Slashdot Log In
Revamping Freenet
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon May 16, 2005 10:15 AM
from the rebuild-ground-up dept.
from the rebuild-ground-up dept.
N3wsByt3 writes "Many will have heard about the anonymous P2P-system Freenet. What many probably don't know is, that a big change is at hand: the Freenet developers have decided to drop all support for the 0.5x version, to skip version 0.6 and to completely revamp the 0.7 build into some kind of poorly described, presumably scalable darknet. The main coder even threatened to quit if such a darknet would be rejected.
So, is it finally going the right way with the development of Freenet? Maybe not, since they seem reluctant to provide real data and rather rely on security through obfuscation, and then there is still the problem of their general inability in regard to pooling human resources, which, for any OSS project, is of the utmost importance." Obviously, the article submitter has his own feelings on Freenet, but notwithstanding that, what's the latest scuttlebutt from within the Freenet crowd?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
How many revamps (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How many revamps (Score:3, Informative)
Having said that, right now you basically install the software, and open your web browser - and you are surfing Freenet. Its only in "outlying" cases that things are significantly more complcated than this (ie. with firewall issues), and we are working on that.
Re:How many revamps (Score:4, Insightful)
Now freenet is slightly different in that it uses encryption. From that perspective, things can change slightly in that PGP had problems with users needing to know about public/private keypair security, understanding what signing was, why it was important, concepts behind the web of trust, etc.
I don't see freenet having those issues though. Node administrators for sure, but not freenet users. Freenet users don't really have keys or even any necessary knowledge of the technical layer of encryption. They need to know how to connect to a node.
What's so fundamentally different about freenet that it's inevitably going to be more complicated? For disambiguation, specifically I'm talking about the user perspective, not the node administrator perspective (which sadly have been one in the same so far). Node administrators will deal with stuff that users don't see.
I'm not trying to beat up on freenet here, I just think that if the software is very complicated, it's probably due to a potential lack in usability design as opposed to something inherent about the software. If you buy the metaphor of freenet as some gigantic encrypted data store in the sky, using it from a user's perspective shouldn't be much more complicated than using a hard disk. Send files, get files. Sure, there's lots of sticky details, but the node should worry about that for us, shouldn't it?
Parent
Re:How many revamps (Score:3, Interesting)
more and more people are getting routers this is hardly an outlying case.
Freenet is not so anonymous (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps, BUT.... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Perhaps, BUT.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Perhaps, BUT.... (Score:4, Informative)
It so happens that they can do something about this specific attack, and they will. But it was never an objective and it won't stop a really determined attacker.
Parent
Response on Freenet website (Score:4, Insightful)
FYI - there is a short response [freenetproject.org] to this article on the Freenet website.
Parent
Newsbyte is a well known troll (Score:5, Informative)
Matthew has indeed indicated that he believes it is essential that we support "trusted links" in Freenet, and the other core Freenet developers, myself included, agree with him - so Newsbyte's attempt to stir that up into some kind of controversy is just another example of his trolling.
I have no idea where Newsbyte's accusation that we are relying on security through obscurity comes from, certainly the archived email he links do doesn't seem to support any such claim.
As for the blog entry he links to, it essentially boils down to whining about why we don't implement each and every one of his suggestions.
When considering the value of Newsbyte's opinions, I would urge you to look first at what he has actually contributed to the project, versus those that he seeks to criticise.
Re:Newsbyte is a well known troll (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm really, genuinely interested in this project, and I'm all ears to hear about any forward movement or positive momentum the project has. Let us know about it.
Whether or not Newsby
Re:Newsbyte is a well known troll (Score:5, Informative)
With pleasure. Freenet has indeed had its fair share of problems, including an increasingly complex codebase that suffers from a lot of legacy code and abandoned ideas. That is why Freenet 0.7, the next major release, will be quite a significant rewrite.
Here [gmane.org] is a recent email I sent describing the plan for 0.7:
Parent
Re:Newsbyte is a well known troll (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeh. It's pretty simple, when you think about it. Of course, still restricted to 10.x.x.x, but if you outgrow that, I think you oughtta be able to figure out a solution.
no backbone routing
Yeh, the internet itself was meant to be decentralized. It sort of forgot that. I was thinking a regular geometric mesh, probably square grid, 3d +. Which leads back to your first snide comment, assigning addresses. Where you are in the mesh, gives you coordinates. So, you might get something like 10.x.y.* for your IP address. Better yet, ignore the byte boundary, and go with more dimensions, (/26s with 6bit 3d sounds nice, though maybe 3bit 6d even). Make it so no one is a backbone, and have it massively redundant, a fabric even.
distributed caching of content
Why? Find some people on the network that are distant to you, and would be willing to set up a dozen mirrors. If they disagree with you, they shouldn't have to mirror it for you.
plausible deniability on requests and inserts
Better yet, do https inside the openvpn tunnels. Even a router inside the darknet can't sniff your traffic.
and the ability to publish content without neccessarily always being online?
If you are absolutely incapable of being online 24/7, fine. Find me on such a darknet. Tell me why your content is so important. I'll be moved to mirror it for you, or even set up a proper vhost for it, complete with limited shell access.
Half the problems you bring up were solved *YEARS* ago. But no, let's re-invent the wheel, just so you can dream up convoluted crypto schemes.
Oh, and you've probably also increased the software complexity from the point of view of what the user has to deal with.
The user only needs to install OpenVPN, or for that matter, any vpn client they choose. I have used ipsec (freeswan) from time to time, and even messed around with poptop. Simpler than freenet, looks like a local area connection on windows.
I'd even go so far as to say you've reimplemented Freenet, without the crypto.
No, just gotten rid of the dorky DHT thing. OpenVPN uses SSL, and what's that quote about people thinking they can do a better job of crypto than SSL? Inside the tunnels, do it right from the beginning. Ridicule and harass those that don't use HTTPS from the beginning. Make fun of them. Use SSH only,the few times you need to remote shell around in it. Use IRC with the SSL modules, or better yet, use silc.
Parent
speed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:speed (Score:3, Interesting)
Not speed, content (Score:3, Interesting)
The web exploded when everybody and their brother started publishing web pages, not when people had browsers or connections to the internet.
It's about content. For freenet though, that means a very different type of content that you wouldn't want on the web. The social problems that they'll face if the network does grow into something substantial are surely going to be something to behold.
Please ignore flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
I suggest that people who want to know the whole story check out the mailing lists going back a month or so.
Less talk, more code (Score:5, Insightful)
You are Totally off there (Score:3, Insightful)
Java bloat? No worse then other languages that try to be *universal*. Besides, don't like java? Then recode it in something else and quit bitching.
Slow? Depends on what you are doing. Are you trying to download files? Well it really wasn't designed for that. And there will be a tradeoff on speed/anonymity.
Searches? Umm there are several search engines available if you look.
bait (Score:5, Interesting)
5. Slashdot effect doesn't write off the network for a month after release; if we grow by invitation, it will take longer to grow, but we will end up with a better network, and we won't generally have the collapse we have seen every time we've done a release.
this might just be an attempt to bait the slashdot crowd into trying out freenet so that freenet's userbase grows and the speed become reasonable.
Re:bait (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Nothing wrong with obfuscation (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of people seem to be confused about obfuscation / obscurity.
Obscurity or hiding things is a perfectly valid security technique, and can be used as a component of a defense in depth strategy. One of the main reasons people love NAT boxes is because they provide this property automatically. (I don't like them for other properties they have, and a firewall combinded with public address space will be just as effective at providing this specific property).
People are stretching the meaning of Kirchoff's theorm. Krichoff was refering to crytographic algorithms when he said that there is no security in obscurity - the security of a crytographic algorithm should only rely on the secrecy of key. You should assume that the functioning of the algorithm will eventually be discovered by your adversaries, and therefore shouldn't make the security of the system depend on the functioning of the algorithm being kept secret. That being said, restricting knowledge of what algorithm you're using will make a contribution of the system being secured, as it can add to the depth an adversary has to penetrate.
Great, here come the CP trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time there's a freenet article on
Personally, I see Freenet as an experiment in what's possible. There's an abstract problem statement: how do you share data anonymously? And Freenet attempts to provide a solution to that problem. There are many valid uses for a solution to that particular problem. The canonical example is "dissidents in ". But it goes beyond that. Everything from corporate and government whistleblowers even in relatively free countries, to those who want to expose sensitive information they might be privy to without giving themselves away.
The problem is that such a system, by design, is necessarily going to be useful for people that organize activities and spread information that has little redeeming value. If dissidents and whistleblowers can obtain anonymity when sharing information, then so can child pornographers and terrorists and gangsters and whoever else.
This dilemma occurs with many systems based on an ideology of freedom and opposition to censorship. The US constitution's first amendment guarantees the right of NAMBLA to express their views on a public webpage.
The point is, freedom to any extent in the public commons will, necessarily, support both good and bad uses of that freedom. The question people have to ask themselves is wether their belief in the ideology behind that freedom is worth the tradeoff or not.
If you believe that the "bad guys" should be kept off of Freenet, then you don't believe in Freenet, or any other truly censorship-free information sharing system.
-Laxitive
Re:Great, here come the CP trolls (Score:3, Interesting)
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire
God, how I love quotes.
Re:Great, here come the CP trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of view of most of the developers (and myself), however, is that you can be either for or against absolute, anonymous free speech. You clearly fall into the "against" camp. Most of those working on the network, however, believe that the benefits of having uncensored speech outweigh the cost. That the gains in human rights from publishing police brutality videos outweigh the losses from making terrorist discussion easy. That the gains from making DeCSS available outweigh the costs of copyright infringement. That the gains from proof of election fraud outweigh the losses from child porn. You're more than welcome to disagree with that point; I understand your position. However, there is another side, and it's more complex than "I want my child porn."
Me, I think I'll support Freenet and all that it entails, even if the results aren't perfect.
Parent
Re:Great, here come the CP trolls (Score:4, Insightful)
Odd, I don't remember saying that you didn't have the right to express your viewpoints. In fact, I kind of took your right to express your viewpoints for granted. Get off your goddamn persecution complex.
I have the right to express that everytime freenet comes up. I have the right to let as many people I know understand that if they run a freenet node, they ARE aiding in the spread of child porn, that they are helping the worlds worst monsters commit their crimes. Most sensible people understand that.
In the same way that if they live in and support a society that has free speech, they're aiding in NAMBLA's ability to claim that it's ok to have sex with little boys.
It's why bittorrent is huge and fast, and freenet is slow. With BT, I can decide that I have no moral objection to spreading last nights episode of the Simpsons, with FreeNet (and others like it), I don't get the same choice.
If you have a moral objection to a truly censorship-free network, then you have the option of not running that network. And it seems you've taken this option, so what are you complaining bout?
I have the right to mention that videos and still images of real children being raped is NOT FREE SPEECH.
Yes, you indeed have a right to make complete non-sequiturs. I don't think CP falls under the purview of free speech either. Just like slander, libel, and blackmail don't fall under the purview of free speech. But a system that's designed to offer an environment free of censorship using anonymity as a tool will NECESSARILY support such activities. There is no way to get around it.
NAMBLA expresses their "viewpoints" on the regular internet.
If you choose to support Freenet, and it's userbase, it represents a tacit approval of the material it's used to dissiminate.
Just like if you support free speech, and those who are allowed to exercise it, it represents a tacit approval for all the messages and viewpoints they express using it?
Or does it represent your commitment to a higher-level principle, and your conscious decision that the value of that higher-level principle outweighs the ill-effects of those who use it to acheive questionable and despicable ends.
And I can say that all I want, and encourage anyone who feels the same to absolutely bury any discussion of Freenet with similar posts.
I'm just asking you to be honest about it. I'm asking you to say: "I don't beleive in a censorship-free medium" if you want to oppose Freenet on the grounds that it allows CP.
And Zonk can go right ahead and ban me again.
Who the fuck is Zonk?
hate assholes like you who basically tell everyone to "shut up" because of someone elses "freedom of speech". It works both ways.
I am perfectly capable of understanding that it works both ways. In fact, I've reconciled the idea of allowing people to disseminate information that disgusts me to the core. That's a hell of a lot more difficult to do than reconciling a few misrepresented arguments on slashdot.
No, I don't believe in freenet, and I don't believe in your "truly censorship-free" information system.
See, that wasn't so hard, was it? All I'm asking is for people to be honest with their assessment of why they don't like Freenet. If you think the ill effects of dissemination of CP on Freenet outweighs the benefits of a complete lack of censorship, that's fine. I can disagree, but it's a position I can respect. Thing is, people here seem to like the idea of 'no censorship', and will try to avoid speaking out against it.. but still speak against Freenet because of the CP hotbutton issue.
A little intellectual honesty is all I'm asking for.
-Laxitive
Parent
Re:Great, here come the CP trolls (Score:4, Insightful)
No offence but this has gotta be a troll. I I'm wrong, I do apologize.
First of all, like other children of the parent say, in most cases the benefits of a free (beer+speech), distributed, anonymous network outweigh the costs.
I have the right to let as many people I know understand that if they run a freenet node, they ARE aiding in the spread of child porn, that they are helping the worlds worst monsters commit their crimes. NO -- that is not a certainty. It is a possibility, maybe even a high or low probability, but it is NOT a certainty. Running a Freenet node does NOT entail that you are nessesarily aiding CP.
If you choose to support Freenet, and it's userbase, it represents a tacit approval of the material it's used to dissiminate. NO IT DOESNT. What it DOES represent is tacit approval of free speech (as you say, and I strongly agree with you, CP does not fall under this category). It does NOT represent tacit approval of CP.
Parent
Re:Great, here come the CP trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
After careful consideration of your point, I realize the error of my ways.
Specifically, I realize that by running a Freenet node, I would be allowing others to use it the way you've said. I would be providing support to a system that, as a whole, exploits children.
I have since determined that telephones and video cameras are used in the production of CP. I can no longer supply the phone company or video empires with the money I pay for their products, since their products are used for bad things, as well as good.
I think we should do the same to the gun manufacturers, since we all know how guns are used.
Seriously though, the technology (Freenet) does not exploit children. People exploit children. Don't ban technology because it is effective. Freenet has NEVER exploited a single child any more or less than a telephone, the US Postal Service, and the entire line of Sony Handicam(TM)'s.
You do realize that by the time the video hits whatever distribution system that it's already too late, right? If you want to protect the children...why not actually protect the children. Don't use abused children further as an excuse because you're uncomfortable with other people expressing their rights outside of some sort of central control--because that's the object of Freenet--for better (political reform) OR worse (abuse of children for profit).
Finally, realize that the First Amendment is not what it used to be. There was a time that speech and thought could not be ultimately suppressed. Given the current state of technology, I'm not sure that will be sustained. Disturbing as it may be, someday the First Amendment may not be a nod to an unsupressable reality, but it will be that last bastion between an unscrupulous bureacratic machine and individual freedoms.
Parent
http://www.i2p.net/ (Score:3, Insightful)
Same old, same old (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, for Freenet to have any future, I think the developers need to get used to the idea of _not breaking it_ every six months. Otherwise the few people with the enthusiasm required to keep it operating are going to find better things to do with their time.
You can either have a research network or a viable, usable system, you can't have both. If it ever gets to a viable, usable network, I might give it a try again, but it's pointless when you can't insert anything and can barely retrieve anything.
Speed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Like maybe making the thing fast enough to be usable, maybe?
You always hear the Freenet detractors talking about all the questionable content making its way to Freenet, but my question is "How the hell could you stand using Freenet long enough to view anything in the 1st place?". The thing's dead-dog slow, and I'm on a very fast broadband connection!
I love the concept, but unless this new revision brings speed to Freenet, it's a waste of time and effort to me. Secure and anonymous internet browsing is an important thing, but usability's should be just as important if they ever hope to bring this to fruition.
Need market changes, not subterfuge (Score:4, Insightful)
Just trying to hide it will only invite further problems and frankly, the idea of being unable to avoid contributing to the spreading of child pornography bothers me a lot more than the MPAA and RIAA going after people illegally trading copyrighted material.
What we need is for the RIAA, MPAA, or some organization(s) that will eventually supplant them to find a financially viable market in open, distributed file sharing. A solution that makes everyone happy and doesn't contribute to child pornography.
I am convinced that this is possible. If the MPAA and RIAA can't figure out a way to make money doing it, someone else will and the MPAA and RIAA will eventually die off. Evolution: Adapt or die off. Wasn't there an article on that over the weekend as well?
Unfortunately, not a troll (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unfortunately, not a troll (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought that was one of the points, that noone can reasonably find out what is on his node?
Parent
Re:Unfortunately, not a troll (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Unfortunately, not a troll (Score:3, Informative)
By the article, you can't actually see what's been downloaded, but if your local fascist government wants to determine if you downloaded file XX, they could try downloading that file from your node. If the performance is very good, then there's a good probability that the encrypted chunks are cached locally and in neighbour nodes, thus they can determine that you did download it.
Re:FreeNet Is Lost (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:FreeNet Is Lost (Score:5, Informative)
However, it is relatively easy to see what is on freenet at large. There are several spiders that roam freenet and index freesites they come across. It's sort of like what Google does. So all one has to do is load up these indexes and see how many of the sites are child porn related. Another way to tell is load up Frost and see how many of the boards of child porn related.
There's a very large number of them.
Parent
Re:FreeNet Is Lost (Score:3, Insightful)
Hard to tell exactly what's circulating on the network, yes, but I saw signs of it since it was the first thing I was greeted with after finally finding out the address of a large "a little bit of everything" Freenet portal. Maybe the conclusions were drawn prematurely, but it sure didn't look so with links like "The Blog of a Paedophile", "Illegal child porn", and on and on... Think of a kiddie porn-oriente
Re:Child pornography (Score:4, Informative)
I don't want my node to be used to harbor child porn, offensive content or terrorism. What can I do?
The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find disgusting. If this is not acceptable to you, you should not run a Freenet node.
Parent
Re:Child pornography (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Child pornography (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Child pornography (Score:5, Insightful)
* Should people be allowed to post any pornography at all? (illegal in a number of countries)
* Should people be allowed to post a glowing post of support for Falun Gong? (illegal in China)
* Should people be allowed to publish a diatribe denying that the holocaust occurred? (illegal in much of Europe)
Etc. You can claim that, "Well, allowing the posting of child pornography or terrorism-related materials offends universal sensibilities", but this obviously isn't true, or the material wouldn't be being posted in the first place (not to mention, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter). Just as a demonstration of how much people's sensibilities are different in different parts of the world, this [afghannews.net] (originally posted on msnbc.com) covers an interview with an Afghan mother who supported her daugter's execution by stoning for the crime of adultery ("My daughter is a criminal. If she hadn't been killed, I could never hold my head up again in my community.")
If the data is being created through abusive means, go after the source of the data. If the data is being used to plan violent action, use proper security at likely targets (not like it's hard for people to hatch plans in secret anyways - this is nothing new). The fact of the matter is that data wants to be free.
Parent
Re:Child pornography (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, if you are hosting child porn, you are the host of the data, under current law. Many nations are now erasing the line between being a "distributor" of this material and being in possession of it. Really, you need to know this, because you will find very few individuals in Western societies who will vigorously defend you in public or the courts. You will find out what "pariah" means.
And in the strict sense, with Freenet you are a distributor in any case - you are providing a service to obtain this material - remember under the law ignorance is not an excuse, you could find it difficult to claim you were an unwitting accomplice.
Parent
Re:Child pornography (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do you get that impression? "Child pornography" is just the red herring people always trot out when they want to censor speech.
You've heard the expression "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," yes? Your idea of "offensive content" may differ wildly from someone else's; the question becomes "who is right?" Sure, you can refuse to run a FreeNet node because you're scared some evil recipe for "instant terror version 3.4" might get stored there or a nasty evil child pornographer might post some horrid icky pictures you don't like onto FreeNet and your node happens to harbor some of the data, but in that case you really are censoring in your own way.
The FAQ's response to this concern is dead-on right. Even with child pornography, you're trying to treat the symptoms instead of the disease when you reason like this -- "oh I'm not running that because it doesn't actively stop child pornographers!" Bad news, buddy, the internet itself doesn't "actively stop" any pornographers. Are you just going to unplug so your browser cache doesn't accidentally store a thumbnail with content that offends you?
If you want to censor what you participate in on a free speech-centric network, you don't belong there. If you believe that, ultimately, full-fledged freedom of speech is more vital to our society than taking a sad, impotent stab at a group you don't like, then run a damned node and deal with the fact that you may not like what lives on it. Remember, there's a far better chance that text a government doesn't like (but that you do like) will be stored on your node than pics of little Suzie.
Claiming FreeNet was just "designed" for child porn is like saying Slashdot was designed to attract trolls. Sure, it happened, but that wasn't the original intent; back when it started, I think they honestly wanted to encourage and support open, public debate on important topics. Heh. Whoops. :)
Parent
Re:Child pornography (Score:5, Insightful)
There is not a universal code of what is acceptable to everyone, there is just your own personal code. This may fit the mold of where you live or it may not. The question is not "Should a line be drawn?", everyone would agree there is a line. However "Where do you draw the line on issue X?" is something that cannot be answered globally. The freenet people have taken the approach that since the line cannot be drawn in a specific place, let's just ignore it altogether and let anything go. Interesting experiment if you ask me. I'm not interested in using it, but I am not morally opposed to it just because it does not stop those I disagree with from communicating. As a user of PGP that would be damn hypocritical of me wouldn't it?
Finkployd
Parent
Re:Child pornography (Score:3, Interesting)
Most usenet servers limit posts to a relatively small size, and high ascii characters are severely restricted.
Still, today a full usenet feed is several terrabytes per day, and 99% of it are binaries
heck, IIRC there are some guys that share binaries uuencoded throught slashdot journals
I think a subset of freenet only for text files would be usefull, also because the much higher size and greater popularity of certain binaries would drown most
Re:Child pornography (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:That is what happens... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Is Freenet doomed to failure by design? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent