FreeNet
This looks promising.
That the user's hard drive will store content from the network, of which the user will be unaware, gives me some pause.
> This looks promising.
Not really. It's been around for decades now and has never taken off, probably because people are turned off by networks with a lot of child porn.
> That the user's hard drive will store content from the network, of which the user will be unaware, gives me some pause.
It should give you pause. You don't want child porn on your hard drive.
> promising
Initial release March 2000, 20 years ago.
> You don't want child porn on your hard drive.
Indeed. That's why I would rather know who I am allowing in and who I am sharing storage resources with. That said, I am not sure that anonymization and censorship circumvention tools should be rejected on the sole basis of whatever use bad actors could make of them.
"That said, I am not sure that anonymization and censorship circumvention tools should be rejected on the sole basis of whatever use bad actors could make of them."
Agreed. The same argument is made when politicans try to make encryption illegal. Those with kiddy porn use it so we have to outlaw it to stop them.
> That said, I am not sure that anonymization and censorship circumvention tools should be rejected on the sole basis of whatever use bad actors could make of them.
Of course not, and no one has suggested that. One can easily use Tor without having to worry about child porn ending up on their hard drive.
> no one has suggested that.
Sorry, I thought you had when you wrote:
> You don't want child porn on your hard drive.
I realize now you might have meant to corroborate the reservations expressed by the OP about the implications of using Freenet, without rejecting it pure and simple. I ran into several technical limitations when I gave it a try, about a decade ago, which is the reason why I discarded it. I would still use it if needed, and if it works.
> One can easily use Tor without having to worry about child porn ending up on their hard drive.
I use Tor and often get blocked because some bad actors are also using it to carry out their dirty tricks and some lazy admins have consequently decided that anonymity is bad. I have no idea how popular Tor hidden services are, though.
> I realize now you might have meant to corroborate the reservations expressed by the OP about the implications of using Freenet
Right, I was talking about issues with Freenet specifically. I am in favor of privacy and anonymity tools in general.
> I use Tor and often get blocked because some bad actors are also using it to carry out their dirty tricks and some lazy admins have consequently decided that anonymity is bad.
Tor can be misused, but also has many common legitimate uses and users. In order to come across anything illicit via Tor you have to be specifically looking for it. It's true that some clearnet sites block Tor users, which is an unfortunate annoyance, but Freenet doesn't even support clearnet sites, so that's not really a fair comparison.
Isn't there safe harbor protection? You would be a platform like twitter. I'm sure some upload sick things to twitter and twitter doesn't get sued because of safe harbor protection.
Probably not. That same logic would mean that it is legal to seed torrents of copyrighted materials. It's clearly not, and child porn is much more serious than copyright infringement.
Also, legality aside, a lot of people prefer not to store and distribute child porn for moral reasons.
> a lot of people prefer not to store and distribute child porn for moral reasons.
Sorry to insist, but you keep repeating "child porn" like a bogeyman* although I have no idea what the probability of this happening to the average Freenet user is. Maybe you have more detailed info about this. I must admit I did not take much time to explore the deepest quarters of Freenet, mostly because of the technical limitations I mentioned.
If you are referring to the theoretical possibility of anything landing encrypted on a user's hard drive, including the most (legally or morally) reprehensible content, because they are running a Freenet node, then again I think it must be balanced against the benefits of sharing content anonymously and circumventing censorship. Tackling child exploitation is the right thing to do against child porn, not condemning a censorship proof tool (assuming this is what Freenet is) because of the share of sick content it will inevitably also be carrying around. Surfing the web anonymously is a different matter.
That said, if other tools exist which provide the same service without relying on distributed storage amongst anonymous peers, then indeed I see no reason to keep running the risk of hosting such unwanted content.
*I am not calling you a bogeyman, but the phrase "child porn". "Videos of people being decapitated" could also be a bogeyman.
> I have no idea what the probability of this happening to the average Freenet user is.
Have you ever actually used Freenet? At least in the past, child porn sites were publically listed and recommended. Maybe things have gotten better lately, but when objectionable content appears to be the primary use of a network, it scares away new users who want nothing to do with it, which leaves behind only the users who are ok with such material, causing it to become more predominant rather than less so over time.
I'm sure that there is also child porn on Tor (and the Clearnet), but I have never run into it, because I have never looked for it.
> Have you ever actually used Freenet?
"I ran into several technical limitations when I gave it a try, about a decade ago, which is the reason why I discarded it." I would surely remember it if I had been met with public listings of child porn but I'll take your word about that.
I cannot reject it based on this experience from more than ten years ago, nor just because it seems to have unsurprisingly attracted content which I would rather not help propagating. I can understand that it might have been a factor keeping people away from it and I must admit I would now think twice before trying it again, so thanks for your warning anyway.
> "I ran into several technical limitations when I gave it a try, about a decade ago, which is the reason why I discarded it."
It's indeed hard to set up, or at least was when I last tried it. I wasn't sure if you actually managed to connect and use it, or if you gave up during the configuration stage.
The thing about torrents is you consent to downloading and seeding them. How safe harbor protections works is Youtube claims not to consent to have copyright infringement or illegal images on their platform and when they're notified by a 3rd party, they make it unavailable for consumption and report it.
I wouldn't want to store or distribute it either, but if you're a Fedex employee, how did you know you didn't distribute illegal photographs? If you run a storage locker business, how do you know there's no human skeletons being stored at your place of business?
That said, I think if you truly want a private internet, just make a big WAN and that's pretty much what the internet is, but you would need miles of fiber optic cables.
I wish I could pay 1% of what I pay for internet for 1% of my speed, I would get 10 megabits for $1.50 per month.
I think lutes is making sense to me here. If we reject freenet because some childporn could end up on our hard drives, then why don't we reject using ethernet cables, because childporn could be transmitted via them?
Yeah, that's like rejecting freeways because they can be used for a Bank Robber's getaway.
It's like the argument of "assault rifle", assault is about what you do with it than a marketing term. "assault is as assault does".
Let me show it's features!
haha. 3D-printing for the win.
Should you condemn a platform because you can theoretically think of a bad use for it? Of course not. Should you defend a platform because you can theoretically think of a good use for it? Also no. You have to look at how the platform is *actually* used. Tor is used by journalists, activists, and ordinary people who want to be anonymous online. How many people like that are using Freenet? Have you ever heard of anyone using it that way? The creators and early users of Freenet made a decision to promote child porn, so now that's what the network is associated with. Tor didn't do that. I'm guessing that those of you defending Freenet right now have never actually tried it, and are just having a kneejerk reaction.
> I'm guessing that those of you defending Freenet right now have never actually tried it,
As far as I am concerned, I had already answered this in a previous post when I saw this one.
> and are just having a kneejerk reaction.
That guess might prove partially wrong. I was trying to understand why you were so adamantly advocating against Freenet. You have now answered.
You are right I have not actually tried it.
Okay let's say that it is childporn-central. So you are saying that if I used it, I would be guilty by association? Or are you saying it would just be in poor taste if I used it?
You are saying it would be like if I walked around with a swastika on my arm? I am free to do it, but why the hell would I do it?
I'm saying exactly what I said:
"It's been around for decades now and has never taken off, probably because people are turned off by networks with a lot of child porn."
"You [I assume] don't want child porn on your hard drive."
Go ahead and do whatever you want. I was just explaining why I don't consider it "promising," why it hasn't taken off in 20 years, and that if you are going to run your own node you should be aware of the kind of content you'll likely be seeding.
Also be aware that any anonymous network relies on having a large pool of similarly-behaving users so that you don't stand out. If not many people use the network, it is not very hard for the feds to figure out who is who.