On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 03:53:27PM +0000, Bob wrote: > John Meeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The new information about version 0.7 sounds pretty good, but one thing > > about it concerns me. Assuming I don't know anyone who is using freenet, > > how do I get onto the network? (Remember, I'm asking this about the next > > version, since it says you can only connect if a "friend" lets you. > > Assuming I don't have a friend already using freenet, how do I get > > connected?) > > As I understand it there will be two options : join the opennet, which is > public > and harvestable like the current freenet (but hopefully has better performance > etc), or join / create a private darknet which isn't. However, given that the > routing model is predicated around the "friends form small-world networks" > concept I think even the opennet is supposed to be joined via the noderefs of > friend(s). This is of concern to me as well, I don't know anyone IRL who runs > freenet.
No, there will be an opennet. It will probably operate on similar principles to the current 0.5 network, but will be 0.7. > > We could have a rotating public nodes system like we currently do with > seednodes.ref, but surely this would horribly break the routing? Not necessarily. > > > This change worries me (unless I'm mis-understanding it), since it > > basically ties the network to a group of real-life friends, it creates a > > nice friendly map that the authorities could use to find everyone > > interested in a given subject. I don't think the Chinese government would > > have any problems getting someone's computer and seeing all the "friends" > > it lists. > > The idea of darknets is that they're not practical to detect. Assuming this is > the case, if e.g. CCP busted one darknet-running dissident through some other > means and got the chance to examine their computer, they could also find > others > in that darknet. Hopefully dissidents in such situations have the sense to > organise like terrorist cells so that damage is limited in this case. > > > In short, it seems like this change would create a set of isolated > > networks, and remove the plausable deniability of the previous network. > > True to some extent, but the whole point of darknets is that they are isolated > and secret. There is already a seperate freenet 0.5 network in China. An > opennet > node could be run to push content from darknets onto the public network, or > vice > versa, although this is probably risky for a dissident to do. > > > The "network of trust" concept seems to me to be deeply flawed, since > > spies have been able to infiltrate even the most guarded networks of > > "friends" (ie. the Mafia, the Manhattan project, etc). Trusting "some guy > > I met on the internet" doesn't seem like something I'd really want to do. > > Yeah, I could find freenet people on the 'net but not IRL, and as you say this > makes strong trust difficult. Obviously core project people are trustworthy > but > if we all connect to them then AFAICS routing breaks (plus their nodes would > likely be DDoS'd ..) > > > I guess another way to look at it is that the network seems to be going > > towards being more useful for people in countries like China and less > > useful for people in the US. Plausable deniability is more useful in the > > US, whereas secrecy is more useful in China. While I feel for people in > > China, I myself am in the US, and so therefore look at the project from my > > point of view (especially in the current political climate). > > It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that freenet could be banned in > western countries too. The UK gov for example is reactionary, authoritarian > and > power hungry - all it would take is one high-profile paedophille case or > suchlike to whip the tabloids up into a frenzy, and a wish list bill > pre-written > by the security services could probably be rushed through parliament. We > already > have state level internet censorship and monitoring. The US is much the same, > in > spite of supposed constitutional free speech protections. We have state level internet censorship? > > > I'm also a bit concerned about the constant restarts, it seems that the > > project is following the "fad security of the month" (although networks of > > trust were around with PGP like 10 years ago). > > Well, as you see there will still be an opennet sort of like the current > freenet. The reasons given over the months for the other changes and in > particular the introduction of darknets all seem rational to me. It's a fact > that freenet 0.5 doesn't perform very well, is harvestable etc and these > problems need to be addressed somehow. > > > Anyway, the reason I'm asking about this is because I currently have > > Paypal set up to donate $20/month to the project, but I'm not > > sure if I like the direction it's going. > > > > Any better explanation of how this will work (mainly "how can I connect if > > I don't already know someone") would be greately appreciated. > > > > Thanks. > > > > --- John > > Bob -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
