Re: Crazy idea: How trust in darknets enables secure de

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

In message <20050711151749.GA13039-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]>,
toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected] wrote:
>
>Here's a really whacky idea I came up with on the train back from
>Strasbourg (please read the whole email before flaming me):

I'm not going to flame, but I cannot begin to state how strongly I disagree
with this idea or any idea even remotely like it.

>Personally I support Freenet being uncensorable and providing
>untraceability for posters, because there is no way to prevent
>censorship abuses by the powerful (including governments and
>corporations), while still allowing censorship to prevent e.g.
>child porn. I propose below a means that could provide some form of self
>regulation, under locally democratic control, which would provide a
>powerful deterrent to people posting objectionable materials. This is
>only possible because of the trust relationships underlying a scalable
>darknet such as Freenet 0.7/Dark. There is an argument that unpopular
>content will fall out of the current Freenet; it won't if the original
>insertor keeps on pushing it back in. Maybe, just maybe, we can have our
>cake and eat it too. The result would be that freenet could be far more
>mainstream, usable by far more people (e.g. oppressed religious groups in
>china are likely to object to all the kiddy porn on freenet), and its
>content would reflect what its users want rather than what the state
>wants.

Essentially, this will destroy freenet's original purpose.

You propose introducing traceability.  Bad Idea. The whole point of freenet
is that it's users are NOT traceable and can remain fully anonymous.  You
spoke of only people you trust being able to know your IP, I don't trust
ANYBODY!

I use freenet because I can function anonymously, I rely on the fact that
freenet's distributed nature makes it impossible to identify or take action
against the insertion of any particular content.

Granted, there are people abusing that to insert wide varieties of porn,
including c.p. but you see, that's a price that has to be paid.  If freenet
is to be what it's stated purpose is, then the ONLY action that can be
taken in regard to content that somebody finds objectionable is to not
request it.  One can also help push older objectionable content out by
continuing to insert quality content.

The problem with tracing and taking action against objectionable content is
that the definition of objectionable content has a tendency to change.

Today the bad thing is c.p., tomorrow it's a certain political view, next
it's something else... and so on.

I'm thinking ahead to when the thing that is illegal to distribute is
certain Christian teachings.  Given a system like you describe it is true
that a lot of c.p. can be removed.  However that same system would cause
the deaths of a lot of people in the eventual Hyper-Anti-Christian world
that is developing.

Please pray and reconsider.



- -- 
My public keys can be found on my freenet site: 
SSK@TEx6TiaPeszpV4AFw3ToutDb49EPAgM/mytwocents/23//m2ckey.html
(*NOTE* you must be running freenet for this link to be usefull)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.44

iD8DBQFC0sRLz+9G5ZJ2nX4RAyIhAJ9SbFjfBz/qRaJMLhYkguibJMCKyACdGI8x
g6CiesDEGobgdQkf0XdJjmE=
=NYK3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
chat mailing list
[email protected]
Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe