be "careful" because the code speaks for itself. Freenet is a network designed to help criminals evade the police. > Imagine further there a lot of such "official" nodes were set up that > they had very high bandwidth connections and large storage > capabilities compared to the average abilities of "unofficial" nodes. > Wouldn't this cripple Freenet's capabilities? Maybe. Freenet will natually learn that the official nodes are bad places to look for the data that they refuse to serve, since they obviously didn't find it very well. But if there were many of these "honest cancer" nodes, and they were very good at answering the bulk of requests, they could probably take over the network. -- "Laws which can be broken without any wrong to one's neighbor are counted but a laughing-stock; and so far from such laws restraining the appetites and lusts of mankind, they rather heighten them." --Spinoza PGP signature
[freenet-chat] it didnt work
I downloaded the java thing and your 2 other things , but didnt install jave before freenet. the shortcut appears but nothing. I installed jave rerun install of freenet and it stalls and says cannot find file/freenet.exe. I looked in freent programs file and didnt see it. Im not good on pc, but trying [ I have heavy legal action against US GOV in FED ct--so really need yor secure ISP , maybe they already took posessionof my pc, how can i get your freenet installed and working?
[freenet-chat] Games Over Freenet
I think Brandon gets the Shithouse Crazy Award of the Year for all the nutty stuff that's going over Freenet right now: http://www2.linuxjournal.com/articles/culture/0027.html ~Mr. Bad -- ~ Mr. Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/ "Your description of coffee is how you interpret Sex." -- "Personality Quiz" chain letter ~ ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] Reasonable use Issues.
Greg, Thanks for your reply unfortunately I did not frame my question very well. I was already aware that freenet's de-centralised strucuture and the inability of centralised control. I'll comment and query your responses to the original questions. Greg Wooledge wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > To help facilitate this progects such as apt-get and mail > > should be concentrated on first, therefore when the inivitable assault > > begins freenet users and developers will be able to point at all the > > innocent uses it's being put to. > > You're discussing two distinct things here -- the development work on > Freenet, and the sites that are published by Freenet users. > > By its very nature, Freenet resists any attempts to control the content > published to it. Even the Freenet developers can't stop users who > insert content to which they (the developers) may object. Ian Clarke > in particular has confirmed this point many times in interviews and > discussion. Whilst Freenet dev work and publishing are seperate would it not be possible for the use, developement, and using of one's platform as "nodes" to be considered in legal terms to co-conspiritors in "crime and/or civil offense" (civil cases in uk are on balance of probabilities not beyond reasonable doubt). > > > Also site authers should refrain from > > inserting files of legaly dubious nature unless they really do believe > > they have a genuine reason to do so. After all the lower the content of > > "illegal" stuff is the less reason there will be to take action against > > it. > > It could also be argued that everyone should publish all the "illegal" > (or potentially illegal) information they can get their hands on. > > Why? To force a confrontation with authority. To overthrow these laws > which try to make information illegal. To restore freedom. > > But this is a tactical discussion, and I'm not quite sure Freenet is > ready for that step yet. Anyone who's actually *used* it extensively > knows it's not the second coming of Napster. > > At least not yet. This is the exact area that I'm getting at in my original and badly worded question. By ".that everyone should publish all the "illegal" (or potentially illegal) information they can get their hands on" this would give those who wanted to the legal starting pistol. Imagine some tv court drama; " it's sole purpose your honour is the desemination of illegal material. It contains the vilest of smut, pilfered intelectual property, -depriving I may add the rightful owners of the fruits of their labour, and finally material of the most seditious nature". Those who have an interest in killing Freenet would be doing this and also looking at your reply that you gave me as a show of intent. This is why I think people who have a interest in Freenet's success should be very careful regarding how they use and how they present it's reason for being. > > > Finally a question related to the above, can isp's some how block > > freenet ie by blocking freenet signals > > The default Freenet port is 19114. But there's nothing requiring you > to run your node on that port, and in fact the Windows installer defaults > to selecting a random number. An ISP could block port 19114 (outgoing > or incoming or both), but they can't block *every* port without breaking > everything else. > > Freenet 0.3 relies on a centralized repository of node addresses, to let > the nodes find each other. You can also specify a list of nodes, should > you learn of some by out-of-band means. > > Freenet 0.4 is supposed to eliminate this centralized repository, but > it's still in development. Going further would it be possible to reverse engineer the Freenet's node server to act like a normal node but for the following little extras: The ability for the node owner to tell it to "goble up" information packets corresponding to specified key names which it may have on the hard disk. (This order is not broadcasted onto Freenet itself to avoid the propogating effect of a key request). The next extra is that will act to any outside requests for specified keys by giving a negative response to the request without broadcasting the request further. Imagine further there a lot of such "official" nodes were set up that they had very high bandwidth connections and large storage capabilities compared to the average abilities of "unofficial" nodes. Wouldn't this cripple Freenet's capabilities? Lastly and the most sinsiter would be a Freenet worm or virus attack where nodes are directly targeted? Well I better go and do some work now. I apologise for the length of this message. Regards from Patrick -- Commercial Export http://www.idealx.com Ingenieur Commercial Export http://www.idealx.org Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listi
