I know they removed the anonymity features, but he says they have plans to add something as a layer on top instead of having anonymity baked into the core. He said with anonymity, they’ll still have “robust safeguards against illegal usage.” IDK what that means.
Hmm, though it’s exceptionally tough to corral illegal use without attribution, that notion of anonymous posting was one of the principal drivers of the original project. Whistleblowers and the like have solid needs to be able to get info out without it being traced back.
Of course, illegal would have to be defined as well. Inevitably disclosing classified info is illegal, but in many cases not immoral.
So it’s not truly anonymous? Isn’t the entire point of anonymity is to be against people snooping on your private business? Also, since when illegal a catch-all term for all bad things?
Owning slave was legal, and that is certainly bad. Apartheid is still legal in places and that is certainly bad. Criticizing the govt are illegal in MANY countries, but that is certainly bad. Jaywalking is illegal, but does that warrants it being bad?
Does the author of Freenet appoints his moral to a law other human made, god(s?) made, or he himself made?
Maybe I thought about this too far and missed freenet’s author points, maybe I’m just pissed off with people playing by the rules that wants to remove other people’s privacy and increase the privacy of people in power.
Maybe I’m just lame and this is the coolest thing ever.
I know they removed the anonymity features, but he says they have plans to add something as a layer on top instead of having anonymity baked into the core. He said with anonymity, they’ll still have “robust safeguards against illegal usage.” IDK what that means.
Hmm, though it’s exceptionally tough to corral illegal use without attribution, that notion of anonymous posting was one of the principal drivers of the original project. Whistleblowers and the like have solid needs to be able to get info out without it being traced back.
Of course, illegal would have to be defined as well. Inevitably disclosing classified info is illegal, but in many cases not immoral.
So it’s not truly anonymous? Isn’t the entire point of anonymity is to be against people snooping on your private business? Also, since when illegal a catch-all term for all bad things?
Owning slave was legal, and that is certainly bad. Apartheid is still legal in places and that is certainly bad. Criticizing the govt are illegal in MANY countries, but that is certainly bad. Jaywalking is illegal, but does that warrants it being bad?
Does the author of Freenet appoints his moral to a law other human made, god(s?) made, or he himself made?
Maybe I thought about this too far and missed freenet’s author points, maybe I’m just pissed off with people playing by the rules that wants to remove other people’s privacy and increase the privacy of people in power.
Maybe I’m just lame and this is the coolest thing ever.
Either is or it isn’t and this clearly isn’t. I suspect it’s a skill issue