On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Ximin Luo <xl269 at cam.ac.uk> wrote: > Ian Clarke wrote: >> The Guardian has an article, the product of an interview I did a few >> weeks ago, read it here: >> >> ? http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/26/dark-side-internet-freenet >> >> You can read my public response here: >> http://blog.locut.us/main/2009/11/25/the-guardian-writes-about-freenet.html >> >> I think there is a chance my response could get some attention, so I'd >> appreciate feedback/proofreading, but please be quick! >> >> Ian. > > The article caption reads completely differently from the article text. This: > > "Freenet software allows users complete anonymity as they share viruses, > criminal contacts and child pornography" > > is practically libel. And quite offensive, actually.
Technically, it is not libel -- freenet does allow sharing /anything/ share anonymously. I think it is important to highlight the legitimate/good use of anonymity. Citing the benefits of wikileak have bring maybe a good start. Pointing to "censor-monitors" /sounds/ like a conspiracy theory. > I think it's important to point out that censor-monitors abusing their power > (which is what Freenet is designed to counteract) is far scarier and a much > bigger problem than a couple of paedophiles looking at kiddie porn. It's the > whole blowing-things-out-of-proportion / fear-mongering thing. > > X >
