[freenet-chat] Arguments against the Darknet

[Matthew Toseland]

On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 06:15:04PM -0400, Colin Davis wrote:
> >
> >If/when we do opennet people will use that instead till it gets
> >blocked(it will happen eventually), then we're back to trying to get
> >the darknet working for everyone again. If most people will use the
> >opennet till it's impossible to do anymore there will be very few and
> >probably small seperate darknets, a lot of data will be lost and time
> >will need to be spent building up the net again as a darknet.
> 
> I disagree- For one, Freenet .5 isn't blocked-

Freenet 0.5 *is* blocked _today_ in China. It has been since August last
year. The firewalls being erected by people such as BT and initiatives
such as Cleanfeed will make enforcement easy, and legislation such as
the DADVSI and quite possibly IPRED2 will make it illegal to build or
distribute filesharing tools which don't provide a central blacklist.

> For another, If  
> they're blocking freenet, they can block a darknet almost as easily.

Absolutely not true. Freenet 0.5 was blocked in China because it has
predictable connection setup bytes. Freenet 0.7 doesn't, and darknet
makes steganographic transports much easier and more useful. Opennet can
be blocked regardless of steganography by simple harvesting and then
blocking on the firewall.

> Keep in mind, you do NOT need to expose network topography for a  
> darknet.
> 
> -Colin
-- 
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/20060626/7043a588/attachment.pgp