Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

New "Dark" Freenet Available for Testing 424

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the if-you-dare dept.
Sanity writes "The Freenet Project has just released the first alpha version of the much anticipated Freenet 0.7 branch. This is a major departure from past approaches to peer-to-peer network design, embracing a 'scalable darknet' architecture, where security is increased by allowing users to limit which other peers their peer will communicate with directly, rather than the typical 'promiscuous' approach of classic P2P networks. This means that not only does Freenet aim to prevent others from finding out what you are doing with Freenet, it makes it extremely difficult for them to even know that you are running a Freenet node at all. This is not the first P2P application to use this approach, other examples include Waste, however those networks are limited to just a few users, while Freenet can scale up almost indefinitely. The new version also includes support for NAT hole-punching, and has an API for third-party tool development. As always, the Freenet team are asking that people support the development of the software by donating."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New "Dark" Freenet Available for Testing

Comments Filter:
  • Hooray! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gravis Zero (934156) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @12:20AM (#15055525)
    Hooray! Now I can browse the net at dialup speeds once more!
  • by XBL (305578) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @12:24AM (#15055540)
    For example, do you think Google will ever use Freenet in some manner?

    I wish there was a way that I could view websites without giving any IP or client information. However, that kind of information is important to webmasters and business.
  • Much needed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by QCompson (675963) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @12:29AM (#15055549)
    Thank you freenet team! The ability to remain anonymous is the only way to ensure complete freedom of speech.
    • Practical measures (Score:5, Insightful)

      by caitsith01 (606117) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @12:31AM (#15055557) Journal
      I totally agree. With the lawmakers obviously unconcerned about the steady erosion of civil liberties, practical measures like these could be the only option for maintaining our freedoms.
      • by femto (459605) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @12:53AM (#15055629) Homepage
        Freenet may preserve freedom, but it doesn't preserve liberty.

        Don't let projects like Freenet lull you into failing to protect your liberty. Get involved in the world around you and make your voice heard against those who would remove your liberty.

        Freedom != Liberty. There are lots of situations in which you have the freedom to hold any opinion you want, but are not at liberty to express those opinions. Unless you have been brainwashed, you always have the freedom to choose to die for your opinions.

        • Completely agree (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Sanity (1431) * on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @02:01AM (#15055832) Homepage Journal
          I completely agree. Freenet is hopefully a good last resort, but the option of a technical last resort should not discourage people from fighting oppression in all of its forms through more conventional political means.

          - Ian (Founder, Freenet Project)

          • by paganizer (566360)
            since you are here and all, how about some words on how 0.7 is supposed to be more anonymous than 0.5? Using the Chinese freedom-fighter example, my understanding is that the authorities could bust all members of a cell by busting just one member, then seeing which IP address's were the ones most visited (the members of the "darknet"), while with the existing freenet 0.5, no node out of all freenet users is more or less likely to be visited by any other node, so a cell would be safe.
            Or am I reading it wrong
      • by Quantam (870027) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @01:25AM (#15055730) Homepage
        Actually this is the exact OPPOSITE of what anonymity does for freedom of speech. Let's think about this for a minute. The claim that anonymity is required for true freedom of speech (I'll leave the debate as to whether this is actually the case to someone else, and assume that it is true) is so that you can make any allegations you want publicly, without fear of reprisal for what you have said (USSR, anyone?).

        What these darknets do (in this context) is allow speech to be distributed only among a select few people. Furthermore, you can exclude those you are making allegations against, allowing you to say whatever you like, true or false, and they have no access to this information (PATRIOT Act, anyone?). In other words, you've crushed their ability to respond to allegations like the Gestapo. But I guess that's okay in your mind, because it's individuals doing so, and not the government. Might I suggest you read up on factory life in the US before the government started regulating the factories, especially with regard to unions and blacklists?

        As for myself, I shall always be a proponent of true freedom of speech (and I might add that do not require anonymity for that purpose).
        • That's just crap. In the USSR, the government had all the guns & tanks AND controlled the flow of information, whereas the people had nothing. It's a hell of a jump to compare it to being able to limit what you reveal about yourself online.

          Autocracies are shielded by force, not anonymity.

          • by Quantam (870027)
            The first amendment (specifically the freedom of speech clause) exists for the specific purpose of preventing the government from controlling all information (as in the case of the USSR, Nazi Germany, etc.). As you say, the government does not need to control information to oppress its people; but that doesn't change the fact that anyone controlling all information can be devastating in and of itself, regardless of whether the government is the one doing so. Thus it was a perfectly apt comparison.

            Again I
        • by mrogers (85392) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @06:54AM (#15056515)
          It's interesting that you should mention the USSR, because one of the earliest examples of a darknet was the Russian samizdat (literally: self-publishing) network. Censorship in the USSR operated in a deliberately ambiguous and unclear way: rather than banning certain works outright, the authorities created a huge legal grey area, discouraging the expression of any political opinion that wasn't completely orthodox. Authors responded by circulating their works privately from reader to reader in samizdat [ucl.ac.uk]: each reader would manually copy the work on a typewriter and exchange copies with trusted friends. While this isn't the same as being able to stand in the public square and express your opinion to anyone who passes, it still allows dissidents to express, exchange, and develop their thoughts in a way that wouldn't be possible in isolation.

          Regarding your second point, it's true that private communication can exclude the people who are being discussed. Allegations (and conspiracies) are usually made behind closed doors. But the powerful will always have access to private communication. The question posed by Freenet and similar networks is whether the less-powerful should also be able to communicate privately. Comparing Freenet to the Gestapo (although required by Godwin's Law) misses the point: the secret police don't need to use Freenet, because they already have overwhelming power. It's the citizens of a police state who need private communication.

        • by Julian Morrison (5575) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @08:26AM (#15056805)
          In this new Freenet, network connections only pass through a select few friends, but the routing layer hides this - files are globally available, as they used to be. You've misunderstood the protocol design.

          Also, you've even misunderstood the "select few friends" thing. It's not that you can exclude people. It's that you have to actively include people - and you have to have their permission first.

          An analogy would be: passing messages between people by telling a trusted friend, he tells his trusted friend, and so on until it reaches the destination.
  • Great! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Adult film producer (866485) <van@i2pmail.org> on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @12:33AM (#15055568)
    I'm not a member or involved in the freenet project but if you have paypal or whatever, drop by the freenet project website and donate a few dollars [freenetproject.org]. Mathew Toseland (toad_ on freenode irc) has been slaving away on the project for a long time now, he's poured so much energy into making freenet a reality, kudos to him and a few of the other coders that have spent a lot of energy on the next generation freenet (nextgens/cyberdo/etc.)

    Not related to freenet but in the definitely in the same sphere of anonymous networking is I2P [i2p.net]. For anybody that interested in that kind of technology should check that out... it's a fairly well functioning network ATM but the main coder is putting off any big announcements until he's sure it's ready.
  • Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by typical (886006) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @12:36AM (#15055580) Journal
    Freenet is neat, P2P research is phenomenal, darknets are probably the way to go...but boy, it would be nice to have something that is not implemented in Java.

    I understand the reasons that they use Java, but still, Freenet is one RAM and CPU-hungry beast.
    • Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)

      by beeblebrox (16781) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @01:16AM (#15055700)
      Java is "heavier" than a native language/platform but for something like Freenet where privacy can be extremely important, reducing the possibility of stack smashing/bufer overrun type vulnerabilities to near zero - which Java helps do very well - is more than worth the execution overhead.
      • Re:Sigh (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Haeleth (414428) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @06:16AM (#15056441) Journal
        Java is "heavier" than a native language/platform but for something like Freenet where privacy can be extremely important, reducing the possibility of stack smashing/bufer overrun type vulnerabilities to near zero - which Java helps do very well - is more than worth the execution overhead.

        But there are plenty of natively compiled portable languages that have exactly the same stack and buffer safety, but less overhead than Java.

        There's the ML family, for example - fast implementations like OCaml and MLton are usually more efficient and more concise than C++. OCaml has already been used to implement other P2P applications (MLDonkey). And if you absolutely must have braces, there are things like D and Felix, which bring the same benefits to a familiar C++/Java-style syntax.

        Judging all compiled languages by C++ is like judging all interpreted languages by Python. Deciding to use an interpreted language because compiled languages "suffer from buffer overflows" is exactly like deciding to use a compiled language because interpreted languages "have significant whitespace", i.e. it's complete and utter bullshit.
    • Java is coming along (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sanity (1431) *
      Modern Java virtual machines can actually be more efficient than native code in many situations. The old criticism of Java, that it is slow, and a CPU/memory hog relative to native compiled code, was definitely valid back in the 90s, but is much less-so now. Check out some recent benchmarks involving Java if you don't believe me.
      • Java is coming along, and a java app can now run just about as good as a native one. However the problem comes when you want to do something else at the same time. It's one thing to run quickly, it's another thing to run quickly whilst not using up 99% of your system's resources. This is the real problem with java today.
    • Use GNUnet (Score:3, Interesting)

      by m50d (797211)
      It performs well and is actually pretty usable for downloading files. Oh, and it's had this particular feature for at least 6 months. http://www.gnunet.org/ [gnunet.org].
    • Re:Sigh (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Suppafly (179830) <slashdot&suppafly,net> on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @09:31AM (#15057168)
      Java isn't the reason it is slow, being poorly written in java is the reason it is slow.
      There are many java programs that are larger and do more intense work that run just fine.
  • Slow networks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zelzax (895104) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @01:17AM (#15055703) Journal
    I think the main problem with freenet, I2P, and other similar services is not their privacy concerns (although important), but SPEED.

    The speed at which any of these services run reminds me of when I had dial-up. Except these darknets don't even guarantee you can connect to even the most popular darknet sites. Even when I tweaked all the settings I couldn't ever get decent connections on freenet.

    These sites are not going to be very viable until a lot of people use them, and a lot of people aren't going to use them until they reach something at least comparable to speeds of the regular web.

    I appreciate all the effort of the people who make these pieces of software, but I can't help but feel much of their energy is misdirected.

    Just my thoughts.
    • Re:Slow networks (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Xthlc (20317) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @03:08AM (#15056006)
      I don't think it's so much Freenet's speed (although it is bad), as it is the way they've chosen for people to browse and interact with Freenet.

      By making the web browser / HTML the means by which one navigates Freenet and retrieves content, they've forced people into an inappropriate model. Web browsers require you to sit there and monitor their activity, then click links and wait some more. No good when your latency is O(1 hour).

      A better UI solution would have a two-tiered model, say one that spiders large amounts of metadata in a single pass (say overnight), lets you browse through all of that in a few minutes and pick the things you want to download, then queue them up and wait a couple of days for them to arrive. Sort of like the model used for BitTorrent: WWW for finding and selecting torrents, then the actual BT client for queuing files and managing downloads.
    • Re:Slow networks (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @03:27AM (#15056060) Homepage
      These sites are not going to be very viable until a lot of people use them, and a lot of people aren't going to use them until they reach something at least comparable to speeds of the regular web.

      The first one is based on a presumption that Freenet scales superlinearly. My impression is that with a larger network, the average path length goes up, and it doesn't get any better. Yes, data retention *might* improve (assuming you have more non-unique content = more copies/data) but that again requires accurate routing. My impression is that Freenet's routing is not accurate enough.

      As for speed, no anonymous network will reach neither the bandwidth nor latency of direct connections, but in Freenet's case it is the latency. The speed can actually be fairly decent on a large file with 200 threads, but waiting for one link can take ages.
  • Trust...whom? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Motherfucking Shit (636021) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @01:22AM (#15055721) Journal
    When you first start Freenet 0.7 your node will not know any other nodes on the network, you need to connect to other nodes, at least three. Ideally you should find people you trust that are already part of the Freenet 0.7 network and connect to them, but if that isn't possible in the early stages of the Freenet 0.7 network you can try connecting to the irc server irc.freenode.net and join the channel #freenet, to see if anyone will connect to you.
    In other words, if you want to use Freenet 0.7, you really ought to know 3 other people who are already using Freenet 0.7. Considering there are maybe 200 people on this planet who are currently using Freenet 0.7, good fscking luck.

    But if you don't know three people who are using Freenet 0.7, hop on IRC (which is not the least bit anonymous) and see if some random stranger will give you their noderef. Random people who don't know each other exchanging noderefs over IRC provides what advantage over the prior Freenet implementation, exactly?

    I don't know 3 other meatspace people who use Freenet, much less Freenet 0.7. I can't imagine that trading noderefs with some random person on IRC is any more secure than maintaining a node on 0.5.

    I'm no Freenet hater, I've been running it for years and I've made several donations. Freenet showed me the "Diebold Memos" and other interesting items. I'm just looking for a plain-English explanation as to how 0.7 is an improvement over the prior Freenet implementation.
    • From the front page of Freenet's website:
      Note that this release is still a very early alpha; users should neither expect it to be secure, nor user friendly. Rather, the purpose of this release is to facilitate wider testing, to inform people of the progress we have made, and to attract fresh development talent, both to Freenet itself, and to third party applications that use Freenet as a platform.
      • I didn't mean to offend, Ian. I'm a developer myself, and I damn well understand "testing." I'm just still curious as to the improvements that 0.7 offers. Should I donate again to get you off my back? ;)

        I wasn't responding to the Freenet Project website, I was responding to the Slashdot story. Something tells me that this particular Slashdotting was premature, but that tends to be the way it goes for Freenet; Slashdottings, as much as others may welcome them, are typically a bad thing for the Freenet networ
        • by Sanity (1431) * on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @02:05AM (#15055851) Homepage Journal
          Should I donate again to get you off my back?
          Of course you should :-)
          I wasn't responding to the Freenet Project website, I was responding to the Slashdot story. Something tells me that this particular Slashdotting was premature, but that tends to be the way it goes for Freenet; Slashdottings, as much as others may welcome them, are typically a bad thing for the Freenet network. If nothing else, we'll get new users. For awhile. We can only see how the network handles the next few days worth of influx.
          Point taken. Its a tricky one, do you go for early publicity, or wait until you have a more robust piece of software. Freenet has always generated significant publicity at pretty early stages of development, and while it has disadvantages, on the whole I think it has been beneficial, it attracts developers (at a time when they can still make a real difference), not to mention donations, which we really need right now. We do try to be explicit about the fact that it is an alpha for testing, to avoid people being disappointed.
    • This has baffled me to no end. Try as I might, I have a hard time imagining the advantages of this approach beyond a false sense of security. Add to this the fact that in places like China, where the authorities are likely to put your ass in the gulag just for trading encrypted packets, or running some suspicious to them services on suspicious ports, which they will detect due to the wonderful all-pervasive ISP surveilance of every packet provided to them by giants of moral integrity such as Cisco, and thin
      • Re:Trust...whom? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by roystgnr (4015) <roystgnr@@@ticam...utexas...edu> on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @02:58AM (#15055976) Homepage
        Add to this the fact that in places like China, where the authorities are likely to put your ass in the gulag just for trading encrypted packets, or running some suspicious to them services on suspicious ports, which they will detect due to the wonderful all-pervasive ISP surveilance of every packet provided to them by giants of moral integrity such as Cisco, and things become even murkier.

        I find the problem intractable from a theoretical standpoint, given current IP protocols and network implementations.


        Here's the two steps to make it tractable:

        1. Put your web pages behind an SSL connection. Any web browser today can visit https as easily as http, but an ISP wanting to (or being forced to) snoop those connections will have a monumentally harder time.

        But what, your web pages are nothing but an electronics tutorial and a photo album? So much the better. The point isn't that you need to find anti-totalitarian political tracts to translate into Chinese, the point is that if *everything* on the web starts moving to encrypted connections, those sites which need the encrypted connections can use them without sticking out. Web storefronts have done far more to make encryption indispensable than political activists ever could, but every little bit helps. We want to make the Web a place where trying to cut off your people's ability to talk to SSL sites would be like cutting off your own hand.

        2. Put proxy services up on your web server. Whether it's an remailer gateway, a web proxy, whatever - the idea is to make it impossible for censors to ban or monitor network access by IP. SSL doesn't protect the IP of the websites you visit, it just protects the content you send and receive from them, and sometimes that's not enough. If you're an ex-Mormon trying not to get kicked out of BYU, it's probably a good idea not to have a lot of exmormon.org IPs in their network logs regardless of whether the content of what you read and write is there as well.

        That's it, two steps: first make encrypted communications more common, then use those encrypted communications to make private communications less suspicious. The second step is going to take longer than the first, but it'll get here. The price of bandwidth for proxy services hasn't fallen as fast as the price of CPU time for SSL encoding, but they're both still getting cheaper. From a theoretical point of view, it's always possible for the Chinese government to say "No encryption for you!", but from a practical point of view we can make that equivalent to disconnecting from the internet entirely.
        • Good plan, and the Information and Internet Ministry approves of commercial use of SSL sites, to prevent thieves interfering with the National Business, except that the Totalitarian Information Ministry also requires all SSL sites to have all of their keys in escrow with the Ministry. That is a pre-condition of doing business. Any non-escrowed site you are accessing, will be either a) blocked and/or b) you will have a visit from a very friedly Ministry Staff to question you on your indiscretions and educate
    • Start your own net with your friends and their own friends and so on.
      For more information see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend-to-friend [wikipedia.org]
  • by moosehooey (953907) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @01:25AM (#15055733)
    On 31 Mar 2006, at 20:08:
    > This isn't about *technical* support, I just wanted to tell Matthew
    > thanks
    > for working on this project. The US government is really scaring
    > me and
    > I'm glad someone's working on this. You're doing a great job man.
    >
    > One question I have is that the paypal balance on the home page
    > usually
    > says something like a few hundred $, and I was wondering if it's
    > actually
    > generating the required $2300 per month, or if it's falling short.
    > I've
    > had a monthly donation set up for quite a while now, and I just
    > want to
    > make sure everything is going well financially for the project.

    We have been fortunate enough to generate just about enough to pay
    for Matthew for the past few years, but donations have been tailing
    off as we haven't put out any new releases in quite a while due to
    our work on 0.7, and the financial situation is actually quite
    precarious just now.

    Our hope is that with the 0.7 alpha release we will get some
    donations, but if anyone can contribute, now would really be the time
    (as there can be no guarantee that the 0.7 alpha release will
    generate the level of publicity we have seen for previous releases).

    Ian.
  • by Adeptus_Luminati (634274) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @01:31AM (#15055752)
    Here's my 'freenet/Darknet' wishlist for the next release (hopefuly it won't take another 5 years before any major break throughs):

    1) Bittorrent/utorrent inside Darknet support. (i.e. encrypted semi-anonymous file transfers)
    2) Full IP anonymity
    3) Multi-port support (i.e. when firewalls block it, you can change ports).
    4) User selected periodic chaotic deep packet protocol emulation. Say what?! Imagine if you could download from a list of popular standard protocols & configure your Darknet client to emulate most of these protocols (one at a time & announcing the new protocol to your group of file-exchange-buddies)- anytime you want. You'd periodically select a new protocol (i.e. FTP, HTTP, OSPF, DNS, etc every time some advanced firewall blocks you) & BAM ... you punch through making your traffic seem like standard protocols. An advanced version of this would allow you to load balance your traffic over multiple standard look-alike protocols, thus forcing ISP's to not be able to track (through agregate port router bandwidth stats) which new protocol/port you are using now so they could block it. Also, by allowing multi-protocol chaotic support that means each group of users would be using different protocols & ports... now try to stop that Mr. China firewall!
    5) Proxy bounce support
    6) Open source API for additional protocol bounce support. (i.e. allows for crackers/hackers of restrictive/oppressive nations to piggy back Darknet inside a legit Server running say FTP or something of the sort) - Once the trusted server is infiltrated, it could allow for proxied clients to connect through it and out to the rest of the world.

    I'm sure some of you could come up with more utopian anonymous & liberative strategies.

    Cheers
    adeptus_luminati
    • by Sanity (1431) * on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @02:10AM (#15055870) Homepage Journal
      1. Take a look at Frost (see here [freenetproject.org])
      2. Not sure what this means, even at this early stage Freenet 0.7 is pretty anonymous compared to the competition
      3. You can change Freenet's port very easily in the freenet config file, the initial port is selected randomly
      4. This would probably be overkill for the monitoring mechanisms in existence today
      5. Not sure what this means
      6. This either
    • Imagine if you could download from a list of popular standard protocols & configure your Darknet client to emulate most of these protocols (one at a time & announcing the new protocol to your group of file-exchange-buddies)- anytime you want.

      I like this idea a lot, but the problem is that you need to build a model of a protocol in order to imitate it, and the eavesdropper can probably use the same model to determine that your traffic is fake. Let's say you want to make your darknet traffic look li

  • by Null Nihils (965047) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @02:04AM (#15055848) Journal
    welcome the idea that our overlords will have a harder time censoring and surveilling us.
  • by bersl2 (689221) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @02:30AM (#15055928) Journal
    (I'm probably repeating things that have already been said, but I need to say my piece.)

    Certain people are going to do unsavory things to children regardless of whether or not they have an audience. I have always failed to see the extra harm done through dissemination of such material. Would you rather that no evidence be distributed, so that the children suffer in silence? Certainly the extra indignity is insignificant in comparison to the original act.

    Truly, I do not understand. Do you somehow think that the urge to abuse children is somehow viral, and that child pornography will "infect" others?

    Any way I look at it, all objections to Freenet seem to boil down to one of two things:
    1. "By golly, we have to do something about all of this child pr0n!"
    2. "I don't want to get in trouble with the authorities."

    The problem with #1 is that there isn't anything you really can do about it, and any symbolic act has the effect of harming legitimate use. IANAL, but I think that since, by probability, there isn't necessarily anything illegal flowing through your node, you have plausible deniability. As long as you run it on computers for which you have permission to use in this way, it's unlikely that you will get in any trouble.

    If you don't want to participate, then that's fine with me, but make sure that you remember that convincing others not to use Freenet provides no viable benefit to children under abuse and harms legitimate attempts to exercise free speech.
    • I think there is something you haven't considered - with a secure distribution channel, child porn can and will be produced on a comercial basis. There is demand for it, and therefore children will be abused to meet that demand. These are children who would not be abused if there was no mechanism which allowed the resulting pornography to be sold.

    • by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @04:18AM (#15056177) Homepage
      Truly, I do not understand. Do you somehow think that the urge to abuse children is somehow viral, and that child pornography will "infect" others?

      Does the bible belt think that pornography will lead to promiscous sex acts? Do people in Europe think hate speech leads to hate crime? Do people in China think anti-communist information will lead to anti-communist movements?

      That's not the issue, the issue is what you're doing when you're building infrastructure, communication networks. Let me play the devil's advocate: The pedo down the street probably has a lot more use for broadband than I do. Without it, I could still head over to the nearest CD/DVD/game store rental, he couldn't. Should we just roll back time?

      Whenever I pay for that infrastructure, I contribute to his as well. It's just that I pay an ISP to build bandwidth, rather than donate it directly. That doesn't mean I support or condone it, but that when you build a common resource somone might misuse it.

      I think the concept of a server-less repository where you publish some information and have it distributed by a global net of cache-servers (which is all Freenet is, in a sense) has lots of interesting and valuable possibilities. Potential for misuse? Certainly. But I'm not going to take a larger blame for that than that the pedo down the street now has broadband, i.e. none.
    • by HuguesT (84078) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @04:20AM (#15056184)
      Yes the thinking goes that abuse is viral.

      First some people might fight their unwholesome thoughts, but cease to when confronted with evidence that others are actually doing what they'd like to do.

      Second even if those people don't act, they might like to watch. This creates a demand for the material, and therefore it has to be on offer somehow. The theory goes that is demand is stiffled, there won't be such an incentive for the supply and therefore less abuse.

      Anyhow, I can't see how one can turn a blind eye to child abuse.
  • by caudron (466327) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @08:24AM (#15056796) Homepage
    This place our dungeon, not our safe retreat
    Beyond his potent arm, to live exempt
    From Heaven's high jurisdiction, in new league
    Banded against his throne, but to remain
    In strictest bondage, though thus far removed,
    Under th' inevitable curb, reserved
    His captive multitude.


    Paradise Lost, Book II, Lines 317-323

    Fighting from our dark places isn't really going to win this battle for Freedom. I appreciate what Freenet is doing. It's securing our fallback position. We need that, but we need more a willingness on the part of our citizenry to take the fight to the day-lit streets of the Mall in Washington D.C.

    I'd rather be free by liberty and than free by obscurity.

    Tom Caudron
    http://tom.digitalelite.com/linux.html [digitalelite.com]
  • by murderlegendre (776042) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @09:19AM (#15057053)

    Since the rights of the unborn (read: abortion) has become the ultimate litmus-test in meatspace, has kiddy porn become the Internet equivalent?

    Of course that is a rhetorical question, and the answer is obvously a resounding "yes". So, from this point forward, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, let us all agree that any discussion of privacy, freedom of speech or anonymity on the Internet shall descend into a polarized debate over the evils of child pornography. Terrorism and illicit file sharing came in second and third, respectively.

    You have officially "gotten the memo".

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken

Working...