71–80 of 443 posts
Some HN users are stuck in an interesting privacy paradox. Most of the time when a company or government tries to undermine privacy or encryption they jump at the throat and point out the need for both. However, it seems when we actually accomplish those goals and create systems that are truly anonymous, private and/or encrypted they basically say it's only for criminals and child abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ECHR contains the freedom of speech as a human right and so do most EU countries in their own constitutions. "Countless people have been successfully prosecuted for what would be covered under the 1st amendment" (and the ECHR) in the US too. The constitution only has value as long as it's enforced.
[flagged]
I think that you are stretching it a bit here. Claiming that individualism is responsible for that seems unsubstantiated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, I get it. You're against free speech. But the point stands--it's difficult to find a place to host a forum that contains legal discussions that happen to offend the sensibilities of the type of people who run tech companies.
> Ok, I get it. You're against free speech. Another day, another person confusing 'free speech' with a private publisher not wanting to publish hate speech. You're entitled to print what you want, you're not entitled to force someone else to print anything.
Unless you're the surgeon general. Then you can force private companies to publish compelled speech on their alcohol and tobacco products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, I get it. You're against free speech. But the point stands--it's difficult to find a place to host a forum that contains legal discussions that happen to offend the sensibilities of the type of people who run tech companies.
No, I am against hate groups. They are the absolute worst of humanity, they destroy people, and they destroy societies. Do not participate in them. Do not support them. Do everything you can to oppose them.
Some HN users are stuck in an interesting privacy paradox. Most of the time when a company or government tries to undermine privacy or encryption they jump at the throat and point out the need for both. However, it seems when we actually accomplish those goals and create systems that are truly anonymous, private and/or encrypted they basically say it's only for criminals and child abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In simple terms, if someone has uploaded a picture of a cat to a non-public Freenet key, and someone downloaded it, both you and I have no way to learn about it unless we can spy on those users or flood the network with spying nodes to the point of logging each piece of data, and deducing that these two people exchanged something. Even theoretically, we can only make assumptions about publicly announced data (freesit…
So you are telling me that it is hard to find out if running a Freenet node will help criminals, or decent people. That does not really do much to convince me running it is a good thing, you know?
The whole point of projects like freenet is to let people communicate data between each other without censorship and without being identified, no matter what that data is. If you disagree with that principle then I believe that freenet is probably not for you.
> That does not really do much to convince me running it is a good thing, you know?
Make sure to block TLS connections on every network that you manage. You don't know what naughty things your users might be doing after all. You would not want to help a criminal, would you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no near-absolute right to free speech in the EU. Countless people have been successfilly prosecuted for what would be covered under the 1st amendment in the EU.
ECHR contains the freedom of speech as a human right and so do most EU countries in their own constitutions. "Countless people have been successfully prosecuted for what would be covered under the 1st amendment" (and the ECHR) in the US too. The constitution only has value as long as it's enforced.
How is it better than I2P: https://geti2p.net ? Upd: found this: https://geti2p.net/en/comparison/freenet .
My understanding is that: -- i2p was originally a fork of freenet -- Freenet was designed and conceived as a datastore, fist and foremost, whereas i2p using 'garlic routing' was apt for any IP protocol proxied over it (a bit like tor) -- Freenet therefore is more efficient and distributing popular data -- There are some concerns about the algoirthms behind freenet's anonymity, which i2p claims [1] are troublesome. --…
Chilling effects in a nutshell.
Some HN users are stuck in an interesting privacy paradox. Most of the time when a company or government tries to undermine privacy or encryption they jump at the throat and point out the need for both. However, it seems when we actually accomplish those goals and create systems that are truly anonymous, private and/or encrypted they basically say it's only for criminals and child abuse.
This is a good point. Censorship-resistance sounds good in theory, but when you actually think about it there is certain stuff that everybody would agree needs to be censored.
Everybody? Not really, some people are really vocal about how "data wants to be free".