[freenet-chat] Arguments against the Darknet

[Matthew Toseland]

On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 05:50:34PM +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:
> 
> FWIW, I agree with all your points. And I would add that no-one is more 
> than 2 steps away from a police spy - I find random connection *adds* 
> plausible deniability:  although not (and this is a valid point that has 
> been made by the developers) if running Freenet is itself a crime.  But 
> if every friend has at least one friend who is a police spy, they are 
> going to know you are running Freenet anyway.  The only defence is to 
> have so many people running Freenet that they don't bother to prosecute 
> unless they already suspect you of something, in which case they will 
> always find something to prosecute you for if they want to anyway.

Having a network of informers is several orders of magnitude more
expensive than harvesting, or than compromizing the network with cancer
nodes, which would pretend to be thousands of nodes, and get connected
to everyone without having to lay out for a network of informants. This
is how security works: you make it expensive, not impossible, to get in.
The more expensive it is the less likely it is that they will try or
succeed.
> 
> But is not the routing model for Freenet 0.7 dependent on some sort of 
> affinity network rather than the old open/random connection model?

No, opennet is technically feasible, but it is technically difficult.
-- 
Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060626/6bdf8328/attachment.pgp