Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

After 3 Years, Freenet 0.7 Released

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the layers-on-layers dept.

Privacy 365

evanbd writes "After over 3 years of work, the Freenet Project has announced the release of Freenet 0.7. 'Freenet is software designed to allow the free exchange of information over the Internet without fear of censorship, or reprisal. To achieve this Freenet makes it very difficult for adversaries to reveal the identity, either of the person publishing, or downloading content' ... 'The journey towards Freenet 0.7 began in 2005 with the realization that some of Freenet's most vulnerable users needed to hide the fact that they were using Freenet, not just what they were doing with it. The result of this realization was a ground-up redesign and rewrite of Freenet, adding a "darknet" capability, allowing users to limit who their Freenet software would communicate with to trusted friends.'"

cancel ×

365 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Are we just now getting this dupe (5, Funny)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342268)

because it was uploaded via freenet?

Re:Are we just now getting this dupe (2, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342320)

I tried using Freenet a few years ago... chances are if I hadn't given up or gotten rid of the machine, i'd still be trying to fetch something -- anything -- off of it.

Has anyone used it recently to testify to any speed/reliability increase?

Re:Are we just now getting this dupe (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342970)

Has anyone used it recently to testify to any speed/reliability increase?
It's been a few years for me too. Is there anything more interesting available there now than dodgy porn?

Re:Are we just now getting this dupe (4, Informative)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343178)

It depends on a lot of things, primarily lots of people install it one day, screw around for an hour or so and give up. This is the wrong way to test out freenet, it takes a bit for your node to really become part of the network, and until then things are quite slow.

Eventually, after maybe a day or so of running the node, the speed approaches what it would otherwise be outside of freenet, with some overhead of course.

Re:Are we just now getting this dupe (2, Informative)

erlenic (95003) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343218)

I tried it in 2001 or 2002, and remember how slow it was. I've also tried the 0.7 release candidate, and it's a vast improvement. Much more useful, plus it has an nntp-over-freenet implementation, called FMS.

Re:Are we just now getting this dupe (4, Informative)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342348)

... because it was uploaded via freenet?

No.

It's because the previous article was the release candidate and the official release came out today.

Congratulations to all pedophiles. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342306)

A new and improved way to share that child pornography!

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342382)

A new and improved way to share that child pornography!
More congratulations are in order for the powers that be. They have managed to convince a large segment of the population that the only consequence of anonymous communication on the internet is the proliferation of child porn. The citizens are now ready and willing to be tracked and logged.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342478)

They have managed to convince a large segment of the population that the only consequence of anonymous communication on the internet is the proliferation of child porn.

Have you actually seen Freenet? The only purpose it's pretty much used for is the exchange of the worst crimes of humanity. When it's actually proven to be used for a legitimate purpose that needs anonymity, then you can criticize people's perception of it.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX (5, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342524)


Have you actually seen Freenet? The only purpose it's pretty much used for is the exchange of the worst crimes of humanity.

With Freenet you have to actively look for what you want. If you found "the worst crimes of humanity" it's because you were looking for them in the first place.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342580)

With Freenet you have to actively look for what you want. If you found "the worst crimes of humanity" it's because you were looking for them in the first place.

Again, have you actually used Freenet? Apparently not. There are tons of index pages that point you to this stuff. The people who maintain the index pages take a firm "who am I to judge?" stand on including the child porn stuff.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342636)

Again, have you actually used Freenet?
I've used freenet. Albeit briefly. I went to a couple index pages and did not see any child pornography nor links to it. But then again I wasn't looking for it too closely. I saw mostly political blogs, MP3s, movies, and hacking tools.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343216)

That stuff is in the minority though and can be ignored easily. The majority of the stuff on freenet is political in nature or things people were otherwise afraid to say on the public net.

That old study about the content of freenet found most of it was text files anyway, perhaps this has changed but it seems likely to be true still.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX (4, Informative)

evanbd (210358) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343344)

What main index pages? All the default bookmarks have anti-CP policies. This is not even a result of editing by the freenet devs; it's a result of community standards -- all the well-maintained and usable indexes have such policies. The devs have explicitly taken a content-agnostic approach to the default bookmarks, and said that anything useful and regularly updated is a candidate. The result is a set of indexes free of child pornography.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX (5, Informative)

emag (4640) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342606)

The last time I used Freenet, in the 0.4? days, there were sites that would index whatever was submitted, without regard to content, and it was these index sites that were most heavily promoted for "finding" anything in Freenet. It was hard NOT to notice "the worst crimes of humanity", so to speak, when they're sitting there with a full description. Whether the descriptions were accurate, I have no idea, as the novelty of Freenet wore off as soon as I realized I could get better speed from a tape-carrying tortoise.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX (4, Informative)

evanbd (210358) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342852)

Freenet 0.7 is vastly faster than 0.4, though not as fast as bittorrent (obviously). Currently, all the good index sites have anti-CP policies. They'll happily link photos from Tibet, though, or wikileaks mirrors (both present). The current crop of index sites also tends to do a good job indexing things. Also, much of the content is centered around FMS and the (less functional) Frost messaging systems (broadly similar to usenet; FMS even operates as an NNTP gateway, allowing you to use your favorite newsreader). You'll get content posted to boards you subscribe to, which tends to be at least somewhat relevant (ie, the signal to noise ratio is probably better than /. ;) ). I'd encourage you to try it out again, if you're interested in privacy and an anonymous network, but not if all you're looking for is the next bittorrent (though you can find music, movies, etc on Freenet if you want).

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX (5, Informative)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342924)

The problem actually comes down to this :
The are 2 ways to regard spread of information

Either it should be possible to stop the spread of certain information , and that will put a stop to the abuses , but it will also make it possible for an authoritarian regime to silence any criticism , and will basically stop freedom of speech .

The other way is to make it impossible to stop information from spreading , and that way you wil ensure freedom of speech , and anonymity to whistle blowers and criticism , but at the same time , abuses will be unstoppable .

There is no midway to this , as it's about technical capabilities .

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX (1)

uigin (985341) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343150)

Actually, I've been trialling the release candidates of this version of Freenet (like you I lost interest in earlier versions) and it's very good.

While I'm sure there must be kiddie porn there somewhere I didn't notice it or stumble across it accidentally.

As for the speed, it's much better than previous versions. I would go so far as to say early DSL speeds (1Mb) once it's up and running for an hour or two.

D.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23343336)

So what you're saying is that Freenet is basically the home for the /. first-post trolls?

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX (4, Interesting)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342672)

The only purpose it's pretty much used for is the exchange of the worst crimes of humanity.
Also, guns kill people
Cars kill the enviornment
Retention of individual sovereignty/responsibility/money kills "fairness".
So, I'm thinkin': a government program can fix all of these woes.

Exchanging gas ovens? (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342798)

The only purpose it's pretty much used for is the exchange of the worst crimes of humanity.
How do they fit the gas ovens [wikipedia.org] through the series of tubes?

On the grand scale of things, and even on a per-criminal-act basis, killing someone for their religion is a lot worse than raping them. Killing 6 million people for their religion is a lot worse than 6 million incidences of photographed child molestation.

To put it another way: If you asked whether I'd rather have me as a kid or a kid I knew raped and the picture circulated around the Internet, or killed, it's obvious which one I'd pick. I think 99.99% of parents would say the same thing.

Re:Exchanging gas ovens? (4, Insightful)

jesdynf (42915) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343082)

You know, I never thought about it before... but why is it necessary to compare "rape" and "murder" and decide which of the two are worse?

Both are supremely unacceptable acts, full stop. The hypothetical question asked doesn't seem very realistic. "I would choose neither." "NO! What if you had to choose... because you're on a bus! And a madman would blow up the bus if you didn't choose, or it slowed down!" I'm not feeling it.

I'm not prepared to agree that killing N people is better or worse than raping N people, and that's before I even GET to the part where we bring up the religion thing. What if you *raped* N people for religion, but then killed N others just because you're a jerk? How does that stack up? And what if you double-parked because you wanted to make it harder for someone to drive away, thereby increasing the energy they expended and hastening, ever so slightly, the end of the universe? And you just raped N people to produce delicious candy? Hard to call that one, I tell you.

comparing rape and murder (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343246)

So which is it? Pick one:
* Your average murder is more immoral than your average rape.
* Your average rape is more immoral than your average murder.
* Your average murder and average rape are both so immoral as to be "infinitely immoral." This implies of course that 2 rapes or 2 murders or for that matter 6 million murders is practically no more immoral than 1.
* Your average murder and average rape have identical but finite levels of immorality.

For the sake of argument, let's stay away from "all immorality is of the same level," as that sidetracks the debate.

Re:Exchanging gas ovens? (2, Interesting)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343454)

You know, I never thought about it before... but why is it necessary to compare "rape" and "murder" and decide which of the two are worse?
The point being that there are no crimes against posting pictures of murder, but their are crimes against posting pictures of (even) consensual sex between two minors or of a minor and an "adult". That's the thing; our laws are perverted.

Dodgy Area (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343254)

I see where you are going and in principal I agree. The problem is the consequences of rape and other unspeakably inappropriate sexual behavior generally play out over a lifetime and _generally_ speaking lead to more inappropriate sexual behavior at an early age to more children.

It very quickly turns into a "grand scale" social problem due to geometric growth of inappropriate behavior.

Again, I generally agree with the principal of what you are saying, but it's very important to point out the deeply corrosive effect inappropriate sexual anything has in a society.

At least that can be countered (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343306)

The corrosive effect you mention can be countered by putting the child or now-adult grown child in a safe, warm environment and providing the necessary education/de-programming. It does take a society willing to throw resources at the problem though. That means money and higher taxes. I for one would gladly pay higher taxes to keep the next generation and the generation after that safer.

On the other hand, being killed is kind of permanent.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. QWZX (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343108)

Have you actually seen Freenet? The only purpose it's pretty much used for is the exchange of the worst crimes of humanity. When it's actually proven to be used for a legitimate purpose that needs anonymity, then you can criticize people's perception of it.
Of course if people only used Freenet for "legitimate" purposes then their would be no need for Freenet. That's pretty much the point. If you are living in an age where people (and more importantly governments and their enforcement agencies) think that free and uncensored information is "the worst crimes of humanity" then Freenet is important. Yes this age existed long before the Internet (think Galileo or Copernicus and their radical ideas), or think to the present. The same types of people who wanted to block radical and blasphemous thoughts and ideas 500 years ago are the same types of people who are against Freenet. The dissemination of information (in binary form or otherwise) is not in itself inherently harmful. Of course one could always argue about the marginal effects of 'blasphemous', 'immoral', or 'anti-social' binary information being made available; but any information that you don't like to perceive is far better to be brought out into the open than to have people be punished for thought crimes.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342516)

More congratulations are in order for the powers that be. They have managed to convince a large segment of the population that the only consequence of anonymous communication on the internet is the proliferation of child porn. The citizens are now ready and willing to be tracked and logged.

It's a signal-to-noise ratio problem, and what constitutes signal (or noise) is a function of what the authorities are looking for.

In China, Freenet is a tool used by traitors to pass destabilizing messages (to the PRC, that's signal) back and forth, hiding in a sea of American child porn (to the PRC, that's noise).

In the USA, Freenet is a tool used by pedophiles to pass disgusting images back and forth (to the FBI, that's signal), hiding in a sea of "Free Tibet" and "Falun Gong" emails (to the FBI, that's noise).

Unfortunately, since the network is designed that you can't host one without hosting the other, neither is a particularly advisable thing to have on your network, no matter where you live.

Isn't that what darknets are for? (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342844)

If I and my fight-Beijing dissidents run a collection of Freenet nodes and we don't get on the "non-dark" part of FreeNet, our risk of getting k1dd13 pr0n on our systems isn't any higher than it would be without FreeNet.

Re:Isn't that what darknets are for? (3, Informative)

evanbd (210358) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343126)

Exactly. And if you *do* connect to the rest of the network in a few places, but not much, and none of you request CP -- then you can spread your message to the rest of Freenet, but routing won't take the long circuitous path that goes through your somewhat disconnected subnetwork when it comes time to route other people's requests. Or, looked at another way: the stuff on your node will be what you're requesting, to a lesser extent what your friends are requesting, to an even lesser extent what their friends are requesting... If your friends are requesting things you don't object to, you shouldn't be storing much if any objectionable content.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. (1, Flamebait)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343184)

Unfortunately, since the network is designed that you can't host one without hosting the other, neither is a particularly advisable thing to have on your network, no matter where you live.
Actually , that's incorrect : On freenet , you host what you viewed . So if you only visit free tibet pages , that will be the only thing you have to worry about ( if you happen to live in China) .

Many bad thing may be going on around there , but there's no need to spread FUD . In fact , that's exactly what caused this to happen in the fist place :

The system freenet uses ensures that the content is hosted by popularity . So if a lot of good people put their legal stuff on it , the illegal stuff would simply be crushed . But because of the FUD , it actually attracts bad people , while repelling good people , thus creating a self fulfilling prophecy .

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342754)

Since when was looking at this stuff bad? Parents look at their children on a daily basis... just cause the person feels differently about what their looking at, its considered bad (remember: forcing the child is the problem)

Better not go to a 2girls1cup/goatse/etc. site and get any "good" feelings about it, otherwise you are a criminal too.

core.onion links to TorPedo, PedoBay, and pedowar. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342834)

When's the last time you used TOR and went to core.onion?

There's 3 links to pro-pedophilia images and discussion sites and 1/3 of the talk threads on the page about pedophilia.

When the people *using* these service stop being convinced that they're good for sharing child porn, then I think we can fairly categorize that as hysteria. In the mean time, I think it's a pretty justified accusation.

Re:core.onion links to TorPedo, PedoBay, and pedow (1)

computational super (740265) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343298)

Actually, I'm pretty sure you can find that stuff on the regular world wide web if you start looking for it. When the people *using* illegal web sites stop being convinced that they're good for sharing illegal images, then I think we can fairly categorize that as hysteria. In the mean time, I think we have to shut down the internet.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. (5, Insightful)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342442)

Is that the only use you can think of for this? Is this just a hopeless attempt at trolling? Is your world view so ethnocentric that you don't realize how censorship affects people?

Here's a quick list of situations or people off the top of my head that could benefit from this:

- Citizens of a government which controls information flow (China, Kuwait, etc)
- Investigative journalists releasing stories (Judith Miller, anyone?)
- Leaking protected or damaging information (Wikileaks has been shown to be vulnerable)

If all you can think about is "OmG teh CHILDRENS!!111", then something is seriously wrong with you.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. (5, Interesting)

evanbd (210358) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342630)

Wikileaks has been mirrored to Freenet more than once. I don't know of an up to date link, or a single regularly updated source, but it's there.

A large number of photos from Tibet are available, and there is at least one highly active user posting them and keeping them up to date, with commentary.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23343090)

"Free Tibet"('s Child Porn)

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342668)

Great points, I think that this is a really important and positive service.

But I'm scared to use it. It's obvious that people will upload vile things. And I really don't want authorities to find (which "is hard, but not impossible") somebody else's trash on my PC. Something tells me that the explanation will sound really lame to DA Tuffoncrime and Judge Hangemhigh.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. (5, Interesting)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342724)

If I'm not mistaken, you could always load up freenet and use a Truecrypt drive as your "swap" space.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. (1)

amphibian (691159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342788)

That's like saying an ISP is responsible for all the child porn their users download. Nobody has been busted for posession of anything merely for running a Freenet node as far as we know, and in any sane jurisdiction hopefully nobody ever will be. The EFF's legal advice to p2p devs may be of interest here: http://www.eff.org/wp/iaal-what-peer-peer-developers-need-know-about-copyright-law [eff.org]

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23343448)

and in any sane jurisdiction hopefully nobody ever will be.

When the Freenet Project started, wasn't that the original political point it was intended to demonstrate? That any jurisdiction in which Freenet was not anonymous (due to government-sponsored compromises on the security of the telecom system) was, by definition, no longer sane?

Well, guess what? The guy was right -- but he didn't anticipate 9/11 and the ensuing acquiescence of the population to the rise of the modern security/surveillance state. There are no sane jurisdictions left anywhere on the planet.

Freenet exists only as a tool by which authoritarian regimes can detect and track dissidents. In an age where everyone from NSA to China Telecom has taps on all the big fiber nodes, even if we can't tell what the nodes are saying to each other, we know which nodes are talking to which other nodes, and we can correlate that to the comings-and-goings of real people at ISPs, cybercafes, and homes. The political point's been made, the experiment's over, and it's time to wind this thing down before users in China (who, at least from my American perspective, are actually using the network for a "good" cause) start to disappear from public view, only to reappear as livers and corneas in the transplant market.

Use a dedicated RAM-only device (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342876)

In theory, you could use a device that only had a RAMdisk, and an encrypted one at that. Of course you'd need to rig it so the encryption keys were kept in the CPU cache and not in RAM, as RAM can be recovered after power-off if done quickly.

You'd also need to rig up an accelerometer and case-tampering switch so that if the unit was moved or the case opened the encryption keys would be over-written.

Re:Use a dedicated RAM-only device (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342972)

And while you're at it, you could host it in a non-descript Faraday cage bunker rigged to self-destruct upon command...

THINK OF THE POOR LITTLE CHILDREN (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342486)

BAWWWWWLLLLLLLL WAAHHHHHHHHHH POOR LITTLE CHILDREN BAWLLLLLLL SNIFFF SNIFFFF CRYYYYYYYYYYYY CRYYYYYYYYYYY POOOR BABIES BAWLLLLLLLL, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?! BOOOOHOOOOO

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_
_
_
_
_
_
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Or Fight The Power (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342718)

There are plenty of morally righteous reasons to want to communicate anonymously and invisibly.

Re:Congratulations to all pedophiles. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342952)

Yes, but look on the bright side - by the time the file arrives they will be all grown up.

Awesome! (1)

IdeaMan (216340) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342318)

Now if they will just get a decent GUI and searching it will wipe the floor with Bittorrent.

Nothing to see here.... move along (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342330)

All I got was - Access to this site has been blocked by your system administrator (i'm at work).

Re:Nothing to see here.... move along (1)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342412)

I'm not at work and the website works, I can confirm that there's something to see here.

Re:Nothing to see here.... move along (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342466)

I'm not at work and the website works, I can confirm that there's something to see here.
But because it's on freenet, you can't confirm what it is you're seeing or who posted it?

Meh. If it were really free, you wouldn't even be able to confirm that there is something to see.

Re:Nothing to see here.... move along (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342500)

Sounds like you could use some sort of "free network" to get around your employer's attempts at censorship. Unfortunately, as you've just discovered, no such thing exists.

Oh well, back to the grind.

How do you find trusted friends on a darknet? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342402)

If you don't have many real-life friends how are you ever going to find the darknets, and the content on them? If you only connect with a few people, that's not going to help you find very much content is it? Is there a big "greynet" where everyone has somehow established a level of trust (proved they are not gov't agents or lawyers), and at the same time there are enough people that there is likely to be some content worth finding?

Re:How do you find trusted friends on a darknet? (4, Informative)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342476)

To be honest Opennet seems much more fitting to their philosophy than Darknet, but for some reason or another they really want people to switch to Darknet. They even disabled the option to use Opennet in previous builds, until users complained. Generally you have no reason not to use Opennet, unless you're really paranoid, or in a country that forbids Freenet by law.

Re:How do you find trusted friends on a darknet? (1)

emag (4640) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342652)

Or you're like me, and probably the only one in your well-known peer group that would be using/promoting Freenet. Whee, I can share the same vacation photos and bad camcorder movies, only much more slowly and unreliably, if I use only Darknet.

I wonder if my current machine will have the same major load issues that 0.4? had with the machine I tried that one on...

Re:How do you find trusted friends on a darknet? (4, Informative)

Sanity (1431) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342674)

We hadn't "disabled" opennet in previous builds, it just hadn't been implemented yet.

It's like Animal Crossing: Wild World (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342550)

If you don't have many real-life friends how are you ever going to find the darknets, and the content on them?
The same way you find friend codes for Animal Crossing: Wild World or any other Nintendo WFC game that doesn't have opennet. You ask people with whom you maintain face-to-face contact. If you want to use Freenet, how likely is it that zero of the ca. 150 people in your monkeysphere [wikipedia.org] does not also want to use Freenet?

Google? (-1, Flamebait)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342420)

Google's Open Source Team has donated US$18,000 to the Freenet Project to support the ongoing development of the Freenet software.
Why is Google supporting terrorism & child pornography?
/someone was going to say it sooner or later

Re:Google? (2, Funny)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342436)

Why is Google supporting terrorism & child pornography?
Um, ad revenue? Wait a minute.... That doesn't sound right

Re:Google? (2, Funny)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342610)

Child Necrophilia is where it's at. Plain old Child pornography has lost its edge since Michael Jackson has made it acceptable.

The term "Aborted Love" isn't a bad thing now.

Re:Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342642)

Sure. And why is Google supporting terrorism by providing Google Earth, which provides all sorts of information about secure sites?

If you started eliminating or restricting everything that could be used for terrorism and/or for child pornography there wouldn't be many modern conveniences left.

Ah so THAT's why they sponsor FreeNet (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342890)

They want the satellites to be able to zoom in on the Freenet servers!

Israel BOMB Teheran (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342428)

reports on CNN damn!

No surprise there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342658)

They were asking for it all along.

GOOD! (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343160)

Now, go post somewhere where the readers are actually interested.

THIS is /., not www.whitehouse.com.

Great! How do I download it... (5, Funny)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342464)

...without disclosing the fact that I want to hide the fact that I'm hiding something?

Because, of course, if I haven't got anything to hide, why would I want to hide the fact that I'm hiding something?

Maybe Freenet 0.8 will provide a way to hide the fact that I'm hiding the fact that I'm hiding something.

Re:Great! How do I download it... (3, Funny)

emag (4640) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342564)

By even asking, you've disclosed it. Give up now, we have you surrounded.

Re:Great! How do I download it... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342570)

...without disclosing the fact that I want to hide the fact that I'm hiding something?

Step 1 : Post as Anonymous Coward...

Re:Great! How do I download it... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342694)

Step 2: Don't put a link to your mother's book in your sig.

(That book looks awesome!)

Re:Great! How do I download it... (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342806)

Forget trying to hide it, instead you should take refuge in audacious behavior. Download it 80 times in a row, without taking any precautions to hide the fact that your are downloading it. People will be overwhelmed by the weirdness and think to themselves:

"No one in their right mind would act that way if all they wanted was to do is download and use this service! Clearly this user's actions are for some other purpose; Yes, if fact he must be trying to deny legitimate users by taking up the bandwidth himself! How noble of him!"

Little do they realize, however, things are quite the contrary...

Re:Great! How do I download it... (2, Funny)

kvezach (1199717) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343260)

Your name wouldn't be Vizzini, by any chance?

Wait isn't this a problem?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342508)

The result of this realization was a ground-up redesign and rewrite of Freenet, adding a "darknet" capability, allowing users to limit who their Freenet software would communicate with to trusted friends.'"


If you somehow limit who you can connect to, if one of those nodes is compromised doesn't that provide a vector to identify other members/systems/whatever that have exchanged information with? Seem like that would defeat the purpose of untraceable communication

Re:Wait isn't this a problem?! (1)

The Second Horseman (121958) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342944)

Why? People have an unfailing ability to know which one of their friends and acquaintances they can trust. Just ask the folks from the former East Germany!

Riiight. (1)

bondjamesbond (99019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342530)

Freenet:
Hello Department of Homeland Security? This is Mr. CEO from Freenet. I'm sending you the API to our 0.7 release so you can monitor everyone who thinks they're really 'anonymous'.

DHS:
Wha whawha?

Freenet:
Yes sir, people really do think they're anonymously transmitting information - it said so on Slashdot.

DHS:
Wha whawhawha.

Freenet:
Yes, it is rather funny, sir. Goodbye.

ura transgender-wannabe transvestite homosexual (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342706)

you sir/maam, are a transgender-wannabe transvestite homosexual

ground-up redesign (5, Funny)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342586)

The result of this realization was a ground-up redesign

They ground up the redesign? ;)

The failure of Freenet (5, Interesting)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342678)

Freenet is an important concept. On it you get complete freedom of speech: the ability to discuss and spread your ideas, with full anonymity and freedom from censorship. Of course, this means that you will probably come across things on it that will go against your beliefs. While nothing forces you to actually visit these freesites, you will have to come to terms that this might be cached on your computer even without you visiting them. But this is important to freedom of speech: if people where able to censor anything, the system just wouldn't work.

So why does Freenet fail? Lack of documentation. I don't mean ease of use in the interface - I mean for the protocols and network design. A system as important as Freenet -- one that people expect unfaltering anonymity and security from -- should be rigorously and meticulously documented.

But it's not. In fact, if you bring it up with the Freenet developers they will gladly tell you this is intentional -- that they use security through obscurity [wikipedia.org] to guard against someone finding a way to break the system.

So -- do you trust your freedom with the competency of a handful of developers to make a good design? I don't. I want as many people looking at the system as possible. I want people to really bash on it, to try to break it. This gives me confidence, not worry, because problems will be solved sooner than later.

This would also open up the possibility of more than one client to access the network. If you have two separate clients that implement the same strict protocol and one of them messes up, it's likely to be caught far sooner than with just one. An immediate example of where this would have helped is with a bug that existed in 0.7's AES implementation for a very long time, where the data wasn't being encrypted properly.

The Freenet developers don't want multiple clients either -- again, they worry that one might break the network. This line of thought is incomprehensible to me, because as a developer I would want things that could break my network to be discovered as soon as possible so I could fix the design.

Sure, you could look at the source code. It is Open Source, after all. But what if you don't know Java? I don't particularly want to learn Java just so I can review Freenet's code. As a C++ developer I might be able to read and understand most of it, but I don't trust myself to review something so important without years of prior Java experience -- the chance that I'd miss something is just too great.

Re:The failure of Freenet (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342866)

"Sure, you could look at the source code. It is Open Source, after all. But what if you don't know Java? I don't particularly want to learn Java just so I can review Freenet's code. As a C++ developer I might be able to read and understand most of it, but I don't trust myself to review something so important without years of prior Java experience -- the chance that I'd miss something is just too great."

And if they wrote it in C++ then a Java developer could say the same thing (and have much more of a case as to why they shouldn't be trusted with a code audit).

That sounds like a personal problem, although -- yes. I wouldn't trust freenet with anything that I had to keep hidden for fear of loss of life or liberty either... but not because I've not coded java in 5 years.

Re:The failure of Freenet (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343032)

Which is why I say it should be documented separately from the code. Even if it is constantly changing, these changes should be documented prior to implementation. It'd be much easier to review than looking at code - Java or C++.

Re:The failure of Freenet (5, Informative)

amphibian (691159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342870)

It is not true that we practice security through obscurity. It *is* true that we haven't documented Freenet to the point that it could be reimplemented easily from the documentation. We don't want other node (not client) implementations right now, because Freenet is very much still a work in progress, and as a distributed, emergent system, lots of node implementations all of which implement slightly different behaviour (but the same protocol) would be a major problem: It would make it even harder for us to evaluate the effect of changes in the routing algorithm, for example. As a C++ developer with experience in security software, you'd be fine, java is easy, although there are some more interesting bits.

Re:The failure of Freenet (1)

computational super (740265) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342916)

that they use security through obscurity to guard against someone finding a way to break the system.

I brought this up on the FreeNet mailing list many years ago, and I got a different answer. The context of my post then was that I'd like to try reimplementing the core (the "node") in C to see if I could achieve any sort of speedup that way. Maybe I could, maybe I couldn't - there wouldn't be any harm in trying, and it would be a fun intellectual challenge. Of course, to do so, I'd need to have a good understanding of the intra-node protocol. So I mentioned on the list that I was willing to try to document said protocol in a rigorous way as a first step in trying to write a C-based node. I was warned that any attempt to document the internal protocol was futile since they regularly changed the details of it (?!) Nor was my proposal to develop a node in C met with anything I could call enthusiasm - ironic in light of the FAQ entry [freenetproject.org] which states "people willing to implement freenet in other languages however are very much encouraged to try". Good luck with that seeing as how there's no specification and no plan to develop one.

Re:The failure of Freenet (3, Informative)

amphibian (691159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343114)

Freenet is still under development, even at the network level. So the protocol - the node's actual behaviour - changes relatively frequently. Why is that so surprising? And you probably didn't get much help because the devs weren't interested in taking a year to rewrite freenet to get back to where they were already at. On the other hand, if you want to know how a part of the system works, and it's not obvious from the code, you just have to ask.

Re:The failure of Freenet (2, Insightful)

computational super (740265) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343228)

Yep, assuming that you're Toad from the list, that's pretty much what you said back then.

I've added you to my friends list as my small token of appreciation for the great service that you're doing for humanity - if there's any cosmic justice in the world, you and Ian will both be remembered by history as heroes of the 21st century.

But I still think you're wrong about developing multiple client implementations.

Re:The failure of Freenet (2, Insightful)

evanbd (210358) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342986)

There are two issues here. One is that the network isn't as robust as would be ideal; there are legitimate concerns about buggy implementations causing problems. A lot of the work debugging freenet goes into things that are essentially emergent behavior, and the bugs get even harder to track down on a non-homogenous network.

The second is one of documentation. Yeah, it's practically nonexistant outside of the source code. But my impression from discussions (none recent) of alternate implementations was that the developers would be willing to support them by answering questions and such, and had no actual objections (concerns about buggy clients, yes, but not objections). There has been discussion of people creating alternate implementations, but so far no one has actually followed through. So, if you want to go write one, I suggest you start writing some code and posting questions to the mailing list or on IRC.

I speak here as a #freenet regular and a coder, though not a freenet developer.

Re:The failure of Freenet (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23343020)

In fact, if you bring it up with the Freenet developers they will gladly tell you this is intentional -- that they use security through obscurity to guard against someone finding a way to break the system.

This is complete bullshit. You want specs? Here are the specs [freenetproject.org] . You want a security analysis? Here's a security analysis [freenetproject.org] . You want to understand the source code? Here's a guide to the source code [freenetproject.org] . If there's anything missing, the developers will be happy to help you fill in the gaps.

I don't particularly want to learn Java just so I can review Freenet's code.

Right, so you'd rather rewrite Freenet by yourself in C++ than spend a few hours learning Java? (That's literally all it takes for a C++ developer to understand Java. Obviously learning to write in Java takes a bit longer, but still not very long.)

Re:The failure of Freenet (2, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343194)

This is complete bullshit. You want specs? Here are the specs. You want a security analysis? Here's a security analysis. You want to understand the source code? Here's a guide to the source code. If there's anything missing, the developers will be happy to help you fill in the gaps.
Your first link is to the client protocol, not the network protocol. The security analysis is basicly a list of thrown up ideas with no analysis to back up any of it. And the source documentation isn't a guide to much of anything except as bird's eye view.

Re:The failure of Freenet (5, Informative)

Sanity (1431) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343130)

In fact, if you bring it up with the Freenet developers they will gladly tell you this is intentional -- that they use security through obscurity to guard against someone finding a way to break the system.
I'm the coordinator of the Freenet project and I'm calling bullshit on that one. I very much doubt any Freenet developer said that, and if they did, they weren't speaking on behalf of the project.

Yes, Freenet's low-level protocols could be better documented, but they are a work in progress, and in almost constant flux.

As for security through obscurity, we go to great lengths to explain to people how Freenet works, you can find a bunch of papers, and video lectures on our "Papers" page [freenetproject.org] ). Take a look at this video [freenetproject.org] from three years ago explaining the 0.7 design before we'd even begun to code it.

Yes it would be wonderful if every tiny detail could be documented meticulously, but before we document it we have to design and test our ideas, and that means developing and releasing the reference implementation.

correction (1, Redundant)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343294)

Apparently the op I was talking to in #freenet wasn't a developer, so practicing security through obscurity isn't intentional.

Interesting writing style... (2, Funny)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23342598)

I've been reading through their site and like the straight-forward writing style:

"Hopefully the installer will open the page for you, so you won't be reading this."

"Insecure mode should work automatically once enabled, so the rest of this page is about connecting to Friends."

Or how about the java error message:

"The JVM you are using is known to be buggy. It may produce OutOfMemoryError's when there is plenty of memory available. Please upgrade..."

Re:Interesting writing style... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342702)

I've been reading through their site and like the straight-forward writing style:

While we're at it, WTF's up with that mailing list archive thing?

Just give me an option to display/read the last 100 messages, without having to click on every single email. I got carpal tunnel syndrome after about ten clicks (one per thread, one per email in each thread) and gave up even trying to figure out what the status of the project was. It's almost like they're trying to hide their mailing list archives by making them impossible to read. WTF?

corepirate nazis now able to carry on misdeeds.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23342826)

without fear of censorship, or reprisal? pardon, but they've been doing that all along, whilst most of the rest of US have little/nothing to hide &/or no use for 'secret' computing. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

Security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23343068)

The previous version of Freenet had security which consisted of nothing more than "if we're not clever enough to infer the internal data of remote nodes from traffic then neither is The Plod". Has this improved at all in the latest version ?

Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Hosts (5, Interesting)

scruffy (29773) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343164)

I am impressed by Freenet's devotion to freedom of speech, but if my computer is hosting content, I should have the freedom to choose what that content is. Freedom of speech does not mean I should have to provide any resources to help you. This is where Freenet goes overboard. Freedom of speech is not an absolute.

Very insightful (2, Interesting)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343234)

I would mod you as insightful if I had points. While Freenet has legitimate uses, everyone knows that it's also used to trade things like child porn. I won't pontificate about the latter other than to say that I would choose to *not* serve up any chunks of children getting abused. Nor would I want to transmit any pieces of a bunch of other illegal or immoral or dangerous things.

Freenet is a non-starter for me for that very reason. Thank you for elucidating it so nicely.

Seriously? (1)

copponex (13876) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343358)

Freedom of speech is not an absolute.
Congratulations... you missed the entire point.

I may not agree with what you want to say, but as American (once upon a time, a long time ago, in a land far far away) you should be willing to die for that right.

Whether what you say causes a fight and then a lawsuit, or if it obstructs someone else's inalienable rights and causes your arrest is one thing. Preventing you from saying it is another.

Alas, America today is "Give me the liberty to buy shit, or at least try not to bother me while I watch TV." True freedom is a forgotten and probably lost dream.

Re:Seriously? (2, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343432)

Actually, you missed his entire point. You have freedom of speech, but not freedom to make other's repeat your free speech. Additionally, it's already been established that certain things (like the child porn example I used), are NOT protected by free speech. The same goes for certain other types of expression such as yelling FIRE in a crowded theater when there is none.

The founding fathers recognized this fact and realised that government was a necessary evil that by it's very definition restricts or moderates certain natural rights. In a total anarchy you would be absolutely correct, but we do not live in one.

Re:Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Hosts (3, Insightful)

Knara (9377) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343402)

Translation: I'm for freedom of speech, so long as it is speech I agree with.

Apparently you are not the target audience for freenet. Or the 1st amendment, for that matter.

Re:Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Hosts (1, Insightful)

computational super (740265) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343410)

Freedom of speech is not an absolute.

Well, either it's an absolute, or it doesn't exist at all.

However, as another poster noted, you can easily control what's hosted on your node - if you don't request something, it doesn't get on your node. But once you request it, you start hosting it for others.

Re:Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Hosts (5, Insightful)

Sanity (1431) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343434)

but if my computer is hosting content, I should have the freedom to choose what that content is
If you have the ability to choose what you host or don't host, then you become responsible for it. Its a bit like the concept of a "common carrier" in US telecommunications law. Freenet gives you freedom by preventing you from censoring the content you host. Its a feature, not a bug.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute
If not, then who gets to choose what speech is permissible?

I'm officially conflicted... (2, Interesting)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343340)

On the one hand, 'censorship = bad'. On the other, I really feel like I have no fear of any reprisals using my current internet technologies.

So, short of content I could publish and/or access without Freenet, what am I missing? And more to the point, is it worthwhile to fire up a node to find out?

It seems like the sort of thing I'd be in favor of, and would like to support, but at the same time I can't imagine a worthwhile use for it in my own life.

Am I alone here?

Freenet VS Gnunet (1)

50_1337 (929093) | more than 6 years ago | (#23343428)

I'm interesting but i heard Gnunet was better.

Can someone explain the pro & con of each ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>