Ian Clarke and Freenet in the Crosshairs 493
EMIce writes "John Markoff of the New York Times writes of Ian, "Though he says his aim is political - helping dissidents in countries where computer traffic is monitored by the government, for example - Mr. Clarke is open about his disdain for copyright laws, asserting that his technology would produce a world in which all information is freely shared. ... Now, however, Mr. Clarke is taking a fresh approach, stating that his goal is to protect political opponents of repressive regimes." Wasn't freenet originally about dissent? Mr. Markoff appears to be re-writing a history that he probably only knows through a handful of lexis-nexis searches." Update: 08/01 18:32 GMT by T : Ian Clarke wrote to point out his comment posted to the story which lays out the actual subject of his Defcon talk.
Re:Notable quote (Score:3, Interesting)
Your post is very dismissive, on the basis that free speech is decently protected in the US. But I think one goal of Freenet is to protect the anonymity and privacy of information providers that use it. Free speech by itself does not do that.
Usenet: first and last p2p network (Score:4, Interesting)
Echelon and the Patriot Act (Score:5, Interesting)
Truth is, the U.S. is probably locked down a bit tighter than China these days. Does China have one of these [fas.org]? Through Echelon and the Patriot act, you can say the wrong thing and have nice black suits show up within 24 hours to take you away without a warrant, hold you indefinitely without a trial and completely ignore any constitutionaly protected rights you think you might have.
That is America today and some people are not so happy about it. People like Ian are sticking their necks out and being good Americans. You aren't trying to tell us he's not a PATRIOT are you?
Freenet's unavoidable accusations (Score:5, Interesting)
* Child porn
* Political propoganda
These are two of the untouchable evils that are used to condemn Freenet. The rest of the world really doesn't see the point of an organized data store distributed accross machines based on constancy of use.
After all, political dissidents are an essential measure of the health of a country. One with too little or too much of those indicate either fascism or anarchy. Democracy essentially says that the minorities shall not get what they want (ie the minority is defined as people who voted for something other than the majority) - it should technically have some disgruntled citizens. If you believe otherwise, please stop buying more shiny things.
Anyway, like I like to say "Technology is a sword, both sides use and misuse it". And the essential sarcastic comment about "Freenet can be used for terrorist communications".
Fundamental problems (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're going to transmit data from point A to point B, points A and B have to know something that makes the other unique among all possible points.
If you're going to make the network 100% anonymous and available, it'll get blocked by administrators afraid it will be abused, like Tor.
Re:Notable quote (Score:2, Interesting)
How long until the courts squish it? (Score:3, Interesting)
When freenet becomes common enough, government and industry will have to resort to Old Fashioned Police work, trying to trick file sharers into trusting them, then exploiting that trust in an investigation. I have no doubt that we will see that for highly objectionable content, such as child porn and terrorist communications. It won't be worth it for infringement cases, though.
The real question is whether the courts will be bold enough to make the technology unlawful based on the widespread criminal uses that are sure to develop. Stay tuned.
Re:Notable quote (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, you refer, I presume, to Jose Padilla? Good. I've been wanting to ask some questions of someone so well-informed on the matter.
Note: he may well be guilty. The administration may well have evidence to that effect. I hope that is the case, as the idea that they would just imprison a guy for three years with no evidence is even scarier.
But if they have evidence to justify such an imprisonment, then what possible excuse can there be for not putting him on trial with it?
On religious texts and copyright (Score:2, Interesting)
I've actually thought about this a bit myself - partly about the Scientology problem, partly about the fact that copyright law makes it essentially impossible to post complete, up-to-date copies of Catholic liturgical texts and such online. I would be inclined to suggest the following:
Any "official" sacred writing or liturgical text of any religious group, or any translation thereof, is automatically in the public domain.
(From a Catholic context, this would include Scripture itself, the contexts of the "official" liturgical books - the Missal, the Breviary, the Ritual, etc. - and other similar materials published by the Church herself, possibly including the Catechism of the Catholic Church. For other religious entities, I don't know enough about the details to comment in an informed manner.)
Now, this would in many ways solve the whole Scientology problem. If they are a religious group, then all these texts they're trying to protect would be public-domain, and so they couldn't suppress public dissemination and discussion of them using copyright law. If they insist on protecting these texts under copyright, then they're no longer a religious entity, but a business, and that opens them up to government legislation.
Re:Notable quote (Score:2, Interesting)
Ammendment 1:
But, hmm, that doesn't define what "speech" means. "Speech" probably doesn't include saying mean nasty things about people.
But hey, look at this:
Ammendment 9:
If the constitution doesn't say anything about saying mean nasty things about people, that means you have a right to do it?!? That can't be what was intended, can it?
Well, yes, actually:
Ammendment 10:
So there you have it. There's no such thing as speech that isn't free, at least at the federal level. Congress may not govern it, in any form whatsoever. States may regulate it if they desire.
Mind you, our government barely even pays lip service to the consitution anymore, but you should at least know what it says.
Re:Echelon and the Patriot Act (Score:3, Interesting)
Really hard to know that there are no US citizens in gitmo, when nobody will tell us who these people are. How do YOU know there are no citizens there, especially since I seem to remember the gov publicly admitting that there are several US citizens (who were nabbed in Afghanistan) currently rotting in Gitmo.
That is what scares me, too many secrets. If the gov wants to keep something secret, that's fine, if they want to keep a trial secret, they should require a vote of the senate or something, for each instance. At least then there would be some oversight, such as it is.