Invisible Internet Project (I2P) • Hacker News Board

Re: Invisible Internet Project (I2P)

#21

Post by cookiengineer » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 7:26 AM UTC

fulafel wrote: post #18

cookiengineer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue I have with i2p is that it enforces all clients to be exit nodes, too. It makes the peer system stronger, but also legally vulnerable. [update: this isn't true anymore, there's a config flag now available that fixes this and outproxy=false is defaulted. See [1]] [1] https://geti2p.net/en/faq#exit

Even if you were an exit node (see sibling), is this really so? Have eg Tor exit nodes been held legally responsible for eg copyright infringement? Sounds highly counterintuitive.

> Have eg Tor exit nodes been held legally responsible for eg copyright infringement? Sounds highly counterintuitive.

In Germany that's the case. Up until four years ago, it was legally impossible to offer free Wi-Fi for restaurants and other venues; and they now have to track at least every legal name of customers that use their Wi-Fi in order to not be held responsible as the Wi-Fi owner.

Technically they would have also to track a photo/ID of each customer if there weren't the GDPR/DSGVO in place that prevents that.

There's also still debate whether or not you have to have passwords in place in order to be not held responsible, which means that customers would have to "register a personal Wi-Fi account" as it's the case with city-provided Wi-Fi access points that are linked to your legal name and address.

That's what the EuGH decided with [1] and [2], the German Bundesgerichtshof before that decided that it's enough to track names only which led to the case being escalated to the European court by Sony Music.

[1] https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht...

[2] https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/201...

Re: Invisible Internet Project (I2P)

#22

Post by getitstraight » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 8:54 AM UTC

cookiengineer wrote: post #21

fulafel wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you were an exit node (see sibling), is this really so? Have eg Tor exit nodes been held legally responsible for eg copyright infringement? Sounds highly counterintuitive.

> Have eg Tor exit nodes been held legally responsible for eg copyright infringement? Sounds highly counterintuitive. In Germany that's the case. Up until four years ago, it was legally impossible to offer free Wi-Fi for restaurants and other venues; and they now have to track at least every legal name of customers that use their Wi-Fi in order to not be held responsible as the Wi-Fi owner. Technically they would hav…

The solution is to man up and take your country back from the fascists. Do you really want to live in such a shithole, where you have to register with the Stasi just to use the internet?

Re: Invisible Internet Project (I2P)

#23

Post by tpoacher » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 9:21 AM UTC

getitstraight wrote: post #22

cookiengineer wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have eg Tor exit nodes been held legally responsible for eg copyright infringement? Sounds highly counterintuitive. In Germany that's the case. Up until four years ago, it was legally impossible to offer free Wi-Fi for restaurants and other venues; and they now have to track at least every legal name of customers that use their Wi-Fi in order to not be held responsible as the Wi-Fi owner. Technically they would hav…

The solution is to man up and take your country back from the fascists. Do you really want to live in such a shithole, where you have to register with the Stasi just to use the internet?

That's right! Let's storm the ... wait, nevermind.

Re: Invisible Internet Project (I2P)

#24

Post by MertsA » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 9:23 AM UTC

cookiengineer wrote: post #15

bilegeek wrote: post #11

Why don't pirates switch to I2P? I know it's slow, but doesn't the speed go up the more high-bandwidth users and relay operators there are? Or am I missing something? Is it just inertia that's keeping everybody on non-I2P-routed BitTorrent?

The issue I have with i2p is that it enforces all clients to be exit nodes, too. It makes the peer system stronger, but also legally vulnerable. [update: this isn't true anymore, there's a config flag now available that fixes this and outproxy=false is defaulted. See [1]] [1] https://geti2p.net/en/faq#exit

This wasn't true in the past either. I2P would share bandwidth with other nodes, but not out to the public internet. It was always built as an anonymous network with various services hosted in it. Basically it's like a stripped down robust version of Tor that only has hidden services. HTTP proxies to the public internet are just a hidden service essentially. Unless you chose to set up one yourself it never just allowed random I2P nodes to proxy out to the public internet through your connection.

Re: Invisible Internet Project (I2P)

#25

Post by MertsA » Tue, Jan 12, 2021, 9:38 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #16

Can someone summarize the differences between I2P and Freenet?

I2P is basically just an anonymous network layer. It doesn't store files, proxy to the internet, run a web server, etc. All it does is anonymously connect standard servers and clients.

Freenet on the other hand is an anonymous content distribution system. You can't use it to connect arbitrary network services together, it's only good for storing and retrieving files. Nodes on Freenet each store encrypted pieces of data but it's computationally hard to figure out what data a particular node is storing unless you have the key to access it. Files are prioritized based on popularity so old files that no one has accessed in a while and the original host is gone can just be lost forever. It's similar in some ways to bittorrent swarms. Over time as a torrent becomes less and less popular you're likely to run into issues finding a seeder that's still around.