On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 07:30:06AM -0400, Linyos Torovoltos wrote: > Even an undetectable darknet is no defence against a strong regime bent on > asserting control over information, for such a regime can use its regulatory > powers not merely to detect forbidden network activity but to wholly prevent > it by locking down the underlying computer and network technology. > > It seems, then, that the introduction of such a darknet would in fact > provoke the aforementioned shift in the way a regime carries out its policy > of information control---that it would force the regime to renounce ad-hoc > policing and piecemeal intervention (registering blogs, banning keywords, > detecting traffic, etc) and instead pursue a national technology programme > of an Orwellian nature. Otherwise the regime would lose control of > information, and with it the ability to manipulate public sentiment and > stifle organized resistance; revolution would soon follow. It is obvious > therefore that a so threatened regime would demand success at any price.
This is incorrect. China does not exert totally effective control over information *now*. There are still options; ways to access the public internet, and publish your own views. There is no clear evidence of the political will required to lock down and surveil the internet to the point that it would be impossible to run a real-time darknet over the internet. But even if there was, there are other ways to run a darknet, as I have explained several times. > > This logic tends to limit Freenet's potential. Specifically, it suggests > that Freenet will persist but a short while when subjected to the might of a > strong, hostile regime; and further, it even spells out the general nature > of the new technological order that then must inevitably ensue. Freenet will not be much use in Uzbekistan, Saddam's Iraq, or other places where people are tortured to death on the word of an informant, and 10% of the population is an informant. On the other hand, in moderate, relatively modern, totalitarian states, such as China, where there is, for economic reasons, some measure of rule of law, it is by no means certain that Freenet would provoke them to lock down the internet completely. > > It also leads us to a practical decision. For if we demand, as I think we > do, that regimes be obstructed in their attempts to control information, and > yet all our efforts so far promise to meet this demand only in a limited, > transient, and highly unsatisfactory way---we are forced, then, either to > water down our demands, at least temporarily, or to seek bold new means > towards their satisfaction. Such as...? Revolution will not occur without the people's consent! The people will not consent until they know what is going on and are able to talk about it! Guns are not the answer. > > That is, we may accept that Freenet is unlikely to take root under tyranny. > But we may yet plant it in more liberal jurisdictions, and thereby help to > block the potential emergence of yet more tyranny in those places. Or we may > conclude that then we must make it our business to end tyranny directly, as > to do otherwise would be to betray our ideals. I doubt the former. It is highly unlikely IMHO that there would be massive public opposition in the West to banning anonymous p2p. After all, it's mostly used by pedophiles, perverts, and teenage warez dudes! > > In fact, there is no decision to make: we must do both. We must face > squarely the limitations of our technology and abandon the false hope that > it can overcome a tyranny; instead, we must have faith in its potential to > preserve freedom. And we must also believe in our ability to do ourselves in > other ways what our technology cannot, though it may be just as hard as it > is important. I believe that Freenet is a technology which has the potential to enhance and preserve freedom, in both the West and in many more hostile regimes. On its own it cannot overcome tyranny, but if people use it, it can do significant good. > > I've made a diagnosis and written a prescription that I believe has the > potential to put this project on a firmer foundation. I eagerly await your > reply and I apologize if I have here annoyed you in any way---I have simply > tried to present my ideas as directly as possible, and if I sound preachy > please be assured that I am only preaching to myself though in public; I > need it badly these days. -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20051015/8c4c411e/attachment.pgp>
