New "Dark" Freenet Available for Testing 424
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."
Much needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Practical measures (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand the reasons that they use Java, but still, Freenet is one RAM and CPU-hungry beast.
Re:Practical measures (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fantastic (Score:5, Insightful)
I tried starting an ISP once, briefly, out of curiosity. While monitoring my customers' connections with a packet sniffer, I didn't notice any terrorism plans, but I sure saw a hell of a lot of people swapping child pornography. I turned off my routers, shut down my business, and never messed with providing internet service again.
I tried running a telco once, briefly, out of curiosity. Listening in on my customers' conversations, I didn't notice any terrorism plans, but I sure heard a hell of a lot of people discussing child pornography. I turned off my switches, burned my service trucks, and never messed with selling phone service again.
I tried being a mayor once, briefly, out of curiosity. Breaking into residents' houses at night with my police chief, I didn't notice any terrorism plans, but I sure saw a hell of a lot of people looking at child pornography. I shut down city hall, razed my city to the ground, and never messed with human communities again.
Re:Fantastic (Score:5, Insightful)
The ethical questions are interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Then there's the question: if Freenet is needed, is it right to decide not to run a node because you abhor some of the traffic?
I don't know the answers but do respect your decision.
Re:Fantastic (Score:5, Insightful)
And although I do believe in free speech (no government censorship), I don't think that extends to child pornography
Neither does Ian Clarke. You've missed the point. It's not about protecting child pornography as free speech, it's realising that you can't protect other, legitimate forms of free speech without also protecting child pornography as well. It's the unfortunate reality of information theory. If anybody has the power to stop the kiddy porn, they have the power to stop the legitimate speech as well, e.g. dissidence. The only true protection of freedom of speech is incapable of distinguishing between kiddy porn and legitimate speech by its very nature.
If you've come up with some revolutionary scheme that can stop kiddy porn without harming the protection of the legitimate speech, then I'm sure Ian Clarke would jump at the chance to implement it. But there's every reason to believe this will be completely and utterly impossible forever. Think about it.
The sad thing is, no matter how many times this is explained, there's always somebody as ignorant as you willing to tell people all about how he thinks kiddy porn is free speech. Please stop that.
Re:Fantastic (Score:5, Insightful)
"... He is actively helping people to distribute child pornography"
What you have posted is frankly libelous [wikipedia.org].
You can be sued, and unless you can prove that you know that he was helping to distribute child porn, you will lose. Otherwise, if you know this for a fact, I hope you have reported this to the authorities.*
Do you know for a fact that he is specifically helping to distribute child pornography, rather than simply building a general purpose network? *Any* communications network can be used to distribute child pornogrphy. Remember that usenet, AOL, and most recently Myspace [wpri.com] was used to distribute child pornography. Are you making the same claims that the creators and owners of usenet, AOL, and MySpace are "actively helping people to distribute child pornography", like you said of Ian Clarke?
I turned off the freenet myself because I thought it could be used for child porn, and I didn't want any part of it. I do not support child pronography. But, I cannot support you making such claims about a person without evidence. Put up or shut up.
*I have the feeling you do not know this specifically about Ian Clarke. If you do, you should report it to the authorities, and if you had reported it, you wouldn't be blabbing libelously on the internet. You have correctly understood that the freenet, like any network, can be used to distribute child porn, but I don't think you know this about Clark. If you do, for God's sake, don't ruin the investigation by blabbing all over the internet.
Re:Fantastic (Score:2, Insightful)
Now you run that statement through the same logical process you used before, and you come up with something like this:
"I used to drive at night, but it was unnecessarily risky, so I decided only to drive during the day. I didn't want to hit a pedestrian."
"I used to drive, but it was unnecessarily risky, so I decided only to ride a bike. I didn't want to hit a pedestrian."
"I used to ride a bike, but it was unnecessarily risky, so I decided only to walk. I didn't want to hit a pedestrian."
Notice how at some point, a quantitative reduction in the level of risk and a simultaneous change in the quantitative level of justification for the action changed a sensible statement into a ridiculous one? The problem isn't with the original statement, it's with the kind of logic you're applying to transform it into other statements.
Freenet's killer app is child pornography. I've never seen any evidence that any political dissident uses it. The level of risk of harming children is extremely high, and the level of justification is extremely low.
Slow networks (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Fantastic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fantastic (Score:5, Insightful)
So's your local mailman. I hope you didn't send out any Christmas cards last year, and you had better make sure you handle all your bills online, otherwise you're aiding that pernicious distribution medium of kiddie porn known as "First Class Mail" (which, while not anonymous, is physically and legally protected from inspection).
Darknet + Bittorrent = Mass Appeal ! (Score:4, Insightful)
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
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
Re:Fantastic (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, that's exactly the point, isn't it?
What part of "testing" don't you understand? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Java is coming along (Score:1, Insightful)
Just a casual empirical observation.
Re:Fantastic (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the flaw in your reasoning right there. You assume there is a "quantitative level of justification" when there is not. What you consider to be just in one case could be considered unjust by someone else. How do you determine who is right? You can't. Justice is a qualitative term.
The problem isn't with the original statement, it's with the kind of logic you're applying to transform it into other statements.
His logic is perfectly fine. All those statements are perfectly sound and logical. The problem is you think "justice" can be quantified so you find fault in those statements because your spectrum of "justice" does not match his. Sure if you assume your spectrum of "justice" to be true his statements appear silly, but that does not change their logical satisfiability.
Re:Fantastic (Score:2, Insightful)
Completely agree (Score:5, Insightful)
- Ian (Founder, Freenet Project)
Re:What part of "testing" don't you understand? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Practical measures (Score:2, Insightful)
Again I suggest you read up on labor before labor laws. Might also want to read the history of credit reports, and why you are now legally entitled to view your own credit report.
You "child porn"-arguing people miss the point (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fantastic (Score:4, Insightful)
No, Clarke isn't *actively* helping to spread this any more than any other material. That's just how the protocol work. The eMule devs aren't actively helping to spread pirated material, Pirate Bay isn't actively helping to spread the latest DVD-R movies. They're just providing the service; it's people using it that spread the material.
And why the heck do you feel a need to mention "child pornography" at every chance you get? To make your point more clear? To show that you're against total free speech? Obviously, child porn is one of the things that appear on a network without censorship or easy tracking. Now, what do you think should be done with it while preserving anonymity? Try answering that instead of just throwing shit on the founder who just developed the purely technical service.
Java is (i) a bloated monster, (ii) non-portable (Score:2, Insightful)
The main criticisms thrown at Java (overheads and speed) always seem to miss the key matter entirely, as far as I am concerned. because those issues can be fixed, whereas others can't.
Execution overheads can always be reduced and JIT performance can always be improved, and the effect of VM overheads on overall speed becomes ever less significant anyway as our hardware becomes more capable. But there are two things that are getting worse, not better.
Those two things are Java bloat and hence complexity, and Java non-portability.
Java growth is monotonic -- there is never any reduction in its footprint, only increase, because developers usually add code and very rarely eliminate whole sections of it. What used to be a fairly concise VM with a few auxiliary libraries is now an extremely large and hairy monster. And with size comes complexity, and with complexity come continual maintenance, latent bugs, and insecurities. Java has become a liability instead of an asset as a side effect of its unstoppable growth.
And secondly, the "write once, run anywhere" paradigm has failed utterly and turned into a "write once, run only in the few places where gurus have waved magic garlic". Why this is so I have no idea, since the VM is 100% portable in theory. What's probably happened is that the extreme mess of libraries make simple all-inclusive installation pretty much impossible, and the design is unhelpful in that it doesn't bother to search for missing bits in default locations, but I'm speculating about that.
Whatever the reasons, throughout the many years since Java hit the scene (I go back to the dawn of time in OO), Java has managed to work on perhaps 10% of the many dozens of highly varied Unix-type boxes that I have owned or worked on. This contrasts with 100% of those boxes running C/C++, Perl, Python, Tcl, Lua, etc etc. All modern languages seem to work pretty much everywhere, with one exception -- Java. This is very wierd, for a language which is supposed to run anywhere.
So that's my beef with Java, a great pity because gramatically and in concept the language is terrific. Sadly, neither of those two problems will go away, because (i) developers will never shrink the system (that's simply not done), and (ii) Java fanboys simply refuse to believe that their beloved system has extremely poor portability in practice.
So, for me Java is in dead end street, unfortunately. And it's not that I don't like it, quite the opposite. It's simply too big and too selective in where it chooses to run.
Re:Slow networks (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Fantastic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You "child porn"-arguing people miss the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fantastic (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree. Except that.. Without COMPLETE free speech, you have NO free speech (government not censoring speech).
If you read what Ian has said in the past, you'll notice that he does argue along this line of reasoning.
If you build a network that can stop child pornography, you've built a network that can censor your speech.
I'd like to take this moment to reming you that there are a coulpe of really old guys who built the ARPA net, which became the Internet, if I recall correctly. Are you as miffed with them as you with Ian? By your like of reasoning, you should "I turned off my node, deinstalled the software, and never messed with it again." since Internet (without Freenet) is used to swap child pornography (I'm going to assume this is the case; I don't have actual evidence).
Sorry for the rant; but your reasoning is very inconsistent, so I couldn't help myself.
Re:You "child porn"-arguing people miss the point (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
And may I remind people this is something that's supposed to run in the background 24/7? Freenet if you just "jump on" when needed will be a really shitty network. A permanent drain of 300MB + CPU time is a lot. That said, there's a lot of encryption/decryption, IO and buffers involved so it wouldn't be a "light" C++ daemon either but I think you could do quite a bit better.
Re:Fantastic (Score:4, Insightful)
My ability to pass on free speech is part of my free speech. Let me ntroduce you to the two things Freenet understands: 0 and 1. Please express in those terms what constitutes free speech, and what constitutes child pornography.
Freenet could not possibly make that distinction, you would have to ban it outright. But that would be prior restraint of speech. Let me quote you the Supreme Courts position on that matter in Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart:What else could you do? Well, you could outlaw anonymity. Here's the Supreme Court's opinion on that in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:So in short, if you want to outlaw Freenet you had better revoke the First Amendment first. The Supreme Court has repetedly upheld the free and anonymous exchange of speech. In online terms, that translates to free and anonymous exchange of 0s and 1s. Not happy about it? Move to China.
Re:Fantastic (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm getting tired of people ignorantly giving up their rights in the name of "catching the evil doers". And of course the all mighty reasoning... "If your not doing anything illegal/evil, you should have nothing to hide."
When and why did this become acceptable logic? Do people not think ahead and picture the outcome if we as a society were able to catch anyone the second they commit a crime? The same system put in place to protect you from harm, now prevents you from ever being able to make a "mistake". A mistake defined by a governments idea of right and wrong.
Human beings evolve, grow, and better themselves by learning from their past mistakes. With complete and total freedom comes immense happiness and the birth of real tragedy. But must we all sit in detention because one kid threw something at the teacher?
Re:Completely agree (Score:3, Insightful)
Or am I reading it wrong? thats just what i've got from the discussions.
Re:Practical measures (Score:2, Insightful)
If an instance of human interaction is voluntary with regard to both (all) parties involved, then it's an example of freedom. If coercion is employed as the means, then it's NOT an example of freedom.
Therefore, the option to be anonymous is always required for freedom, because it takes voluntary association to achieve anonymous speech. Clearly, it would take an initiation of force (coercion) in order to prevent anonymous speech, just as it takes an initiation of force to prevent any instance of voluntary human interaction.
Bottom line: if you want to employ coercion in order to prevent a peaceful human being from achieving anonymous speech, then you don't believe in freedom.
Re:argument (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah... just like watching "normal" pornography makes you more likely to rape random women on the street. Just like playing video games turn innocent teenagers into criminals who shoot cops and hookers. Just like reading Stephen King makes you a psychotic murderer. Just like watching Spongebob makes children gay.
I find child pornography as disgusting and horrible as everyone else, but I think your reasoning is more than far-fetched. At best, you're making a cum hoc ergo propter hoc mistake - it might be that people who view child pornography are more likely to abuse children (i.e., the claim makes sense, a priori - it'd still have to be investigated, though, of course), but even if it is true, I don't see why there would be a causal connection. It's much more likely that there would be another reason that led people to see children as sex objects - which in turn would lead to both an interest in child pornography and actual abuse. But someone who isn't already predisposed towards children wouldn't turn into a child abuser merely because he's exposed to child pornography.
If I looked you up and kept on showing you child pornography, would you ultimately emerge as a child abuser? Of course not. And the same is true for everyone else, too.
Re:Fantastic (Score:2, Insightful)
Does anyone else get that "gut reaction" from Freenet? I don't mean that it's the first thing you see. I can't even back this up with evidence (admittedly, I haven't been trying), but for some reason, p2p seems like an illegitimate way of getting stuff you would find at best buy, or a legitimate way of getting Linux distros...While Freenet, with all its talk of freedom, privacy, and the measures taken to ensure it, somehow comes off as a place you go for stuff too obsene for p2p.
Please don't mod me flamebait on this...It's a serious question. Does anyone else have the initial instinct that Freenet is a place to go for things that the FBI would arrest you for, if you did them on bittorrent? Something about the network...I think it's that it performs poorly (due to encryption), makes content difficult to search for (when searching by name), and that anonimity is the only selling point...but something about the network creeps me out.
I'm reminded of a few lines from Paradise Lost (Score:4, Insightful)
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]
Re:Waste (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that an accurate description of Sun's JVM :)
There are those of us who don't have the luxury of running a platform which Sun feels is important enough to warrent a pre-compiled propriatory binary for, and for us Java applications simply aren't an option.
Re:argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure? Can you show evidence that greater access to child pornography leads to and increase in actual child abuse? Will more children be abused if more existing images are simply copied?
As an analogy, and quite a good one, will more music be written if people download it en masse over freenet?
Re:Will this ever succeed in full? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, what platform are you using that doesn't have a Java implementation on it?
And, even more to the point... Just have a Freenet server running in the basement someplace and use it as a proxy out to the Freenet. Buy/find/build a computer (don't spend more than one Benjamin on it) and put Any flavor of Linux on it, then load the Freenet proxy. Don't forget to load up the RAM, as Freenet eats RAM like the passengers of a Las Vegas tour bus eat at Circus Circus.
Not only is this good for the network (permanent nodes == good nodes) but the upshot is that you don't have to locate the server anywhere near your main computer. So you can get a low-speed computer, slap a giant copper HSF on it, and remove the fans. Less fans == less points of H/W failure down the road. Since it's Linux, it never needs to reboot. Since it's only doing Freenet (and only has that port open to the world) then you don't need to update the kernel.
And yes, I know what I'm talking about. I've got a E-PC in my basement that's been running along happily for over 3 years now, and the only thing that I've ever changed on it was the Freenet install. Unload, upgrade, and restart the Freenet proxy. Done in 5min. Whenever i want to use the Freenet i just change my proxy in my browser to my Freenet server in the basement. Takes me 20 seconds.
So I want all these excuses of NOT running Freenet to stop. Anybody can find a 'junk' computer and put Freenet on it, no excuses! Get those nodes up and running--the more nodes that stay online 24/7 the better. And trust me... Once you see the amount of creativity that true total anonymity brings, you'll be glad you at least saw it. You might not like it but at least you know it's there and what it's about. And like GI Joe said--Knowing is half the battle.
And if your really worried about your electric bill--don't. Your bill will jump up at most
Re:You "child porn"-arguing people miss the point (Score:3, Insightful)
I've spent time hunting down child porn networks, sending information to the police detailing where the sites are. For stuff I've administered, I've accepted coorporation with the police beyond what's really legal. And for a couple of cases where there was no reaction from the police after a long period of time (year+), I've supplied information to vigilante groups instead. All of these expose me to legal risk.
In my opinion, you're ignoring the issue. You're just handwaving with your feelings, and argue for sacrificing other essential rights for a feeling of "I didn't ignore the issue."
Eivind.
Re:You "child porn"-arguing people miss the point (Score:1, Insightful)
Yep, be it hate crimes, pornography, or any other evil. Should we make the distribution of pictures of muders illegal? Or how about pictures of people lying? What differentiates child abuse from, say, murder of a child, to give it preferential treatment?
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.
You mean hypothesis. The problem is that this assumes that there's a n:m relationship between child abuse and viewers of child porn. However, once child porn is created, there's actually no need to produce more. So, the ratio from some set date can be 0:m. However, if it was the case that child porn was produced regardless, it would be produced because of either oversupply (which can't be prevented directly, though the abuser can be punished aftwards) or demand that still manages to strip past the existing supply. But even if the latter were true, it should be the case that the law should be written to prevent buying/selling child porn, since clearly that's the ill that causes the problem. It doesn't really make sense to make all child porn illegal if it's the demand/supply that one views as evil. And it would target the very black market that is so obsessed about.
So, why isn't the law written to punish abusers and the black market and not mere possessers?
What freedom means. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you are confusing Freedom [reference.com] with impunity. [reference.com]
They are neither contingent nor corollary. Many very [wikipedia.org] smart [wikipedia.org] people [wikipedia.org] would argue that they are often mutually exclusive...not least in so far as your freedom ends at my fist.
Re:Comment (Score:2, Insightful)
Garbage. You've been watching the FSC again (Fundamentalist Science Channel). Stop it. Exposure to that stuff will damage your brain.
Look, bad science is bad science, and bad statistics are the bedrock and foundation of bad science.
At best, you can find studies that correlate inappropriate sex with porn. But that does not establish porn as causitive, merely symptomatic.
Again, show me a real study. One where half of 1,000 individual are exposed to porn in a blind study, with the degree of victimization tracked. Until you can find that study, all you're doing is barking up the correlation tree.
Look, I smoke tobacco (I know, I know, I'm an evil bad pariah). Studies show that drug users smoke tobacco way out of proportion to the rest of the population. Therefore tobacco causes drug use. Right? Problem is, if they were giving away crack at 7-11, I wouldn't be interested. Correlation, or causality?
Folks, this stuff is way the heck too serious for us to abandon thought and reason in favor of mushy emotianalism and rhetoric, and fundamentalist notions that you improve human behavior by legislating "temptation" out of existance.
But until we do that, we are going to continue to be societal victims of a government that heavily funds bad science in the hope of apeasing the mystical majority.
Re:You "child porn"-arguing people miss the point (Score:2, Insightful)