> ABC News has a report on the downside of systems like FreeNet
> being used by criminals, hackers, etc.
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/freenet000322.html
> So, you clever folks, how do you give freedom to the oppressed
> with out giving unintended aid to the undesirables?
ABC's story is just a rehash of an article in New Scientist, who
should really know better. "Big Bad Internet" stories are more
suitable for the Washington Post.
The premise is fundamentally flawed: Freenet is a content-neutral
information distribution system, nothing more. The only thing it
might do to "support" terrorists is that it would allow them to
tell the world _why_ they bombed that building, which would actually
make them easier for us to understand and deal with.
It would not be suitable for coordinating a criminal organization
precisely because its purpose is publication: criminals don't want
to publish and be noticed, they want to direct communications to
trusted targets. Freenet documents aren't targeted, and everyone
on the net is untrusted.
As for information "pirates", well, if you define freely sharing
information as a crime, then systems for freely sharing information
are bad, aren't they? Freenet implements freedom of speech; if that
clashes with certain other institutions of society, then that tells
you something about those other institutions, doesn't it?
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:12 MDT