Talk:Hyphanet

Inaccuracy

F2F prevents random people from proving that your IP address can effectively be used to get some controversial files. Freenet does not offer this protection because for efficiency reasons (path shortening) some random nodes are allowed to connect directly to your node, thus exchanging files faster, but thus knowing your IP and thus being able to prove that specific files can be obtained from your computer. However, due to Freenet's "plausible deniability" and the way in which Freenet redistributes files among nodes, one cannot prove that those files were placed there by the node owner or that the node owner knows what they are. This would not be true for version 0.7 of freenet becuase v0.7 would support Darknet mode and should be indicated as such.

Unless someone can justify the claim that Freenet is a distributed hash table, I'm going to remove that. Although the term DHT is not defined precisely, it is generally agreed that DHTs are guaranteed to find data that exists in the network associated with a given key. The last time I looked at the Freenet protocol, it did not provide such a guarantee. Has anything changed? --Nethgirb 01:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

As the article says, Freenet's routing system uses a distributed hash table. Freenet itself is not a DHT, as far as I know, but the article never claims that it is. You're correct, there is no guarantee that a certain piece of data will be found. No P2P system can make this guarantee, by the way. --Rhobite 02:14, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Right, my point is that Freenet's routing system is not, and does not use, a DHT. There is a second statement in the Tech Design section which I think is accurate: Freenet's routing algorithm is similar to that employed by distributed hash tables (DHTs). The main differences are that Freenet nodes do not have fixed specialisations, and the routing algorithm is heuristic in nature. I agree that no one can provide absolute guarantees, but DHTs do provide strong guarantees under some assumptions: for example, if the network membership and connectivity is stable for a sufficiently long period of time, any data stored in the DHT will be returned successfully by a lookup operation. This is not true of Freenet, wherein the data may not be found at all even under ideal network conditions. (That deficiency is what motivated some DHT research in the first place.) --Nethgirb 06:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

POV?

This article is essentially propaganda and needs to be completely rewritten. Anybody? --LMS

I disagree. It overstretches itself and is a bit redundant, but I don't think it's completely worthless. Attempting revisions below. --LDC

I didn't say it was completely worthless, I said it was essentially propaganda, which it is (there's nothing wrong with that--it's just not encyclopedic), and that it needs to be completely rewritten, which it does. I'd prefer that someone who actually knows about freenet do it, since I don't... --LMS

Well, I wrote most of the official Freenet FAQ, which I like to think is pretty neutral, but I certainly am not very neutral about the subject itself, so maybe I'm not the best one to do it. I can certainly answer the technical questions anyone writing this might have. --LDC

Since I put the initial article here, I'll take a stab at rewriting it tonight in a way more oriented toward how it works rather than the goals it was created for. --Bryan Derksen

There's nothing wrong with covering its goals, either; so long as you correctly point out that those are, in fact, goals of the project (the present article simply says "Freenet is...", blindly assuming that the goals have in fact been achieved). --LDC

I've replaced large chunks of the original simplistic "what is freenet" stuff with a more detailed and hopefully more objective description of how the system works lifted from the protocol description by Adam Langley (also covered by the GFDL). Is good? --BD

Withstanding attacks

Can we have some more info about the robustness of the network? What possible attacks have been proposed against it and how does it fare? (Trying to identify individual users or content inserted/accessed by them, trying to overload the network with many very large random data files, etc.) What happens to files that are never retrieved? --Omegatron 16:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The upshot seems to be that malicious nodes have to be a large proportion of the network before it begins to really fail;, overloading the network requires truly astronomical resources (since the files have to be individually requested before they really use up bandwidth, and their prevalence is a function of popularity- random data would be unpopular would not spread much beyond their originator), files never requested expire out of cache, and traffic analysis to break individual anonymity, assuming they are not leaking their identity through their browser or some other way (this is why it is a good idea to set up a filtering proxy, like privoxy. Also a good idea to set up Tor as well.), requires much the same network saturation as the first attack. That's the gist their published academic papers on the subject gave to me, anyway. --maru 23:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Remove technical details?

I propose that the technical design of freenet be completely deleted, since an encyclopedia is not the place to discuss such detail. --Anonymous

I disagree. Plenty of articles on Wikipedia have a great deal of technical detail, I think it fits in well here. --Bryan 08:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. It's perfectly relevant. --Omegatron 16:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I also propose that the sentence which identifies Ian Clarke as a man from Ireland is important, since the world will likely assume an American came up with the idea that no information should be censored.

I also want to see the fact that freenet can not remove directions to make weapons of mass destruction be clearly posted, as this is the most dangerous byproduct of the freenet philosophy

That seems somewhat POV to me. Why not just leave it at "information placed onto Freenet is hard to remove" or some other such general formulation? WMD information is included under that. --Bryan 08:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WHY? Because this the primary controversy over freenet, and wikipedia has a duty to inform the public that freenet, and its fundamental belief, is controversial. You think people really care about stolen music compared to child porn and WMD? The United States Secret Service, FBI, Customs, and probably a few others are keeping a close eye on freenet for this reason. What we have so far in wikipedia is, in my opinion, slanted far to much toward cybergeeks and not enough for the general population.

I reject the long detailed explanation of how freenet works, because >95% of the internet doesnt know what a crypto hash is. Yet you want to ignore the fact that freenet is IDEAL for child porn distribution, or worse, WMD? You automatically assume people will deduce the dangers posed by freenet from "information placed onto Freenet is hard to remove"? I consider people with this type of thinking to be very irresponsible, and living in a liberal-utopian-socialist dreamworld instead of reality. Freenet is based on an idea that the world "should be" a certain way, at too much of an expense of acknowledging the way the world is, and the implications of actions taken in the name of the way the world should be. (As a Republican, I acknowledge the irony of the birth of the Republican party solely to end slavery, yes, they placed the way the world "should be" as a far higher priority and started a war and I agree with them, but such is life.)

As an American, I will fully support an effort to prosecute Mr. Clarke, merely as an example of freedom of speech not being absolute (it never has been in America). The reason for this is that freenet is the IDEAL test case to get this mess sorted out. From a political strategy, NOW is the time to do it. The publicity provided by the case will be counterbalanced by the fact that freenet is, at the moment, too hard to use. We should attempt to kill it now, not later. From a legal and political strategy, now is the time to take this to court. Do not misunderstand me, I don't want him dead, or assaulted, or even serving more than 5 years. I want a court case. Mr. Clarke, and people like him, need to take more responsibility for the results of their actions. He would be an ideal candidate for a pardon after doing a small amount of time. He is not a stupid person, he has the intelligence to understand the ramifications of such technology, and should be held accountable for his actions. He has designed and help to create a tool which violates current law, and a precedent needs to be set. (this is November 2004, for you guys reading this in the future. Get off your ass and file the paperwork). From a strategy perspective, homosexuals/bi/lesbian/gay/etc etc, made a very bad decision pushing their case (which I partly support) at this time. It fueled a turnout of conservatives opposed to them, which helped re-elected Bush. They have nothing to do with freenet, but I cite an example of flawed strategy. You guys are making that same flaw, and it will likely cause you to lose. With a republican president, senate, house, and possible supreme court appointments, the war on terror (child porn is more strategic priority than WMD), NOW is the time to prosecute the freenet supporters for violation of existing law.

I cite the freenetproject.org FAQ the way it is today, at [1], the question "I don't want my node to be used to harbor child porn, offensive content or terrorism. What can I do?", where part of the official response is "If this is not acceptable to you, you should not run a Freenet node." My understanding of this is that if I dont want child porn on my computer, I should not use freenet. I infer from this that freenet knowingly will spread, and allow for distribution, with not attempt for removal of, and expressly designed against removal of, child pornography. I cite section (D) of 18 U.S.C. § 2256: "or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct". Please do not reply to this with an explanation of the freenet/libertarian perspective, I am very well versed in it. I provided an explanation, not an invitation for a debate [somebody please but a strikthru on the "not an invitation.."]. --Anonymous

You can't avoid a debate simply by saying you don't want one. :) In this case, you're putting out a huge amount of verbiage about a particular potential future legal attack based over information that's not even known to be on Freenet at this time. Maybe if such an attack does occur it'll be worth focusing on this specific type of content, but for the time being I don't think there's any reason to focus specifically on WMD information. Child porn would be a much better example, it's come up frequently in the past. --Bryan 02:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, child porn should be the #1 justification for a legal clarification, which requires a test case. I'll gladly entertain a debate. I simply do not value freedom of speech as an absolute value, you can not yell fire in a theatre as free speech because people get hurt. Freenet is a form of anarchy which tries to utilize an apparent legal argument, while simultaneously rejecting the rule of law. It was designed specifically to defeat the rule of law. --Anonymous

Maybe the technical design section could be streamlined and wikified, but deleted? No. As Bryan said, technical details are still encyclopedic. Just look at any number of physiology or chemistry articles for example. I don't see how Ian Clarke's nationality has much relevance to an NPOV article about Freenet, but the latest edit is better than your previous effort. As for the WMD thing, it's a valid point and you already included it - I don't think anyone should remove that. Although the question of whether this is a "dangerous product" of their philosophy is of course debatable, and should be presented in NPOV fashion. --Rhobite 17:10, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you. I propose we add a section titled "the controversy", and reduce the size of the technical explanation to a smaller, simpler explanation. I also suggest renaming the section which appears to be titled in french. I do think his nationality is important, but I also think the entire wikipedia needs to do a better job with people's nationality, since this is a true global encyclopedia. I have a problem with people assuming that freenet represents america, but I do not want to see nationality identified only for Ian clarke, the entire wikipedia needs to do a better job in my opinion. Since Ian Clarke is his own entry in wikipedia, perhaps it should go there. Also, is freenet a good example of distributed development? If not, perhaps that doesn't even need to be there. (??) --Anon.

I'm troubled by both your suggestions of legal action merely for publishing software, and your attempts to turn this talk page into a debate. Now, I'm aware of some controversy, and certainly there are some trolls on Slashdot who love to point out Freenet's seedier uses. But to my knowledge, it hasn't received too much bad press from reputable sources. Please don't turn this article into a giant warning, and please remember to follow NPOV in your future edits. --Rhobite 00:00, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, and feel this is the place to discuss the explanations for the reasons to change the wikipedia entry for freenet, and wikipedia will be an ideal place for a good article about freenet. The wikipedia development method will make for an excellent quality article, such as the level of quality of the Saddam Hussein article. I have expanded my explanation, I ask that it not be deleted, only moved farther down. I would be delighted to see this discussion page as an ideal example of why freenet is controversial. Wikipedia should be a great source of information about freenet and the controversy surrounding it. The lack of press is expected, this is currently in the domain of the cybergeek, and once it is ready for mainstream it will then no longer be in our domain. I want it killed now. Separately, I just now learned what you guys meant by NPOV. It's hard being neutral when you are strongly on one side of an issue, and will do my best to make my edits of the ARTICLE neutral, but not so on this page. --Anonymous

I'm glad that you're making an effort to remain neutral, and I think you have generally done a good job remaining neutral on the article. Incidentally I don't see any new edits by you, maybe you're still working on it. Just remember to attribute any value judgments, such as criticism or praise, and you'll be fine. --Rhobite 02:45, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I just read your expanded rant. Again, PLEASE don't use this talk page to start a debate or a flamewar. I'm resisting the urge to tear your argument to pieces, but this isn't the place. --Rhobite 02:49, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Please do, it would be healthy for the article to have a very large discussion. We can always place this "old" discussion lower than the top. New readers need not spend their time reading all of this unless they want to.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a discussion forum. Please keep it on the topic of improving this article. In my experience, the kind of opinion-based debate you're trying to start isn't helpful to an article's quality. --Rhobite 07:58, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I believe the article is now of a much higher quality than it was before, therefore I disagree. I'm more interested in clearly stating my case and seeing the article reflect my input, and that has been accomplished. I consider this issue a combination of law, facts, and opinions. It appears you view this primarily as opinion. Regardless, my job is done here. I still think the technical section needs to be simplified. Please note that I do not personally hate Mr. Clarke, rather I want to see the law catch up with the Internet. God bless freedom of speech in China, and other countries. --Anonymous

Over 70% of the Purpose section had become an opinion piece against the philosophy of absolute freedom of communication. It is challenging to find evidence of the so-called controversy online, particularly given that P2P networks as a whole only account for 1.7% of Internet-related child pornography reports to the NCMEC --sanity

I've occasionally tried to convince people to run Freenet nodes, and the child porn thing seemed to come up as a roadblock every time, I think it's certainly worthy of a mention. Perhaps the paragraph could use some tweaking in the details but most of this seems factual and reasonably NPOV, so simply deleting it isn't correct IMO. I've restored it and done a little tweaking of my own. --Bryan 15:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not saying that this issue doesn't deserve a mention, but I believe that it is inappropriate for it to occupy most of the section which is supposed to describe the purpose of Freenet. I have moved this into a separate section, I hope this will be a satisfactory compromise --sanity

Looks okay to me. --Bryan 08:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Freenet links

Just thought that some people editing this page might be interested in Freenet links project and the current incident on the Admin noticeboard regarding it at Beta_M and his freenet spamming. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

Beta, please do not use templates for sigs. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I added my opinion there. I think it's a good idea but I question whether the links will be useful to many users. --Rhobite 20:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Seems ironic that the only thing the "no Freenet links" camp agrees to is that Freenet links might have a place in the Freenet article, and yet there are none here. (Links to public proxies would be nice too.)

Oh, and the bit about "Beta_M and his freenet spamming" on the noticeboard has been moved to an archive page. --magetoo 17:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

0.7 redesign

I updated the Current Development section with more details of the 0.7 rewrite, however at some point much of the article, particularly the Technical Design section, will need to be modified to account for these pretty fundamental changes to Freenet's architecture. Posted 14:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The existing technical design stuff should be preserved under some appropriate header, though, for historical purposes. --Bryan 04:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiki links

I added Tor (anonymous network) and GNUnet, due to similarities, I think people would be interested in looking at both of those if they are interested in freenet. --Anon.