Timestamps are in GMT/BST.
[0:11] <linyos> tomorrow
[0:11] * linyos (~asdfasdf@adsl-68-79-4-86.dsl.emhril.ameritech.net) has left #freenet
[0:23] * r00t__ (~rvm@2130198632ca39b3.node.tor) has joined #freenet
[0:24] <r00t__> i
[0:24] <r00t__> hi
[0:24] * FridlekhToo (Fridlekh@pool-71-107-148-131.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net) has joined #Freenet
[0:24] <r00t__> how is freenet progress?
[0:32] <FridlekhToo> I'm interested in that too. Just checking back in after a few months and noticing no new releases since I got distracted by life.
[0:32] * TheSeeker (Fridlekh@pool-71-107-148-131.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net) Quit (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
[0:33] * goatee (~goatee@ip216-239-81-20.vif.net) has joined #Freenet
[0:47] <r00t__> yea
[0:48] <r00t__> I hope fnet hasnt stagnated
[0:48] <r00t__> it used to be quite good for awhile
[1:18] * Romster (Romster@203.129.148.12) Quit (No route to host)
[1:18] * Romster (Romster@203.129.156.20) has joined #freenet
[1:48] * Hory (~Miranda@82.78.27.85) Quit ("CyberLore.net - Recommendations on the best games, freeware and websites.")
[4:11] * gvdm (~gvdm@210-246-13-171.paradise.net.nz) has joined #freenet
[5:36] * moskau23 (~Miranda@dsl-213-023-248-236.arcor-ip.net) Quit (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
[5:39] * moskau23 (~Miranda@dsl-082-083-078-225.arcor-ip.net) has joined #freenet
[5:41] * moskau23 (~Miranda@dsl-082-083-078-225.arcor-ip.net) Quit (Client Quit)
[5:56] * OnTheBalI (~me@host81-157-242-14.range81-157.btcentralplus.com) has joined #freenet
[6:04] * OnTheBaII (~me@host81-129-70-32.range81-129.btcentralplus.com) Quit (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
[6:09] * OnTheBalI (~me@host81-157-242-14.range81-157.btcentralplus.com) Quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[6:12] * Rom|Away (Romster@203.129.144.232) has joined #freenet
[6:12] * Romster (Romster@203.129.156.20) Quit (Nick collision from services.)
[6:12] * Rom|Away is now known as Romster
[6:16] * OnTheBalI (~me@host81-157-119-70.range81-157.btcentralplus.com) has joined #freenet
[6:33] * Romster is now known as Rom|Away
[6:37] * sanity (~ian@81-178-91-152.dsl.pipex.com) has joined #freenet
[6:55] * OnTheBaII (~me@host81-157-242-129.range81-157.btcentralplus.com) has joined #freenet
[7:03] * OnTheBalI (~me@host81-157-119-70.range81-157.btcentralplus.com) Quit (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
[7:20] * nextgens (~nextgens@jabber.hst.ru) has joined #freenet
[7:20] <nextgens> hi
[7:48] * pittaman (~mistery_b@d5152629C.access.telenet.be) has joined #freenet
[7:53] * r00t__ (~rvm@2130198632ca39b3.node.tor) Quit (Remote closed the connection)
[8:03] * r00t__ (~rvm@128.30.2.236) has joined #freenet
[8:34] * gvdm (~gvdm@210-246-13-171.paradise.net.nz) Quit ("I'm quitting")
[8:47] -lilo- [Global Notice] Hi all. We're experiencing the user summer spammer infestation. If you get klined by mistake, please email staff at freenode dot net. Apologies in advance for any problems, and thank you for using freenode!
[8:53] <hobx_> Anyone know what a "user summer spammer infestation" is?
[8:53] <hobx_> Sounds interesting...
[9:07] * NullAcht15 (~NullAcht1@dsl-082-082-147-121.arcor-ip.net) has joined #freenet
[9:21] * Hory (~Miranda@82.78.27.85) has joined #FreeNet
[9:30] * Ash-Fox (UNKNOWN@ecm57.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) Quit (Nick collision from services.)
[9:30] * Ash-Fox (UNKNOWN@edl10.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) has joined #FreeNET
[9:33] * spaetz (~spaetz@217-162-196-154.dclient.hispeed.ch) has joined #freenet
[9:38] * greycat (rfc1413@wooledge.org) has joined #freenet
[9:41] * linyos (~asdfasdf@adsl-68-20-15-138.dsl.emhril.ameritech.net) has joined #freenet
[9:41] <linyos> one more time now
[9:43] <nextgens> linyos: you're talking about @dev ?
[9:45] * FallingBuzzard (~srademach@66.151.22.70) has joined #freenet
[9:46] <linyos> if i am it's news to me..
[9:47] <linyos> nothing happening there
[9:48] * r00t__ (~rvm@128.30.2.236) has left #freenet
[9:48] * OnTheBaII is now known as OnTheBall
[9:48] <linyos> no, today i am going to find a way to make freenet work
[9:49] <linyos> otherwise i give up again
[9:50] <linyos> i want to meet all the theoretical roadblocks squarely and knock them down
[9:54] <linyos> the problem restated: rulers can lock down any communications network behind proxies by regulatory fiat.
[9:54] <linyos> can you prevent or deter that?
[9:54] <FridlekhToo> over my head
[9:56] <linyos> FridlekhToo: it's simple. suppose your ISP installed a smart proxy tomorrow that strictly restricted how you use the internet.
[9:56] <linyos> suppose every ISP did that.
[9:57] <linyos> what would prevent or deter a government from ordering it done?
[9:58] <FridlekhToo> looks like I got disconnected at some point.
[9:58] * FridlekhToo is now known as TheSeeker
[9:59] <linyos> right. so freenet did not "protect your freedom of expression".
[9:59] <linyos> freenet protects freedom of expression on the internet like toyota protects your freedom to drive a car.
[10:00] <linyos> answer: it doesn't mean dick if your license is suspended.
[10:00] <TheSeeker> it would be rather difficut to lock down the internet to not allow any end user computer to accept incoming connections... there are too many applications that rely on this property of the internet.
[10:01] <TheSeeker> a single open port is enough to run freenet.
[10:02] <linyos> TheSeeker: 99% of internet use is web browsing and message sending. those facilities are _trivial_ to put behind a filtering proxy.
[10:02] <linyos> TheSeeker: any other services, you ban them, at least for nearly everyone.
[10:02] <linyos> reasons of national security.
[10:03] <linyos> there is no principled reason why a government would have an incentive to allow its subjects access to the internet.
[10:03] <linyos> unrestricted access, anyway.
[10:04] <nextgens> linyos: the point is that internet is internationnal; all the governments WON't ever agree on doing that : I mean
[10:04] <TheSeeker> perhaps because it's a major econmic tool, and limiting it's use like that would hurt your country far worse than allowing people to more easily communicate.
[10:04] <linyos> you wouldn't want to endanger economic stability by screwing up business, but filtering somebody's web browsing and email won't do that.
[10:05] <linyos> TheSeeker: yeah. but that might mean that a few IT guys can read the uncensored news in the server room after work hours
[10:05] <linyos> on their business-critical servers that the government couldn't lock down
[10:06] <TheSeeker> how would the government control ad-hoc networks, like wireless hub meshes?
[10:06] <linyos> nextgens: it just takes one government to screw all its subjects.
[10:06] <linyos> TheSeeker: they can be detected and banned.
[10:06] <linyos> very easy with wireless
[10:06] <linyos> wires would be harder, but that is not practical
[10:07] <linyos> the only solution is the "freenet dvd pouch" to help you carry around the data traffic in person....
[10:08] <linyos> the point is, for freenet to really protect anything, we need to prevent or deter a government from restricting individual access to free communications.
[10:08] <linyos> and in the general case, i have not yet found a way to do that.
[10:08] <nextgens> linyos: that can be done with stenography
[10:09] <nextgens> I mean :
[10:09] <linyos> nextgens: it is extremely difficult when your ISP has so much control. for example, you can't encode information into data on the web, because the proxy can check the documents for consistency over multiple requests.
[10:10] <linyos> nextgens: and it is hard to conceal very much in email or IM traffic.
[10:10] <linyos> especially when they can ban attachments
[10:10] <linyos> leaving you with a kbyte of plain text.
[10:11] <nextgens> Trusted paths and 1kb blocks could help ;)
[10:11] <linyos> i mean, sure, if you ignore the huge amount of control the ISP has, and define the problem differently, stego is very hard to break.
[10:11] <linyos> but in the real world it's nearly useless.
[10:12] <linyos> nextgens: they'll be statistically profiling (if not reading outright) the content of your messages, checking it against the normal distribution. evidence of strange uses like embedding data will be trivial to find
[10:12] <linyos> this is all child's play
[10:12] * Romster (Romster@203.129.129.60) has joined #freenet
[10:13] <linyos> the point is that you can provide your subjects with basically "normal internet service" while easily, totally locking out any unauthorized use.
[10:14] <linyos> (and who dares to complain that counter-revolutionary propaganda or whatever is blocked...)
[10:15] <nextgens> it's always possible ; the only problem is that those filters are too complex for beeing used...
[10:15] <linyos> leaving you with one free communications channel: your jacket pockets
[10:15] <nextgens> In France, they were talking about blocking P2P traffic a while ago
[10:16] <linyos> nextgens: message profiling? we could think the problem through a little here, but i am sure the result would be that it is inexpensive and reliable.
[10:16] <linyos> nextgens: that is actually a much harder problem. internet traffic is diverse and there is some room for hiding stuff.
[10:16] <nextgens> and they didn't achieve that because of the money needed to get the filter working properly
[10:16] <nextgens> it was only a bassic filter proposal :
[10:16] <linyos> nextgens: but when you can shove the whole network behind a strict proxy, you no longer have to do that.
[10:17] <nextgens> linyos: I think the problem is somewere else :
[10:17] <nextgens> Is there any econnomical reason to do so?
[10:17] <linyos> nextgens: there must be billions and billions of dollars in the internet business. a new government regulation would just add a few bucks to your net access bill.
[10:18] <linyos> nextgens: there are political reasons to control technology. censorship, monitoring, etc.
[10:18] * MrNaughty (MrNaughty@d199-126-25-30.abhsia.telus.net) Quit (Connection reset by peer)
[10:18] * moskau23 (~Miranda@dsl-082-083-078-225.arcor-ip.net) has joined #freenet
[10:18] <linyos> you know the freenet web page, "i worry all the time about my daughter and the internet..."
[10:19] <nextgens> I mean, isn't the P2P traffic needed to sell high bandwidth broadband connections?
[10:19] <linyos> "where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the internet"
[10:19] <linyos> nextgens: i don't think selling dsl is too high up there on the to-do list of an authoritarian government
[10:20] <linyos> nextgens: and you need tons of bandwidth for subscription movie services anyway.
[10:20] <linyos> hell, rulers might give away movies as a bonus.
[10:21] <linyos> you know, jerk off all you want, but don't dare read the news or speak against the regime.
[10:22] <nextgens> I'll try to post my thought about it on one of the lists ... I need time to formulate them correctly
[10:23] * Romster (Romster@203.129.129.60) Quit (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
[10:23] * Romster (Romster@203.129.144.81) has joined #freenet
[10:23] <linyos> i'm all ears ;)
[10:27] <linyos> btw, i understand that it is impossible for freenet to stop darth vader or saddam hussein from banning the internet
[10:28] <linyos> but is it also impossible for freenet to stop less committed tyrants from doing it?
[10:28] <linyos> to stop bush from locking it down, say?
[10:28] <linyos> to force china's communists to open it up?
[10:29] <linyos> to what extent and in what way can we deter or prevent this fundamentally political choice
[10:29] <linyos> how can we make that choice hurt
[10:30] <linyos> the answer to this question describes the scope of freenet's possibilities
[10:33] * Rom|Away (Romster@203.129.144.232) Quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
[10:33] <linyos> i mean, if freenet could deter or prevent just one regime, say the swedish state, from locking down their internet, it would be successful at least in that small way
[10:34] * toad_ (toad@toad-with-underline.active.supporter.pdpc) has joined #freenet
[10:34] * ChanServ sets mode +o toad_
[10:34] <linyos> otherwise, it has as much "protective" power as a toyota
[10:52] <nextgens> toad_: do you think that the simulator is "compilable" using gcj ?
[10:52] * toad_ (toad@toad-with-underline.active.supporter.pdpc) Quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[10:52] * linyos notes that articulating the problem is not the same thing as finding a a solution
[10:52] <nextgens> raaah
[10:52] <linyos> dunno about gcj
[10:53] <linyos> it was a bitch when i played with it years ago
[10:53] <linyos> fixed some bugs though
[11:08] * moskau23 (~Miranda@dsl-082-083-078-225.arcor-ip.net) Quit (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
[11:08] * cbreak (~cbreak@84-72-98-199.dclient.hispeed.ch) has joined #freenet
[11:19] <nextgens> JDK 5.0 source code is available for researchers and others interested in exploring the details of the JDK.
[11:19] <nextgens> :-?
[11:20] <greycat> "still ain't free".
[11:21] <nextgens> I know I know ...
[11:22] <linyos> for that hotbed of computer science research, understanding the java libraries
[11:22] <linyos> like figuring out how the UFO works at area 51
[11:23] <linyos> and dissecting the little green man
[11:23] <linyos> btw, i just found really great gnome-terminal configuration
[11:26] * moskau23 (~Miranda@dsl-082-083-078-225.arcor-ip.net) has joined #freenet
[11:42] * Elly|School (xorn@ool-182c3b26.dyn.optonline.net) has joined #freenet
[11:42] <Elly|School> =D
[11:49] * Hory (~Miranda@82.78.27.85) Quit ("CyberLore.net - Recommendations on the best games, freeware and websites.")
[12:05] * Elly|School (xorn@ool-182c3b26.dyn.optonline.net) Quit ("out")
[12:43] * fridim (~fridim@166-74-118-80.kaptech.net) has joined #freenet
[12:43] <fridim> hi
[12:43] <fridim> has someone tested Entropy ?
[12:43] <sanity> hi
[12:43] <fridim> it looks like freenet
[12:43] <fridim> but it is written in C
[12:43] <fridim> http://entropy.stop1984.com/en/intro.html
[12:43] <sanity> it doesn't really scale
[12:43] <sanity> IIRC
[12:44] <fridim> what do you mean ?
[12:44] <fridim> it doesn't grow ?
[12:44] <sanity> the bigger it gets, the longer it takes to find information
[12:44] <fridim> really ?
[12:44] <fridim> the contrary of freenet you mean ?
[12:44] <sanity> if I recall correctly, yes - although it has been a while since i looked at it
[12:45] <sanity> well, freenet scales logarithmically, at least in theory
[12:45] <fridim> maybe if freenet would be written in C, it would be faster
[12:45] <sanity> it probably would, but it would also be much buggier, and take much longer to write and debug
[12:46] <fridim> why ?
[12:46] <sanity> so it would end up being a false economy
[12:46] <fridim> linux is written in C
[12:46] <sanity> because writing complex software in Java is far easier than writing it in C
[12:46] <fridim> yes it has nothing in commun
[12:46] <fridim> but...
[12:46] <sanity> linux is very different, people have written operating systems before many times, but this is the first time anyone has tried to create a freenet.
[12:47] <sanity> anyway, these days Java is pretty efficient when properly written
[12:47] <fridim> i don't like java a lot :)
[12:47] <sanity> bad programming is a much more common cause of inefficiency than a bad choice of programming language
[12:47] <sanity> why not?
[12:48] <fridim> it is fast to deploy software on every platforms
[12:48] <fridim> on the web
[12:48] <sanity> and that is a bad thing?
[12:48] <fridim> but, it is the first time i see a deamon written in java :p
[12:49] <fridim> no a bad thing
[12:49] <fridim> and i think it is slow
[12:49] <fridim> as perl, as python
[12:49] <fridim> it has its goal
[12:49] <sanity> lots of daemons are written in java, look at most of the Apache projects for example
[12:50] <fridim> apache in java ?
[12:50] <sanity> Java is not like perl or python, it has much more sophisticated compilers, and it is strongly typed which makes it less prone to runtime crashes
[12:50] <sanity> not apache itself, but many of the projects around apache are Java
[12:50] <fridim> okay
[12:50] <fridim> you may be right
[12:51] <sanity> java is far from perfect, but it is a good compromise.
[12:51] <fridim> yes
[12:51] <fridim> you mean it is between C and perl ?
[12:52] <sanity> i'm not sure what it is "between", perhaps C and ML
[12:52] <fridim> ML ?
[12:52] <sanity> google for ocaml
[12:52] <fridim> oik
[12:53] * nextgens (~nextgens@jabber.hst.ru) has left #freenet
[12:53] <fridim> i will try Entropy
[12:53] <sanity> good luck
[12:53] <fridim> but it sounds like free net :p
[12:54] <fridim> and freenet has more users, and is older
[12:54] <fridim> so..
[13:03] <linyos> ruby is fun
[13:04] <fridim> i like perl, and C
[13:05] <linyos> the only decent thing about C is that its close concept-correspondence to machine code means you get the complexity factor you ask for
[13:06] <linyos> whereas highlevel languages can get O(god only knows) without much trying
[13:08] <linyos> maybe O notation isn't the best way to describe that. anyway, when you write an inefficient C program, you are always aware of it.
[13:10] <linyos> i am writing a program in ruby to generate gnome-terminal color schemes based on a theory of color compatibility in HSV space
[13:12] <linyos> wow, it ran correctly on the first try, and it's my first ruby program
[13:24] * Bombe (~bombe@d025199.adsl.hansenet.de) has joined #freenet
[13:29] <fridim> you don't like perl ?
[13:30] <fridim> i like cpan :)
[13:30] <Bombe> I like frying pans.
[13:31] <linyos> i am really loving ruby today
[13:32] <linyos> if only it had a great compiler like ocaml
[13:53] * FallingBuzzar1 (~srademach@66.151.22.70) has joined #freenet
[13:53] * FallingBuzzard (~srademach@66.151.22.70) Quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[14:00] * MikeW (Mike@159-134-232-12.as1.cbr.castlebar.eircom.net) has joined #freenet
[14:13] * MikeW (Mike@159-134-232-12.as1.cbr.castlebar.eircom.net) Quit ()
[14:29] * duck (~duck@c9c75bf507010a9c.node.tor) has joined #freenet
[14:34] <linyos> wow, that register story was from left field
[14:35] <duck> they must have been out of content to write about
[14:38] <linyos> well then, if they are ever again short one article, they can always cover one of the seven more troublesome freenet flaws
[14:39] <linyos> anybody want a program to optimize your terminal colors?
[14:39] <linyos> i am so productive
[14:44] * toad_ (toad@82-32-17-1.cable.ubr03.azte.blueyonder.co.uk) has joined #freenet
[14:44] * ChanServ sets mode +o toad_
[14:52] * moskau23 (~Miranda@dsl-082-083-078-225.arcor-ip.net) Quit ("Miranda IM! Smaller, Faster, Easier. http://miranda-im.org")
[14:53] <linyos> maybe i should write a node this weekend
[14:53] <linyos> just to distract myself from my failures
[15:03] * OnTheBall (~me@host81-157-242-129.range81-157.btcentralplus.com) Quit ("Leaving")
[15:10] * rah (~rah@cpc1-nott1-3-0-cust206.nott.cable.ntl.com) Quit ("The truth will set you free")
[15:26] * Rom|Away (Romster@203.129.144.81) has joined #freenet
[15:27] * Romster (Romster@203.129.144.81) Quit (Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer))
[15:41] * spaetz (~spaetz@217-162-196-154.dclient.hispeed.ch) Quit ()
[16:02] * robilad (~topic@mpiat2305.ag2.mpi-sb.mpg.de) Quit (Remote closed the connection)
[16:04] * robilad (~topic@mpiat2305.ag2.mpi-sb.mpg.de) has joined #freenet
[16:07] * MikeW (Mike@159-134-232-157.as1.cbr.castlebar.eircom.net) has joined #freenet
[16:10] <toad_> lol
[16:10] <MikeW> hmm, well the register are very shocking with their exclusives
[16:11] <MikeW> they really ARE an online tabloid
[16:12] <Bombe> Yo, toad!
[16:13] <linyos> freenet is not "complex software"
[16:13] <linyos> complexity is nearly always a choice
[16:14] <linyos> i am questioning the complexity of my brain lately, with all the luck i have been having on this freenet problem
[16:16] * linyos tries in vain to think
[16:22] * MikeW (Mike@159-134-232-157.as1.cbr.castlebar.eircom.net) Quit ()
[16:23] <linyos> there is nothing pleasant about beating your head against the brick wall of probably intractable problems
[16:23] <linyos> i am such a martyr
[16:24] <linyos> hope, you know... "if only i think outside the box maybe...."
[16:30] <toad_> Bombe: YO!!!
[16:30] <toad_> Bombe: long time no see
[16:30] <Elly> wo0t
[16:31] <linyos> you should know that i love you
[16:31] <linyos> we should love like lovers do
[16:31] <Bombe> toad, yeah... it's fun to stay away for some months so that you can be happy that I'm back. :)
[16:31] <linyos> and i can't help but fall for you
[16:31] <linyos> oh honey i'm just a fool
[16:31] <linyos> now you know
[16:31] <toad_> linyos: i do not love you sexually
[16:32] <toad_> :)
[16:32] <linyos> toad_: you would if you ever saw me.
[16:32] <linyos> i'm so handsome.
[16:32] <toad_> ... and if i was gay
[16:32] <toad_> ... maybe
[16:32] <linyos> toad_: i would turn you gay, honey.
[16:32] <Elly> I don't understand the point of their article
[16:32] <Elly> it basically says that it's possible to correlate CHKs to blocks of data from a file
[16:32] <toad_> what article?
[16:32] <Elly> the register's one?
[16:32] <toad_> url?
[16:33] <Elly> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/13/freener_not_so_anonymous/
[16:33] <Elly> heh, 'freener'
[16:33] <Elly> In a forthcoming article, we will consider Freenet more generally, and offer suggestions for using it with greater safety, such as it is. ?
[16:33] <toad_> I bet Oskar told them ;)
[16:34] <linyos> hobx is so hard for me to read. i can't tell what he thinks of this freenet thing any more.
[16:35] <toad_> actually the entire file won't be cached, unless the cache is not full
[16:35] <toad_> which sadly it often isn't
[16:35] <toad_> oh nice
[16:35] <toad_> ian tells the register that 0.7 will be out this year and will have premix routing
[16:35] <linyos> especially when he posted that big attack paper accusing ian of being a self-interested apologist for everything
[16:36] <linyos> toad_: he will have to beat you more frequently now
[16:39] <Elly> so uhh
[16:39] <Elly> now you have to code premix routing
[16:47] <linyos> i am actually writing that node, i wonder how long i will go before saying it's pointless and giving up
[16:48] * wretched (~tingly@82-47-147-118.cable.ubr11.brad.blueyonder.co.uk) has joined #freenet
[16:58] * wretched (~tingly@82-47-147-118.cable.ubr11.brad.blueyonder.co.uk) Quit ()
[17:23] <sanity> toad: why wouldn't it be?
[17:24] <sanity> toad: anyway, i pointed out the vulnerability to them
[17:25] * fridim is now known as fridim_miam
[17:25] <sanity> toad: are you saying that in 7 months we won't be able to implement premix routing? that is pretty pessimistic
[17:30] <hobx> linyos: I am hard to read. It kills my poker buddies.
[17:30] <hobx> In seven months, who will remember a quote from a register article.
[17:30] * hobx bets it will hit Slashdot.
[17:31] <linyos> well, i will have premix routing working by monday at this rate
[17:32] <linyos> cranking out the code..
[17:37] <linyos> can someone remind me what exactly nats do with udp that allows you to break through them?
[17:37] <linyos> what is the technique?
[17:38] <linyos> i think i will use that in my node, since i don't want to limit the graph degree by having costly connections.
[17:40] <linyos> gah, i need to hack together a forward secrecy scheme.
[17:40] <linyos> without message serialization constraints...
[17:41] <linyos> sanity: toad and i were arguing about splitting data traffic into two priority bands, immediate and bulk.
[17:43] * duck (~duck@c9c75bf507010a9c.node.tor) has left #freenet
[17:43] * hobx votes for +b linyos!*@*
[17:43] <linyos> me too.
[17:48] <Bombe> Is this that mikee-guy?
[17:49] <linyos> somebody stole my old nick
[17:49] <linyos> and that is fucking insulting.
[17:50] * linyos was annoying this project long before he was.
[17:51] <greycat> MJR?
[17:51] <linyos> very smart!
[17:52] * linyos is now known as boz1
[17:52] <boz1> someone's nick is "bozo"
[17:52] * boz1 is now known as whomever
[17:58] * greycat (rfc1413@wooledge.org) Quit ("This time the bullet cold rocked ya / A yellow ribbon instead of a swastika")
[18:15] <toad_> linyos: ummm
[18:15] <toad_> linyos: what's the point of having two different impls at this stage?
[18:15] <whomever> don't worry, i think the urge has passed.
[18:16] <whomever> i wish i could see a point to having one impl...
[18:16] <whomever> but arguments here are not likely to make that happen, as i've realized.
[18:16] <toad_> hehehehehehehehe
[18:17] <toad_> like i said, there are always ways to hide stuff
[18:17] <toad_> they have major disadvantages in latency usually
[18:17] <toad_> but there _ARE_ ways we can make stamping it out really expensive
[18:17] <toad_> in the long run
[18:17] <whomever> i sure hope so. i want to have a real case for once that our means can achieve our aims.
[18:18] <toad_> you can conceal a lot of data in a videophone stream, for example
[18:18] <toad_> you can use email to organize stuff even if you can't use it for bulk data transfer
[18:18] <whomever> toad_: not if the videophone service compresses the data
[18:18] <toad_> you can do what you like over local networks because it's going to be completely impractical for them to monitor every wireless AP everywhere
[18:19] <whomever> toad_: not when they read your mail and make neat little graphs of who you write to.
[18:19] <toad_> whomever: you can build a stream that conforms to their expectations, appears to decompress properly, and is actually garbage
[18:19] <toad_> which carries data
[18:19] <toad_> unless they actually manually watch the streams, or use some AI to do face recognition etc, they won't be able to tell the difference
[18:19] <toad_> whomever: wrong
[18:20] <toad_> whomever: you ALREADY talk to your friends online
[18:20] <whomever> nah. the server would do its own DCT transform, perceptual coding, or whatever, it would tear your stego data right out
[18:20] <toad_> huh?
[18:21] <whomever> the videophone. it'd filter out the stego by screwing with your stream.
[18:21] * FallingBuzzar1 (~srademach@66.151.22.70) has left #freenet
[18:21] <toad_> there are things which while possible and while devastating would cost so much money or be so politically expensive as to be virtually infeasible
[18:21] <whomever> and yes, someone could watch your stream.
[18:21] <toad_> whomever: I'm assuming a software videophone which we can impersonate
[18:21] <toad_> whomever: sure, they could watch your stream
[18:21] <whomever> the NSA does it already with international phone calls
[18:21] <toad_> but watching every videophone stream on the Net?
[18:21] <toad_> that's gonna cost SERIOUS money
[18:22] <toad_> they just watch the ones that interest them
[18:22] <whomever> let me try to explain more clearly
[18:22] <whomever> there is a basic principle here
[18:22] <whomever> if the ISP is in a position to simply _dictate_ the precise nature of the applications and network
[18:22] <toad_> then you have a major economic and political cost to start with
[18:23] <toad_> china is not iraq
[18:23] <whomever> i think it is very likely that they can build it so you can't circumvent it
[18:23] <whomever> i don't think the cost is so major compared with the _huge_ cost of networking to begin with.
[18:23] <whomever> think of 100 million internet access bills
[18:24] <whomever> so what if your "innovations" bump that up by 30 percent, it's not the state that pays.
[18:24] <whomever> and i'm telling ya, you think it's hard to write a "new internet" application? not.
[18:25] * moskau23 (~Miranda@dsl-082-083-078-225.arcor-ip.net) has joined #freenet
[18:25] <whomever> so i see no way out. tomorrow people who sign up for internet access start getting a different installation CD with their modems in the mail
[18:26] <whomever> the software and the protocol is redesigned to allow control.
[18:26] <whomever> the old internet is demonized and phased out, even attacked by agent provocateur hackers
[18:26] <whomever> "doesn't work any more since the last worm"
[18:27] <whomever> at first the control is just used to ban child porn
[18:27] <whomever> and then you boil the frog at your own leisure
[18:27] <toad_> if we are talking about a global dictatorship, then we have serious problems, sure
[18:27] <toad_> but we can certainly slow them down and cost them a lot of money
[18:27] <toad_> and where does that money come from? the taxpayer - whether it is through a tax on the internet or general taxation is irrelevant
[18:28] <whomever> i'd like to see that premise argued more persuasively. because i just don't see it.
[18:28] <toad_> which premise?
[18:28] <whomever> one stupid government gets the bright idea to "upgrade" their subjects internet software
[18:28] <whomever> the rest follow
[18:28] <whomever> toad_: that it would be so costly and hard.
[18:29] <toad_> whomever: decoding all videophone streams would be extraordinarily expensive
[18:29] <toad_> let alone having real people actually watch them
[18:29] <toad_> East Germany had a very efficient secret police, but it cost a hell of a lot of money
[18:29] <whomever> i'm telling you, what would be the difference to my mother if her web browsing and email goes through a filtered system?
[18:30] <whomever> so ban videophones, not the end of the world.
[18:30] <whomever> personal videophones are so important... not.
[18:30] <whomever> and watching them enough to deter illegal uses (like speaking out against the regime) is easy
[18:30] <toad_> every time you do such an arbitrary act, you close off a potential avenue for economic growth and remind the people that you're a dick
[18:31] <whomever> my mother would never know the difference
[18:31] <toad_> your mother has the internet why exactly?
[18:31] <whomever> (apart from the not being able to read the banned news sites or send political emails)
[18:31] <toad_> both my parents have their own domains
[18:31] <toad_> salpinx.org and simechoes.org
[18:32] <whomever> chat with the old coworkers, look at neato web sites, etc
[18:32] <whomever> the stuff 95% of people do exclusively
[18:32] <whomever> (plus downloading movies and whatever)
[18:32] <toad_> no, 50% or so have the web mainly or exclusively to pirate movies, MP3s and software
[18:32] <TheSeeker> porn
[18:33] <TheSeeker> the internet is for porn
[18:33] <whomever> so they can download their movies through the faster, better state-controlled movie service
[18:33] <whomever> be a perk to make them switch
[18:33] <toad_> oh and porn yeah. as a fraction of overall traffic that's declined enormously though.
[18:33] <whomever> hell, i'd probably switch.
[18:33] <toad_> whomever: not if they are illegal
[18:34] <whomever> i'm just saying they could be permitted to quell discontent
[18:34] <toad_> the state is obliged by the megacorps and by the WTO and by the other states to comply with intellectual property laws
[18:34] <TheSeeker> toad: even after you remove traffic from spam?
[18:34] <whomever> what you call that doesn't matter
[18:34] <toad_> that means it can't encourage piracy
[18:34] <toad_> even in a global dictatorship, the megacorps would be very keen on the state using its enormous power to utterly stamp out piracy
[18:34] <whomever> they certainly don't suppress it now even though it is easy
[18:34] <toad_> which it could do in such a scenario
[18:35] <toad_> that's because it's not anything like as easy as it sounds
[18:35] <whomever> if the megacorps were so influential why aren't cops logging in to every p2p network and arrresting everyone
[18:35] <toad_> if everyone upgrades to Longhorn and suitable trusted hardware, it would be easy
[18:35] <toad_> whomever: because law enforcement doesn't care about piracy
[18:35] <toad_> they leave it to the megacorps
[18:35] <toad_> it's not their concern
[18:36] <toad_> but if we had the infrastructure such that it was cheap to eliminate specific illegal files, they'd surely use it
[18:36] <whomever> come on, if the state was so beholden to hollywood, i would not be downloading movies all the time.
[18:36] <toad_> whomever: thanks for sharing. you have just lost the right to support for freenet. :)
[18:36] <whomever> that is just a given, when you consider the power of the state to enforce its laws if it wills to.
[18:36] <toad_> no
[18:37] <toad_> in western democracies, it would be very difficult for the state to close down the internet to such an extent
[18:37] <toad_> and it would also be highly unwise economically
[18:37] <toad_> you don't know where the next killer app is going to come from
[18:37] <toad_> now, they will try anyway
[18:37] <whomever> that is because western democracies are effectively controlled by their citizens
[18:37] <toad_> but there are vested interests on BOTH sides
[18:38] <toad_> it's not perfect, but yes. and if you are talking about a fascist regime, all power is not exclusively in the state
[18:38] <whomever> they are schizophrenic about it, obviously.
[18:38] <toad_> in any real fascist regime, power is distributed between the state and the megacorps
[18:38] <toad_> in italy, in germany, and in china (arguably now and certainly in the future)
[18:38] <toad_> the state does not want to do everything
[18:38] <toad_> they like capitalism
[18:38] <toad_> but capitalism != freedom
[18:39] * toad_ thinks the woolly minded libertarianism that characterises so many freenetters is a real disability in understanding the strategic perspective :)
[18:39] <whomever> so. your point is that they can't put my mother behind a proxy because that would.... something....
[18:39] <whomever> excuse me while i try to figure it out
[18:39] <toad_> right now, in the west, they can't
[18:40] <whomever> if the people control the government, from whom are you "protecting free expression"
[18:40] <whomever> your little sister, your neighbor?
[18:40] <toad_> because there is big money on both sides, because there's a good chance of significant economic growth coming from a p2p innovation that would be prohibited by that, because it'd cost a hell of a lot of money, and because a vocal minority of citizens actually care
[18:41] <toad_> a regime that would want to eliminate freedom of speech most likely would be a fascist regime
[18:41] <toad_> which would naturally enough want to stamp out piracy
[18:41] <toad_> in fact, this would be one of the key reasons it publicly gave for the New and Improved Internet Protection Infrastructure
[18:41] <toad_> protect people from spam, protect the youth from porn, stamp out copyright infringement, protect the people from terrorism
[18:41] <whomever> isn't freenet supposed to be a bulwark against when "they take freedom of the press away from the internet"?
[18:42] <whomever> that would imply that freenet made "taking away the freedom" really hard
[18:42] <whomever> or somehow acted to make it less likely
[18:42] <toad_> also the state stepping in and controlling EVERYTHING really isn't done in the west
[18:43] <toad_> and increasingly not in the new fascist states too - you have to do it through the corporations
[18:43] <whomever> passing a regulation about internet service? that's chickenshit.
[18:43] <toad_> whomever: I believe that combined with future and present steganographic systems, we will make it very expensive. we can't make it impossible.
[18:44] <toad_> if you assume that the state has infinite resources, doesn't care about money, and doesn't care about public outrage, then yes, they can do what they like. but it'll cost them.
[18:44] <whomever> and i'm still saying that when the state builds the system, there is no hope for stego.
[18:44] <toad_> why?
[18:44] <whomever> because when resistance to stego is a design criterion, it is feasible to build it in.
[18:44] <toad_> if such a system were to cost 30% of the cost of your internet connection, that would be probably tens of billions of dollars per year, right?
[18:44] <TheSeeker> toad: if you were to make something perfectly cryptographically secure, wouldn't it be illegal to export that software outside the USA? :P
[18:44] <toad_> maybe hundreds of billions of dollars?
[18:45] <whomever> toad_: out of your pocket, or cisco's bottom line
[18:45] <toad_> TheSeeker: not any more, they relaxed the restrictions
[18:45] <toad_> whomever: so?
[18:45] <toad_> whomever: it's still real money
[18:45] <toad_> it will have to be budgeted for
[18:45] <TheSeeker> ah, neat. probably to promote global internet commerce
[18:45] <toad_> it will NOT come out of cisco's bottom line
[18:45] <toad_> it will come from the state or the citizens
[18:46] <toad_> and unfair taxes have historically been a great way to motivate people into acting
[18:46] <whomever> it's not even much money. a few stupid proxy boxes at every ISP
[18:46] <toad_> even when in fairly unpleasant regimes
[18:46] <toad_> e.g. the poll tax revolt (both of them)
[18:46] <whomever> i mean, one proxy box might have a marginal cost of $1000 and serve 100 people,
[18:46] <toad_> whomever: doing it the way you suggest to eliminate any possibility of freenet existing WOULD be expensive
[18:47] * NullAcht15 (~NullAcht1@dsl-082-082-147-121.arcor-ip.net) Quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[18:47] <whomever> toad_: it's a smart squid proxy with built-in webmail.
[18:47] <toad_> if people can email they can exchange data
[18:47] <toad_> if people have personal web space they can exchange data
[18:48] <whomever> that's a design criterion
[18:48] <toad_> if people can write on forums they can exchange data
[18:48] <whomever> preventing exactly that
[18:48] <toad_> if people can do VoIP or videophone over internet they can exchange data
[18:48] <toad_> if people can transmit information in any way whatsoever they can exchange data
[18:48] <whomever> and you can architect the system to exclude all of that, and still my mother would never know the difference
[18:48] <toad_> if there are wireless access points, people can exchange data
[18:48] <whomever> (so long as she doesn't become a revolutionary or activist or something)
[18:48] <TheSeeker> but anyone intelligent who uses the internet would notice, and not like it.
[18:49] <toad_> whomever: no, you can't. you can't prohibit email. you can't monitor everyone's email either.
[18:49] <whomever> drive around in your wireless detection van and arrest the people who run them
[18:49] <toad_> and your mum is not stupid
[18:49] <toad_> she just has different values and different desires
[18:49] <toad_> whomever: sure, if you make wireless illegal
[18:49] <TheSeeker> haha, make wireless networks illegal?
[18:49] <whomever> toad_: you can restrict the messages to a small size. wouldn't be a big deal. you could do statistical tests on their content.
[18:50] <toad_> whomever: I think that making wireless illegal, VoIP illegal and videophones illegal, would be a big deal
[18:50] <whomever> toad_: you can test their frequency of transmission and who they go to. you can read one out of every 1000.
[18:50] <toad_> the cost to the industry alone would be considerable
[18:50] <whomever> industry is always adapting to revolutionary change
[18:50] <whomever> next year they get used to the new rules of the game
[18:50] <whomever> and start making other products
[18:50] <toad_> yes, and doing anything like you suggest is a sure-fire way to PREVENT innovation
[18:51] <toad_> unfortunately even in the West, if the big companies go along with it the state is happy to prevent innovation (e.g. software patents)
[18:51] <whomever> i don't buy that. few innovations require doing wacky network traffic.
[18:51] <whomever> you'd be free to innovate to your heart's content so long as it doesn't open up a new channel for uncontrolled communcations
[18:51] <toad_> there are innovations in networking just like everywhere else
[18:52] <toad_> your argument boils down to "if the state is omnipotent, it can do whatever the hell it likes". that is true but irrelevant.
[18:52] <whomever> they'll be innovations that don't challenge the status quo
[18:53] <whomever> toad_: that is basically my argument if you replace "omnipotent" with "mildly authoritarian"
[18:53] <whomever> and if your fancy freenet falls apart as soon as you have a government that's a little less than liberal, it's worth less.
[18:53] <toad_> what exactly prevents sneakernet networking btw? the only way you can stamp out that sort of thing is via a full blown reign of terror as in saddam's iraq. granted that happens from time to time, but it's bad for the economy and pretty expensive.
[18:53] <TheSeeker> mildly? o.O
[18:53] <whomever> nothing prevents sneakernet.
[18:53] <toad_> whomever: no, it's not "mildly", it's "severely"
[18:53] * Charbal (Kalos2@68-186-89-226.wa.charter.com) has joined #freenet
[18:53] <toad_> and you can use sneakernet
[18:54] <toad_> it's a PITA using the web with a latency of a week
[18:54] <toad_> but it's quite possible with queueing and notifications
[18:54] <TheSeeker> sneekernet is faster with large amounts of data :)
[18:54] <toad_> and you would want a larger network than can be fit on even a box of DVD-Rs
[18:54] <whomever> i don't think it'd be so horribly draconian to impost "reasonable controls on the wild internet to catch terrorists and pedophiles"
[18:55] <whomever> which my mother would never even notice
[18:55] <toad_> that would work even in saddam's iraq, but would be deterred by randomly torturing to death anyone suspected of participating
[18:55] <whomever> in fact, that seems like something bush could do..
[18:55] <toad_> and it WOULD need some sort of routing
[18:55] <toad_> if the dataset is much bigger than a box of DVD-Rs you can't just replicate and broadcast
[18:55] <toad_> you have to actually route
[18:56] <toad_> in really hostile regimes, you may not be able to use the internet at all
[18:56] <toad_> but it appears to me that even then, freenet-like systems will be of some use
[18:56] <whomever> my point is just that when your means (the freenet network) can never accomplish your goals under real-world conditions ("protecting freedom of expression"), a rational person changes either the aims or the means
[18:57] <whomever> in really hostile regimes you have no network connection to your house, period
[18:57] <toad_> whomever: in some places, we use open networks with LRU and NGR. in moderately hostile environments we try some stego. in really nasty places, we do some sort of sneakernet and avoid the internet entirely (this is assuming we can't use wireless etc, which i think is likely in all but the most extreme places)
[18:57] <whomever> but it is pointless to consider that
[18:57] <whomever> just keeping bush from locking up the internet would be a coup
[18:57] <toad_> whomever: you have the internet
[18:57] <toad_> it may be a horrible perversion of the internet that only lets you email
[18:58] <TheSeeker> freenet aims to promote freedom of expression given: the user has access to the internet, and, you don't live in a place where doing something that can potentially be illegal is deemed enough for killing you.
[18:58] <toad_> but SOMETHING is vital economically
[18:58] <whomever> toad_: that something can be locked down when the state is writing the software. i just don't see how not.
[18:58] <toad_> whomever: you have not shown that freenet+sneakernet is non-viable
[18:59] <whomever> TheSeeker: and you don't live in a place that can pass a law about what software you use to browse the web and send your instant messages
[18:59] <whomever> TheSeeker: which is nowhere
[18:59] <whomever> toad_: sneakernet is completely viable
[18:59] <toad_> whomever: i find the idea that the state can eliminate black market non-TCPA hardware very dubious. they can't eliminate black market narcotics.
[18:59] <toad_> whomever: sneakernet benefits from freenet-like routing algorithms if the network and the content is large
[19:00] <toad_> which is quite possible
[19:00] <whomever> there's no need for TCPA
[19:00] <toad_> yes there is
[19:00] <whomever> you just change the protocol you use to connect to your ISP
[19:00] <TheSeeker> Well, in most countries that care about their image to the rest of the world, killing someone for owning a camcorder because it might be used to make anti-government video is considered a bit drastic.
[19:00] <whomever> no more arbitrary IP packets.
[19:00] <toad_> and it's probably cheaper than many of the options you've been talking about
[19:00] <whomever> now you only connect to the proxy, and the proxy is boss.
[19:00] <toad_> if your hardware is not controlled, they have no control over it
[19:01] <whomever> toad_: the control starts when you connect to the isp
[19:01] <toad_> if they want to prevent you doing stego, then the easiest way to do it is to control your whole system
[19:01] <toad_> not just the network
[19:01] <whomever> sure
[19:01] <toad_> besides which, TCPA already exists
[19:01] <toad_> pretty much
[19:01] <whomever> but it's not even necessary, it's like a desirable extra
[19:01] <toad_> and has some good reasons to be implemented, such as anti-piracy
[19:01] <toad_> well, it's going to be cheaper for them to get a given level of control with TCPA than without it
[19:02] <toad_> and more expensive for the opposition to continue to exist with TCPA than without it
[19:02] <whomever> TheSeeker: but killing people and camcorders have nothing to do with issuing your loyal subjects a new internet application that has to be used from now on.
[19:02] <toad_> politically cheaper as well as economically
[19:02] <whomever> TheSeeker: in order to keep out the terrorists and pedo
[19:02] <whomever> s
[19:02] <toad_> and the copyright infringers
[19:02] <toad_> and the viruses
[19:02] <toad_> and the spammers
[19:02] <toad_> and the foreign governments' cyber-warfare agencies
[19:02] <toad_> and the hackers
[19:02] <whomever> toad_: i don't see what's so expensive about the internet-only-through-our-application thing
[19:03] <whomever> it's very primitive
[19:03] <TheSeeker> how does crippling the internet get rid of terrorists and pedophiles? didn't those exist long before the internet?
[19:03] <whomever> TheSeeker: that's just the rhetoric
[19:03] <toad_> whomever: doing it comprehensively is expensive. just NATting everyone is relatively cheap but you will need more than that.
[19:03] <whomever> TheSeeker: something bush might say (in more pleasant language) to justify the thing
[19:03] <toad_> TheSeeker: :)
[19:03] <TheSeeker> no, I'm really curious as to what it solves.
[19:03] <toad_> TheSeeker: they can justify it on that basis
[19:03] <toad_> TheSeeker: just like ID cards
[19:04] <toad_> TheSeeker: there would be some effect on terrorists and paedophiles. it wouldn't eliminate them, but it might hurt them a bit.
[19:04] <toad_> disproportionately to the cost, of course, and it'd hurt anyone else who wanted privacy or freedom
[19:04] <toad_> but nonetheless they can argue it
[19:04] <TheSeeker> might. maybe. how many catholic priests used the internet to lure children?
[19:04] <whomever> toad_: is not, is not. here's how it works. one day your isp stops routing your IP packets. you have to install Tyrant Browser 3000 to use the internet. but once you install it, you can surf to MTV.com or download your porn just like before.
[19:05] <toad_> just like ID cards WOULD help in SOME criminal and terrorist cases
[19:05] * NullAcht15 (~NullAcht1@dsl-082-082-144-255.arcor-ip.net) has joined #freenet
[19:05] <toad_> whomever: that on its own would not prevent all usable covert channels
[19:05] <toad_> whomever: and it would require a shedload of bureaucracy to grant Legitimate Businesses the right to run servers
[19:05] <whomever> designing Tyrant Browser 3000 to be pretty basically covert channel proof would not be too hard in my considered expert opinion
[19:06] <whomever> you still get 95% of the population locked down
[19:06] <whomever> and publishing a page could simply be a monitored process
[19:07] <toad_> whomever: I'm not sure there's much point continuing this conversation - but would you please explain why the 3-stage plan for continued existance would fail? 1. Open network in friendly democracy. 2. Closed network with steg. 3. Closed network with sneakernet transport.
[19:07] <toad_> whomever: that would be enormously expensive
[19:07] <whomever> some guy looks over sony's new page about their AIBO dog before it goes live. that's not so hard
[19:07] <TheSeeker> I'd love to see any government set up a system to monitor every page being published.
[19:07] <toad_> whomever: monitoring all web publication by hand would cost a significant fraction of GDP
[19:07] <toad_> china can't entirely keep up with all the sensitive content NOW
[19:08] <toad_> they force monitoring of all forums
[19:08] <whomever> toad_: it would fail because (a) there would be no chance to use stego with Tyrant Browser 3000, and (b) sneakernet is failure by definition.
[19:08] <toad_> but the idea of monitoring every page published, even if you only let businesses publish pages, is completely absurd. Some extreme dictatorship might do it, but not China, and not the US.
[19:08] <TheSeeker> and what would happen if a significant increase of internet users in china were to happen?
[19:08] <whomever> whether you call the fact that somebody in zimbabwe can burn a CD "success for freenet" is pointless
[19:08] <toad_> TheSeeker: there is
[19:09] <whomever> toad_: actually, it is not absurd. think about the properties of web pages
[19:09] <whomever> for instance, most pages are published by institutions, that can be self-policing
[19:09] <toad_> whomever: a) That's not true, but even if it is go to b). b) Why is sneakernet a failure? A routable system with encryption and reasonable guarantees of safety and capacity to support a vast covert network is more useful than what you get without freenet routing.
[19:09] <whomever> most web traffic goes to a small subset of sites. if j random loser's page about ferrets hits a regulatory bottleneck, big deal
[19:09] <whomever> nobody cares
[19:10] <toad_> wikipedia.org is pretty big in terms of hits
[19:10] <whomever> toad_: i mean obviously people can bootleg CDs as long as they have CD burners. that's not really our role in life
[19:10] <toad_> it just passed the New York Times
[19:10] <toad_> whomever: no, it's a legitimate means to distribute stuff
[19:10] <whomever> toad_: it's one that i take for granted.
[19:10] <whomever> that's all
[19:10] <toad_> whomever: IMHO there is a big value add from having a routing algorithm
[19:10] <whomever> ok, fine.
[19:11] <whomever> that is something freenet could work on
[19:11] <toad_> whomever: look at the difference between broadcast media (including newspapers) and the internet
[19:11] <toad_> or even
[19:11] <toad_> better example
[19:11] <toad_> BBSs and the internet
[19:11] <toad_> you really do get a big value add from scalability
[19:11] <toad_> even if you have a latency of several weeks, you have a big advantage
[19:12] <whomever> the internet is a bigger newspaper
[19:13] <whomever> yeah, i can see you figuring out some way to have a sneakernet, but one would rather have private internet, obviously
[19:13] <whomever> i'm not saying a sneakernet is anything to be ashamed of if it is really the best we can do
[19:14] <whomever> should i argue more about how the Tyrant Browser 3000 system can be designed to prevent unauthorized communications? it's certainly an interesting topic.
[19:14] <toad_> but I personally think that the right way to develop this is to build a system now that is reasonably resistant to attack, works reasonably well in liberal and semi-liberal regimes, and hostile regimes which aren't very technically competent
[19:15] <toad_> whomever: IMHO we can have a very usable sneakernet system even in the most hostile regimes
[19:15] <whomever> with emphasis on not technically competent, i agree, under such assumptions there is room for success.
[19:15] <toad_> as long as the state's extremes aren't so extreme as to completely stamp out resistant by sheer terror
[19:15] <whomever> however, i doubt that is a tenable assumption to make in anything but the short term.
[19:15] <toad_> s/resistant/resistance
[19:16] <toad_> perhaps not
[19:16] <whomever> governments everywhere are competent to wiretap phone calls
[19:16] <toad_> we are prototyping something in one situation
[19:16] <toad_> it will need to be adapted for different environments
[19:16] <whomever> it happened because there was a clear need, and also because they could make industry do all the hard work.
[19:16] <toad_> but what we do now is quite useful and even important, in part, for those later situations
[19:16] <toad_> whomever: sure, but we're not talking about wiretapping here
[19:17] <whomever> so you're digging a hole in one situation so that later you can know how to swim across a lake in another situation. that's how logical it is.
[19:17] <toad_> as far as i can see the only way to stamp out all covert channels is to have a society that is fundamentally based on fear where somebody can be arrested for having a long and incomprehensible telephone conversation
[19:17] <toad_> whomever: no
[19:17] <whomever> toad_: it's the same principle. bush doesn't have to be a genius, he just has to summon the industry, flash some dollar bills, and make some threats
[19:18] <toad_> whomever: we prototype here, and we can get funding to do so, then later we adapt it for other places
[19:18] <toad_> it is useful for the whole period
[19:18] <whomever> i can imagine people being arrested for having incomprehensible phone conversations
[19:18] <toad_> the sneakernet based system uses a lot of the same principles as the 0.7 trusted links network will
[19:18] <whomever> probably terrorists
[19:18] <toad_> whomever: sure, if you listen to all conversations
[19:19] <whomever> toad_: well, ok, sneakernet again. sure, i agree.
[19:19] <toad_> it might well use a lot of the same CODE
[19:19] <toad_> certainly not all the same
[19:19] <toad_> but our development effort now is not wasted
[19:19] <whomever> but it is a pretty sad thing to plan for.
[19:19] <whomever> nonetheless.
[19:19] <toad_> it means we can build something useful enough to see widespread adoption and hopefully be of some influence here while it is still legal
[19:20] <toad_> something that can be adapted for the wide range of regimes that are hostile but are not yet overwhelmingly so
[19:20] <toad_> such as china, saudi arabia, and many other places
[19:20] <toad_> and something that can ultimately be adapted, the basic research having been done and thoroughly tested
[19:20] <whomever> influence? that's just my point. what will influence bush when he decides that free communications are threatening his power, and summons the industry for a meeting about the lock-down?
[19:21] <whomever> nothing i can see. and therefore, "protection" doesn't mean anything.
[19:21] <toad_> well, bush is not hitler
[19:21] <toad_> he has some ideological basis
[19:21] <whomever> toad_: yes, i certainly hope that sneakernets work great and that lots of research can be adapted to make them work great.
[19:21] <toad_> he wouldn't say "it's threatening my power", he'd say "it's letting terrorists communicate too easily, the CIA tells me"
[19:21] * moskau23 (~Miranda@dsl-082-083-078-225.arcor-ip.net) Quit ("Miranda IM! Smaller, Faster, Easier. http://miranda-im.org")
[19:22] <toad_> okay
[19:22] <whomever> you don't need to be hitler to "reasonably regulate internet activity in order to find osama bin laden"
[19:22] <toad_> now can i recruit you to code for the project? :)
[19:22] <toad_> whomever: indeed, but imho the regulation involved would be quite substantial
[19:22] <toad_> it may happen
[19:22] <whomever> i guess i could be persuaded to at least think about sneakernets a little.
[19:22] <toad_> i think the temptation will be greatest if Microsoft manages to get TCPA universally deployed and defeat linux
[19:22] * moskau23 (~Miranda@dsl-082-083-078-225.arcor-ip.net) has joined #freenet
[19:22] <whomever> toad_: isn't wiretapping substantial too though? it happened.
[19:22] <toad_> at which point there'd be a variety of things you can do
[19:23] <toad_> whomever: wiretapping is inevitable
[19:23] <toad_> whomever: but it's also passive and non-invasive to the end user
[19:23] <whomever> conceivably, if by some chance they had omitted to build wiretapping infrastructure, you might argue "oh it's impossible that would take so much work and nobody would stand for it blah blah blah"
[19:23] <toad_> what you're talking about is active and seriously invasive
[19:23] <toad_> i really don't care about wiretapping that much
[19:23] <whomever> toad_: not after it's implemented. then you simply don't see the web sites that the terrorists use
[19:23] <toad_> as long as they let me have hard crypto :)
[19:24] <whomever> and don't write terrorist emails to your terrorist friends, etc
[19:24] <toad_> whomever: terrorist web sites continue to exist because they are useful to the authorities
[19:24] <toad_> in catching terrorists
[19:24] <whomever> china's firewall is invasive as all hell and it hasn't disappeared in a poof of logic yet
[19:24] <toad_> it's also leaky as hell
[19:24] <whomever> ah! but that can be fixed
[19:25] <TheSeeker> then why hasn't it been fixed yet?
[19:25] <toad_> depends what you mean by fixed
[19:25] <TheSeeker> ask whomever
[19:25] <toad_> but china's firewall does not invade the end user's machine
[19:25] <whomever> TheSeeker: because it works to some approximation, for one thing, and also the internet has not been too widespread or too politically threatening as yet
[19:25] <toad_> nor does it effectively prevent you circumventing it, although they are getting better at that
[19:26] <whomever> but you can bet that if they ever decided that "the current situation is not acceptable, it's a threat to our power"
[19:26] <whomever> it would lock down properly, and fast.
[19:26] <toad_> they would have to lock down the end-user
[19:26] <toad_> as well as the internet
[19:26] <toad_> and both would be expensive
[19:26] <whomever> right, by issuing him a copy of Tyrant Browser 3000.
[19:26] <toad_> what's really expensive is finding every last subversive website
[19:26] <toad_> no, by requiring full blown TCPA
[19:27] <whomever> and turning off IP routing.
[19:27] * moskau23 (~Miranda@dsl-082-083-078-225.arcor-ip.net) Quit ("Miranda IM! Smaller, Faster, Easier. http://miranda-im.org")
[19:27] <toad_> with the state controlling the auto-updates
[19:27] <toad_> and yes they'd change the network protocols too
[19:27] <toad_> but it'd cost many many billions
[19:27] <TheSeeker> sounds like AOL :P
[19:27] <toad_> the transition alone
[19:27] <toad_> TheSeeker: ;)
[19:27] <whomever> TCPA isn't necessary, as i've failed to explain. when the only thing you can do on the network is go through the proxy, and the proxy is designed to fuck you, you're fucked.
[19:27] <whomever> exactly! just like AOL.
[19:28] <whomever> a really nasty AOL
[19:28] <whomever> with no alternative
[19:28] <toad_> whomever: not true. if you can transmit data, you can transmit data.
[19:28] <toad_> but like i've said, i see it in three stages
[19:28] <whomever> toad_: you can't transmit data. you can "view web page" and "send formatted message" and "whatever other application _they_ will let you have"
[19:28] <toad_> we may argue about how easy it is to force the transition from 2 to 3
[19:28] <toad_> but it will probably be necessary eventually
[19:29] <toad_> whomever: and so can subversive software running on your PC
[19:29] <toad_> anyway we are going round in circles
[19:29] <toad_> what can we most productively do now?
[19:29] <toad_> that is the question
[19:29] <whomever> toad_: yeah, but what can your software do? the system is built to prevent covert channels.
[19:29] <whomever> that's the design criterion.
[19:29] <whomever> it's a feasible one
[19:30] <whomever> i agree about the question
[19:30] <whomever> it's one i've been thinking about for years
[19:30] <toad_> whomever: killing all covert channels is impossible. killing high bandwidth (and especially low latency) covert channels is feasible to some degree, but it gets increasingly expensive the more you work at it
[19:30] <toad_> this is exactly the situation that you have with military grade security
[19:30] <toad_> an A1 grade system is designed to prevent high bandwidth covert channels
[19:30] <toad_> it is unusable without extensive training
[19:31] <whomever> it can asymptotically approach perfection, in my opinion. i wish i could argue this point persuasively right now.
[19:31] <toad_> sure
[19:31] <toad_> it can APPROACH perfectionb
[19:31] <whomever> the main reason why is that the range of services is so small, and that those services (web page, email, download pre-vetted file) is very small
[19:31] <toad_> but the cost is exponential
[19:32] <toad_> pre-vetted file?
[19:32] <whomever> i think it could be made practically impossible to circumvent.
[19:32] <toad_> nobody is going to manually vet every file on the internet
[19:32] <toad_> that would cost some crazy number like 10% of GDP
[19:32] <toad_> you can make people self regulate
[19:32] <toad_> with harsh penalties
[19:32] <toad_> and spot checks
[19:32] <toad_> you can't vet every file
[19:32] <TheSeeker> central acceptable hash database? :p
[19:33] <whomever> toad_: meaning you can't publish something without a good reason. you'd need institutional affiliation and so forth. plus the files would be static so it's not like you can embed all sorts of stuff in them
[19:33] <toad_> TheSeeker: with TCPA i can quite see a central unacceptable hash database being a real problem even in democracies
[19:33] <whomever> when they watch everything carefully, and rule out applications that invite covert channels, i think it is feasible to really lock thing down. like i say, i wish i had more than a feeling to express on this point.
[19:33] <TheSeeker> change a bit, not it's a different hash... no way a central unacceptable hash database will really work...
[19:34] <toad_> whomever: vast overhead. major constraint on economic growth. quite possible if your despot is clinically paranoid and doesn't care about the economy or the people.
[19:34] <toad_> whomever: you would have to rule out apps at a TCPA level - on the local PC
[19:34] <whomever> toad_: it wouldn't mean dick to 90% of web use, which is mostly for a small number of sites.
[19:34] <whomever> reality is stacked against you here
[19:34] <whomever> and yes, TCPA is also possible. they could read your screen every so often
[19:34] <toad_> TheSeeker: that's an old argument but i don't think it really holds water
[19:35] <whomever> so many fun choices, they have.
[19:35] <toad_> and most of the devastatingly effective choices are really expensive
[19:35] <whomever> TheSeeker: my system is a whitelist.
[19:35] <toad_> but at some point we may have to move to stage 3
[19:36] <toad_> whomever: global whitelisting would cost a significant fraction of your GDP. it's total fiction except in the most extreme states.
[19:36] * sylvie_ (~sylvie@pha75-2-81-57-114-186.fbx.proxad.net) has joined #freenet
[19:36] <toad_> since there will be some, we have stage 3
[19:36] <whomever> i don't buy that they are expensive. i mean, suppose, for the sake of argument, that residential links are locked down to the point that only the top 10000 web sites are available.
[19:36] <whomever> would that change the world so much? i don't think it would matter much.
[19:36] <whomever> my mother would probably never notice.
[19:37] <toad_> whomever: read about "the long tail" sometimes. just because the top 10 sites have a huge amount of traffic does not mean that the bottom million don't also add up to a huge amount of traffic
[19:37] <toad_> whomever: for example, a large fraction of the sales amazon gets is for really obscure books
[19:37] <toad_> same with that movies site
[19:37] <toad_> the expensive movies rental site
[19:37] <toad_> they have EVERYTHING, and the reason they have everything is that the wierd stuff actually accounts for a large fraction of the market
[19:38] <toad_> especially if you have recommendations
[19:38] <toad_> the world, and especially the Net, is by no means as conformist as it may at first appear
[19:38] <toad_> there was an article on i think the register
[19:38] <toad_> maybe some other site
[19:39] <toad_> search for "the long tail" anyway
[19:39] <toad_> and that movies site
[19:39] <whomever> if that's a wrong point, it still doesn't break my argument. you can control publishing to the point that practically no information leaks.
[19:40] <toad_> and the other interesting thing is that this is all intimately tied up with economic progress and growth
[19:40] <toad_> whomever: of course you can control everything, but the more you control the more it costs
[19:40] <whomever> web browsing obscure pages supports economic growth?
[19:40] <toad_> sure
[19:40] <toad_> obscure pages including obscure businesses
[19:40] <toad_> also including important but hard to find information
[19:41] <TheSeeker> restriction of ideas leads to stagnation and death
[19:41] <whomever> i can't think of what you would publish that would be both important in the aggregate and impractical to supervise somehow
[19:41] <whomever> most of that comes under the purview of institutions, that can self-police to a large extent.
[19:42] <whomever> and there are tons of ways to strip out stego information without controlling anything
[19:42] <toad_> i admit that they CAN lock down everything, but it would cost them severely in costs of regulation (and e.g. china is definitely not putting in the vast resources required to completely lock down the internet at the firewall level, despite plenty of incentive to do so), and in terms of indirect costs to the economy and the perception of the public
[19:42] <toad_> no, there aren't
[19:42] <whomever> the "personal image publisher" can compress the image itself so you can't embed stuff in the high frequencies
[19:42] <toad_> the only way to strip out stego is to eliminate inter-consumer bandwidth
[19:42] <toad_> only if you control the software and the hardware
[19:43] <toad_> and you can still embed stuff
[19:43] <toad_> maybe you don't embed it in the actual file
[19:43] <toad_> maybe you put it in the image
[19:43] <whomever> their hardware would process your data
[19:43] <toad_> the only way they will find it is if they MANUALLY vet images
[19:43] <toad_> at incredible cost
[19:43] <whomever> with images it could work just like this
[19:43] <whomever> you press the "upload" button
[19:44] <toad_> they can deter it by making it a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment to publish an image that isn't a simple digital photo
[19:44] <whomever> their server reads your image and recompresses it, thereby stripping out any stego data
[19:44] <whomever> their server sends it on its way to the global page cache
[19:44] <whomever> stuff like that can make the amount of data you can put in the image approach zero
[19:45] <whomever> and any weird patterns of uploading would be red flagged
[19:45] <toad_> you can put loads of data in a largish image, even if it gets recompressed on a block by block basis
[19:45] <TheSeeker> so, no supporting any lesless compression formats then?
[19:45] <TheSeeker> err, lossless
[19:45] <whomever> TheSeeker: no. they are the boss.
[19:45] <TheSeeker> bye bye gif, png, tiff
[19:45] <toad_> right, there are always things they can do
[19:45] <toad_> but you end up establishing a huge state bureaucracy which will have to employ expensive people, a LOT of hardware, and cost a huge amount of money
[19:46] <whomever> toad_: my feeling is that their evil toolbox of things is so big, it's not a tenable strategy to try to break through the Tyrant Browser
[19:46] <toad_> and you have to make up some arbitrary offences to deter people
[19:46] <toad_> it's possible, but it will cost you, a lot
[19:46] <whomever> i'm betting they can do pretty well at moderate cost
[19:46] <toad_> whomever: even if i did concede that point, what's your problem with freenet?
[19:46] <whomever> how i wish i could argue this better
[19:46] <whomever> toad_: it's banned. freenet is not the Tyrant Browser
[19:47] <toad_> no
[19:47] <whomever> all hail the Tyrant Browser, because it's your only internet.
[19:47] * sylvie_ (~sylvie@pha75-2-81-57-114-186.fbx.proxad.net) has left #freenet
[19:47] <toad_> what is your problem with freenet?
[19:47] <toad_> even if you are right, freenet-based algorithms and code can be used in stage 3
[19:47] <TheSeeker> sounds like it's that it's not perfect.
[19:47] <toad_> so what is the problem?
[19:47] <whomever> i have no problem with using freenet algorithms for sneakernets
[19:47] <toad_> it's USEFUL
[19:47] <toad_> even in stage 3 it's useful
[19:47] <whomever> it is very likely useful for sneakernets
[19:48] <toad_> and i don't see that the disputable actually add up to all that much of a problem
[19:48] <TheSeeker> I'm not understanding how freenet and sneakernets mesh well..
[19:48] <whomever> and it is also useful in libertarian states that permit private communications.
[19:48] <toad_> the required, and right, path is to develop freenet NOW
[19:48] <whomever> just like a car is useful in states that allow driving
[19:48] <toad_> that will be beneficial in libertarian states
[19:48] <toad_> it will be beneficial in semi-hostile states
[19:48] <whomever> but a car doesn't "protect your freedom to drive"
[19:48] <toad_> and it will be beneficial with sneakernets in severely hostile states
[19:48] <whomever> toad_: only for (imho) contrived definition of "semi-hostile"
[19:48] <TheSeeker> if you can make it scale, and perform well, then serious services can start to be built on top of it.
[19:49] <toad_> TheSeeker: as I have explained, sneakernets with a routing algorithm are far more useful than sneakernets with just broadcast, which is what you end up with otherwise
[19:49] <whomever> i mean, once you decide that suppressing free communications is politically important...
[19:49] <whomever> does that make you semi-hostile?
[19:49] <whomever> or that suppressing free comms isn't really all that important but just sort of annoys you a little
[19:50] <whomever> well, sure, they might not
[19:50] <toad_> whomever: no. anything more hostile than a liberal regime where you can run an open network, and less hostile/competent than the stage 3, which is where the state will spend Whatever It Takes to stamp out real time guerilla networking.
[19:50] <whomever> you think many governments will fall into that "i'm not sure if i dislike freenet" category?
[19:51] <toad_> now can we PLEASE move this on to something more PRODUCTIVE?
[19:51] <toad_> they may not dislike it enough to put the resources in to utterly destroy it
[19:51] <toad_> or their efforts to do so may be inept
[19:51] <whomever> sure
[19:51] <toad_> but even when we go to stage 3, there is something useful evolved from the freenet of today
[19:52] <toad_> now, what is your interest in freenet? what can you do for us?
[19:52] <toad_> i have to go to bed soon...
[19:52] <whomever> i can rewrite the front page to remove the quote about censorship because freenet is worthless to prevent it
[19:52] <toad_> that is bullshit
[19:53] <toad_> freenet can resist it until they effectively eliminate the internet by radical architectural changes you have suggested
[19:53] <whomever> governments make up their minds about policy and they do what they decide. a little cost and effort never breaks their will.
[19:53] <toad_> after that freenet will have to take other routes for transmitting data
[19:53] <whomever> not "resist" really. freenet can make use of the freedom they allow you.
[19:54] <whomever> which is good and fine.
[19:54] <toad_> uhh, ian's response to that article is misleading.. you don't need physical access because you can probe the store and do timing attacks
[19:54] <whomever> there are really no other viable data routes besides telecom and sneakernet
[19:55] <whomever> so the answer to my interest in freenet.
[19:55] <toad_> whomever: freenet can work in a moderately hostile environment as i have described. if you think that can be done for less than $300B and without serious public mal-will, then that's your affair; personally i think that taking that view is stupid, but i don't intend to argue the point further.
[19:56] <whomever> my interest has always been to make this technology that "keeps the internet free"
[19:56] <toad_> it will, for as long as the internet is recognizably the internet
[19:57] <toad_> after that, freedom will need all the help it can get, and the routed-sneakernet system will be of some significant value
[19:57] <whomever> which will not be true for long when the state decides it would rather have a more regulated system.
[19:57] <whomever> i just see it coming.
[19:57] <toad_> which would no longer be the internet
[19:57] <toad_> which means it does not invalidate that quote
[19:57] <whomever> freenet would even _provoke_ it
[19:57] <toad_> so what?
[19:57] <toad_> without freenet, the situation is worse
[19:57] <whomever> so you invite your own death
[19:58] <whomever> "here, look at me using my freedom, don't you feel like suppressing that now???"
[19:58] <toad_> only if your opponent is a fascist and is prepared to prove it to all and sundry at enormous expense
[19:58] <whomever> governments are inured to expense
[19:58] <whomever> $300B is nothing
[19:58] <toad_> governments are not omnipotent. Neither are megacorps.
[19:58] <whomever> that's the cost of iraq
[19:59] <whomever> they are potent enough to fuck you
[19:59] <toad_> which was substantial - and there were other costs such as america not being able to do anything else militarily while tied up in iraq
[19:59] <toad_> i don't understand what the problem is
[19:59] <toad_> freenet is useful now. it will be useful while we still have a recognizable internet. it will be useful afterwards. what is the problem?
[20:00] <whomever> the "afterwards" is pretty depressing
[20:01] <whomever> would be nice to prevent "afterwards" from happening somehow
[20:01] <toad_> one way to do this is to empower and educate the public
[20:01] <toad_> which is the whole point really
[20:01] <whomever> and it will be a hell of a lot less useful (as useful as it can be, perhaps, under a very bad set of operating conditions)
[20:01] <toad_> and freenet is of value for doing that
[20:01] <whomever> sure
[20:02] <toad_> ultimately the dark-routed-sneakernet is of value to help organize peaceful and successful revolution
[20:02] <toad_> now give me one good reason for me to continue this discussion
[20:02] <whomever> but it ultimately comes out as a far sadder and more modest thing than the "protecting your freedom" rallying cry leads you do hope
[20:02] <whomever> there is no good reason
[20:03] <whomever> just proves that my hopes were too high
[20:03] <toad_> i don't see it as being sad
[20:03] <toad_> i see it as making the best of a bad situation
[20:03] <toad_> and hopefully doing so to devastating effect
[20:03] <whomever> i want a way to _deter_ or _prevent_ them from pushing that button.
[20:04] <whomever> that's my big hope
[20:04] <toad_> i've just given you one
[20:04] <toad_> educate the public, and empower them
[20:04] <toad_> you can do that through freenet
[20:04] <toad_> they can see that anonymous p2p is useful
[20:04] <whomever> but will it matter when push comes to shove?
[20:04] <toad_> for mundane things such as high bandwidth zero cost no advertising websites
[20:04] <whomever> when the terrorists need to be curtailed?
[20:05] <whomever> and the pedophiles need to be collared?
[20:05] <toad_> and for less mundane things such as political speech against diebold, the church of scientology, or whomever else
[20:05] <whomever> plenty of people are going to come down on the side of regulation, giving the state infinite power to control information.
[20:05] <toad_> whomever: they do now. the Man has not done what you suggest.
[20:05] <toad_> all bets are off if there is another serious terrorist attack, sure
[20:05] <toad_> but there are powerful forces on both sides
[20:06] <whomever> so what protects your freedom is that your freedom fortunately doesn't need to be protected from anyone
[20:06] <toad_> it will take a while to seriously undermine the principles of democracy in the west
[20:06] <toad_> if your reasoning was correct, if people really didn't care, then we'd have had a national firewall years ago
[20:06] <whomever> i'm not sure free communication is really a principle of democracy. unlimited power over information is certainly an invitation to totalitarianism, though.
[20:06] <toad_> we don't
[20:07] <whomever> maybe it just takes its time
[20:07] <toad_> freedom of speech is a critical principle of democracy
[20:07] <toad_> without it, you can appear to be a democracy while in reality being totalitarian by any reasonable definition
[20:07] <whomever> in any case freenet is not doing anything to prevent that from happening
[20:07] <toad_> you can interfere in the voting process, suppress dissent, you can do whatever you like
[20:07] <toad_> it isn't?
[20:08] <toad_> why is providing free anonymous web publishing not beneficial to democracy?
[20:08] <whomever> bush's decision to push the button would probably only be hastened by people using freenet
[20:08] <toad_> as far as i can see it is a significant benefit
[20:08] <toad_> bush will not decide to push the button
[20:08] <toad_> but whoever did, their decision would be hastened by activities that threatened them
[20:09] <whomever> i mean doing anything to prevent bush from pushing the button
[20:09] <toad_> a theoretical freedom is of little value
[20:09] <toad_> it is of value only if you ACTUALLY USE IT
[20:09] <whomever> sure
[20:09] <toad_> and you can make far more use of it on freenet than on the open internet
[20:09] <whomever> it's just a different sort of aim for the project, using a freedom you have and not "protecting" or "guaranteeing" it in any significant way
[20:09] <whomever> which is fine, but i would love to do moree
[20:09] <toad_> we protect it by using it
[20:09] <toad_> people who use it will want to protect it
[20:10] <whomever> suppose it was possible to increase the cost of locking down the internet dramatically. that would mean something real.
[20:10] <whomever> surely you agree on that even if you think it's just so much dreaming?
[20:10] <toad_> sure, that would be beneficial. personally i think that freenet may have significant non-infringing uses. possibly even economically significant ones in the long term.
[20:10] <whomever> maybe they will protect it, i dunno
[20:11] <whomever> and maybe they will adapt themselves to the new rules
[20:11] <toad_> IMHO the internet is a classic example of that
[20:11] <whomever> especially if you threw in free movies
[20:11] <toad_> the internet greatly increases the cost of locking down the whole of society and media
[20:11] <whomever> i agree
[20:11] <whomever> but i still see it happening.
[20:12] <toad_> if you don't have freenet, and you need to publish the diebold files, you put yourself at risk of being traced, and prosecuted, and censored, and probably blocked by google
[20:12] <toad_> if you do, you can do it relatively risk free, and more importantly, it can't really be blocked
[20:13] <whomever> i even thought up a way to make meddling in a network costly. you make meddling screw up some really important business transactions. that was my big hope this week for deterring button-pushing.
[20:13] <whomever> of course, because freenet lets you use the freedom they allow you
[20:13] <whomever> that's a good thing
[20:13] <whomever> i don't oppose freenet or anything like it
[20:13] <toad_> now that may produce an incentive to block freenet, and therefore to block the internet, but it is only because you tried to USE your rights that they are threatened. "No good deed goes unpunished."
[20:14] <whomever> i just want a freenet with teeth
[20:14] <whomever> because i fear it'll need them
[20:14] <toad_> teeth come from the molotov cocktail, the kalashnikov, the ballot box, the crowd of 100,000 demonstrators
[20:14] <toad_> teeth do not come from the internet itself
[20:15] <whomever> i wish you were wrong
[20:15] <whomever> because my plans for world revolution haven't been coming along very well lately :)
[20:15] <toad_> :)
[20:16] <toad_> rough guide to revolution: life is bad. rebel. replace ruler. ruler's second replaces original ruler and makes life even worse for fear of counter-revolution.
[20:16] <whomever> it's a simple thing really. if locking down the internet---if putting the mass of joe schmoe's behind a filter of some sort---is politically dangerous, if it threatens your power or harms you, you will choose not to do it.
[20:16] <toad_> whomever: the People who hold ultimate power can only exercise it if they can organize. to organize they must communicate.
[20:17] <toad_> whomever: freenet lets them do that
[20:17] <toad_> helps them to do that
[20:17] <toad_> just like a gun is of no use until you have somebody prepared to use it
[20:17] <whomever> it's not even clear that people would see the threat that the technologies of control pose in the long term, how they invite ever more control by making it easy.
[20:17] * NullAcht15 (~NullAcht1@dsl-082-082-144-255.arcor-ip.net) Quit (Remote closed the connection)
[20:17] <toad_> but if you do it can be really useful
[20:18] <whomever> if that awareness could be raised, it would help
[20:18] <toad_> whomever: as a dictatorship becomes more obvious, as it necessarily has to, the people will understand
[20:18] <toad_> even if they did not at first understand, they will eventually
[20:18] <toad_> whether they will care, and whether they will be able to do anything about it, are important questions
[20:18] <whomever> maybe we should distribute grenades with every fred download or something
[20:19] <whomever> so once they steal your freedom you can blow them up
[20:19] <whomever> and then reinstall fred
[20:19] <toad_> unorganized violence will be of no value, and will be crushed
[20:19] <toad_> organized violence will install a dictator even worse than the first one
[20:19] <toad_> organized mass revolt with no violent intention can win and achieve major good
[20:19] * Bombe puts another entry in his ignore list.
[20:20] <toad_> as we have seen in so many countries recently
[20:20] <toad_> you need not to have too extreme a despot though, or it becomes very very hard
[20:20] <toad_> but technologies like Freenet expand the range over which you can successfully rebel
[20:21] <whomever> i don't see that really. here in the US freenet would mostly help you download filez
[20:21] <toad_> and that's bad because...?
[20:21] <toad_> right now you can download FileZ from any number of sources
[20:21] <whomever> it's not bad, but it is a smaller good
[20:21] <toad_> but FileZ in the broadest sense are quite useful things
[20:22] <whomever> would be nice to have a technology that could really break china's firewall.
[20:22] <whomever> or create a bulwark against censorship for a long time
[20:22] <toad_> freenet can break china's firewall today
[20:22] <whomever> i want something that will last.
[20:23] <whomever> a permanent firewall against internet control.
[20:23] <toad_> nothing lasts unless human beings fight for it
[20:23] <toad_> freenet is a tool
[20:23] <whomever> that may be too much to ask when your tools are technological innovation.
[20:23] <toad_> just like democracy is not self sustaining
[20:23] <toad_> democracy is a structure, and it helps to preserve itself
[20:23] <toad_> but if people do not fight for it it will degenerate into plutocracy fascism and so on
[20:23] <whomever> yeah, but clearly technology is a part of the world against which decisions are made
[20:24] <whomever> it is not irrelevant, and therefore technical developments can influence political decisions.
[20:24] <toad_> sure, like the internet
[20:24] <whomever> so just find that particular technological backdrop that precludes internet lockdown
[20:24] <whomever> and we have it made
[20:25] <whomever> i find that challenge compelling
[20:25] <toad_> if there is one then it is a working, secure and fast freenet
[20:25] <toad_> i intend to build two parallel networks in 0.7, one open and one closed
[20:25] <toad_> and I repeat what I have said - that freenet will have "legitimate" uses, and if we can get it to perform sufficiently well they may be substantial
[20:26] <whomever> doubt it would matter much. the button is pushed, the masses switch because Tyrant Browser 3000 downloads movies faster, you're fucked.
[20:26] <whomever> ultimately they are in control and they can play this battle of hearts and minds too
[20:26] <toad_> Tyrant Browser 3000 will not download moviez faster. because the state is in bed with industry, and industry don't like piracy.
[20:26] <toad_> it may download DRM'd, paid for movies faster, but you'll use a hardware device for that anyway
[20:26] <whomever> so they pay off industry. either way the principle of bribery remains
[20:27] <toad_> you don't watch movies on your PC in general, you use a hardware box connected to your TV
[20:27] <toad_> we are going round and round in circles
[20:27] <toad_> i have won the argument
[20:27] <toad_> i propose to go to bed
[20:27] <whomever> now everyone says "oh look things are getting better" and nobody worries about how a technology of unlimited control is being put into place
[20:28] <whomever> because that is something some crackpot activist like john gilmore would worry about
[20:28] <whomever> good night
[20:28] <toad_> good night
[20:28] <whomever> everybody wins an argument
[20:28] * whomever (~asdfasdf@adsl-68-20-15-138.dsl.emhril.ameritech.net) Quit ("Download Gaim: http://gaim.sourceforge.net/")
[20:31] * Romster (Romster@203.129.152.35) has joined #freenet
[20:43] * m[a]zzanet (~irc@203-217-53-65.dyn.iinet.net.au) has joined #freenet
[20:43] * fridim_miam is now known as Fridim
[20:49] * mazzanet (~irc@mazzanet.user) Quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
[20:49] * m[a]zzanet is now known as mazzanet
[20:54] * Rom|Away (Romster@203.129.144.81) Quit (Connection timed out)
[21:19] * Fridim (~fridim@166-74-118-80.kaptech.net) Quit ("leaving")
[21:35] * pittaman (~mistery_b@d5152629C.access.telenet.be) Quit (Client Quit)
[21:39] * cbreak (~cbreak@84-72-98-199.dclient.hispeed.ch) Quit ("leaving")
[22:44] * Pink_Rat (rattus@12-214-7-239.client.mchsi.com) has joined #freenet
[22:47] * sanity (~ian@81-178-91-152.dsl.pipex.com) Quit ()
These logs were automatically created by Jay Oliveri with his gimp hapi on irc.freenode.net.