Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Freenet build 1495: new user experience and performance

freenetproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 112 posts

Re: Freenet build 1495: new user experience and performance

#91

Post by sandworm101 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #76
Tor3 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well.. Tor can create trouble for you as well, or at least it did for me. I used to sometimes go through Tor to visit competitors' websites when I used my work computer, just because I didn't want to leave a trail of my company's domain in the competitor's logs. That was quite innocent I thought. Then my sysadmin informed me that the national security monitor (or whatever it was called), which my company was connecte…

> national security monitor What is this? Are governments mandating that corporations install government monitoring modules in their networks?

Yes. Various countries, including the US, mandate isps install equipment for easy wire tapping. Google "CALEA". There is a whole consultant industry supporting compliance with such laws.

Re: Freenet build 1495: new user experience and performance

#92

Post by heavyset_go »

voakbasda wrote: post #82
sandworm101 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is what Tor is for. If all you need is protection from authorities, Tor is enough. Freenet is content-focused, designed so that not even the original uploader can ever remove popular content. Tor protects people and speech from the police. Freenet protects files from everybody.

I was under the impression that law enforcement has established a large number of Tor exit nodes, allowing them to unravel the onion (so to speak).

Exit nodes would let them decrypt plaintext network traffic coming out of the exit node, but if they controlled some of the entrance and relay nodes, too, the chances of being able to deanonymize traffic increases.

Given that Tor is a US government creation, I'd assume they'd find value in controlling as many different nodes as they can in order to deanonymize traffic. Tor only has/had value to them as a way for government agents to communicate clandestinely in other jurisdictions.

Re: Freenet build 1495: new user experience and performance

#93

Post by heavyset_go »

sandworm101 wrote: post #91
matheusmoreira wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> national security monitor What is this? Are governments mandating that corporations install government monitoring modules in their networks?

Yes. Various countries, including the US, mandate isps install equipment for easy wire tapping. Google "CALEA". There is a whole consultant industry supporting compliance with such laws.

Came here to post about this seconds after you did.

Not only CALEA, but telecoms, ISPs, and other providers work hand in hand with governments who request data, whether those requests are via NSLs, warrants, subpoenas, court orders or just government employees asking nicely for the data.

Many companies, including for example Apple who is open about this, are happy to hand over private information via simple requests from law enforcement that they are not legally bound to respond to like they are with warrants or subpoenas.

I'd assume by scratching law enforcement's back, the government scratches compliant companies' backs, as well, considering the contracts they get and favorable treatment they get from regulators.

Re: Freenet build 1495: new user experience and performance

#94

Post by Taek »

jKwZmFpLrNhG wrote: post #49

While Freenet is a technically well-designed and maintained network, it has a reputation for hosting illegal content and being associated with warrants that can cause significant disruptions in users' lives. Using Freenet may attract more attention from authorities and may not be necessary at the present time, as the current political climate does not necessitate the use of such networks to hide political opinions.

This reads like a ChatGPT censor trying to assure me that I don't need to know how to make a Molotov cocktail.

Re: Freenet build 1495: new user experience and performance

#95

Post by kbelder »

notacoward wrote: post #77
sanity31415 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Napster wasn't decentralized, it relied on a centralized index which is why it was shut down. Gnutella relied on a broadcast search which didn't scale. Freenet's use of small world routing to be both decentralized and scalable was unique, as was it's use of cryptographic contracts (signed subspace keys). That paper isn't the original Freenet paper, it came later. This is the original: https://www.semanticscholar.org/…

Flagged as a (rather obvious) dup account to get around what appears to be a shadowbanned s4n1ty who had just made the exact same comment.

Can't blame somebody for that; shadowbans are repulsive.

Re: Freenet build 1495: new user experience and performance

#97

Post by rolenthedeep »

I really want to like Freenet. The idea of a serverless network with resources distributed amongst the nodes is such an elegant solution. It makes even more sense today with the easy access to fiber or high-speed cable and cheap storage. It's everything I wish the internet as a whole could be.

But when I've used it the experience was absolutely dreadful. It's difficult to find anything, and there's a lot of emphasis on trusted peers, but I don't know anyone who has even heard of this, and it's unclear how you'd find nodes to trust. Also it's horribly slow and the proxy server eats a ton of resources.

I think it's a beautiful concept with massive potential, but I'm extremely skeptical it will ever find widespread use

Re: Freenet build 1495: new user experience and performance

#98

Post by Karrot_Kream »

rolenthedeep wrote: post #97

I really want to like Freenet. The idea of a serverless network with resources distributed amongst the nodes is such an elegant solution. It makes even more sense today with the easy access to fiber or high-speed cable and cheap storage. It's everything I wish the internet as a whole could be. But when I've used it the experience was absolutely dreadful. It's difficult to find anything, and there's a lot of emphasis…

The author's Locutus project seems to be a more relevant to today's web needs.

Re: Freenet build 1495: new user experience and performance

#99

Post by my_city »

nix23 wrote: post #66
mikrotikker wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100m dead people agree with you.

Stalin and Mao had nothing in common with communism they just called it "communism" (or more precise Stalinism/Maoism...the difference here is really important), please read Marx. BTW: I don't say it's a perfect system but worth a look, and maybe one could mix both systems together.

Stalin and Mao were communists and they handsomely defended communism and transformed their respective countries into global powers. You have bought into capitalist demonization of Stalin and Mao. Stalin in particular was responsible for the enormous growth of the USSR and for providing high standars of living to all citizens in the Soviet Union like they never experienced before. They both also had to defend themselves against imperialist aggresion while trying to support global communist struggle.

Don't be so quick to jump into cold war propaganda against Stalin, with all his failures and shortcomings he was still an amazing leader.

Re: Freenet build 1495: new user experience and performance

#100

Post by my_city »

mikrotikker wrote: post #62
darthrupert wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, do not try to be a communist, anywhere. It's a horrible political philosophy.

100m dead people agree with you.

Any source for that made up number? "The black book of communism"? The one book who listed fascists killed by communists as "victims of communism"? That book lists people killed in wars started by the USA as victims of communism, for gods sake!

That book has been laughed out of the room of serious conversation for being basically capitalist propaganda and complete bullshit.

A more detailed debunk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RIFgoVNVUQ

Post reply on HN