Freenet Version 0.7 Release Candidate 1 Available

apostle5406 writes to mention that the "Freenet" project (a global peer-to-peer publishing network) has unveiled their first release candidate. "Freenet 0.7 is a ground-up rewrite of Freenet. The key user-facing feature in Freenet 0.7 is the ability to operate Freenet in a "darknet" mode, where your Freenet node will only talk to other Freenet users that you trust. This makes it much more difficult for an adversary to discover that you are using Freenet, let alone what you are doing with it. 0.7 also includes significant improvements to both security and performance."

Well, that's good...

[koh (124962)]

But is it faster? Please?

Re:Well, that's good...

[evanbd (210358)]

Yes, it's faster. No, it's not fast, but it is usable.

There are some browser setting changes that help a lot; Freenet includes a Firefox profile with the appropriate changes for use when browsing Freenet. It won't ever be as fast as the web, but most freesites are quite usable. Plenty of people report success downloading largish files (isos, etc).

You'll want to leave your node connected for a while; it will get faster over the first few minutes / hours it's installed, and somewhat even after that, especially as your node begins to cache popular data. As always, having a fast network connection helps a lot.

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

This is exactly what was always said about Freenet -- leave your node connected for awhile, large files work well, change your browser settings, etc.

And I did this, and it worked, somewhat. It was just staggeringly unusable, most of the time.

Re:

[evanbd (210358)]

That's an odd thing to say, considering that there are plenty of people out there using Freenet who haven't been arrested / disappeared / etc.

Perhaps you should get your tinfoil hat resized.

Re:Well, that's good...

[grumbel (592662)]

When it comes to speed Freenet has still a few problems:

1) Freenet tries to keep downstream and upstream bandwidth equal, this means that it gets hard to tell if your node is downloading or uploading anything, which is good for anonymity, but it also means that you are limited to your upstream bandwidth, which with most DSL providers isn't all that great and often a tenth of your normal downstream bandwidth. There is basically no chance that this ever gets fixed.

2) Freenets datastore/cache is extremely slow, it doesn't really matter how often you already already visited a page, revisiting it again takes often a long long while, while it really should be instantaneous, after all the data is already on your machine. Tweaking a few settings in Firefox helps a bit, but the performance is still so bad that it is basically unusable for actual browsing, even if things are in your cache. This pretty much sucks, but luckily isn't by design and should be fixable.

3) KSK redirect downloads are slow, which in turns means that message systems like Frost, that are based on KSKs, are very easily spammed up to a level where you can't even download all the spam, i.e. it isn't just an annoyance but completly blocks both download and upload of messages. There is another messaging system in development and that KSK problem might also be fixable from what I understand.

Other then that Freenet works for most parts as expected. It won't win any speed records anytime soon, but it works for uploading and downloading even larger ones when you have the time.

Re:

[fbjon (692006)]

A few rebukes:

1. The default for Freenet nodes is to have downstream limit = 4 * upstream limit. My stats show the total input at about 50% more compared to output over a couple of days of uptime.
2. Revisiting is actually instantaneous for me right now, I just checked with a page I've never visited before that wasn't already in my datastore/cache (took about 14 seconds to load the first time).

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Your child porn, sadly, will not download any faster. Freenet users are disgusting.

Your information to fight totalitarian governments, sadly, will not download any faster.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Well, that's good...

[evanbd (210358)]

The first link from the Ultimate Freenet Index (one of the larger index sites) is to images of violence in Tibet.

Is that somehow not good enough for you?

Link [127.0.0.1] (requires freenet to be installed and running.)

what percentage of traffic is kiddie porn?

[elucido (870205)]

Can anyone give us numbers on the precise percentage of Freenet traffic that kiddie porn makes up?

I'm concerned about the kiddie porn problem, but why the hell would people even go through the trouble of using Freenet just to trade kiddie porn?

It's sick, but sometimes I wonder if the individuals who do upload that shit to Freenet do it precisely to get Freenet shut down.

What better way to get something shut down than to upload kiddie porn? Any serious users wont want to use it anymore and then it will ONLY

Re:

[Cyberax (705495)]

That's one of the stupidest post on the Slashdot for a while.

First of all, most of the security bugs ARE FOUND IN THE C/C++ CODE. Java is MUCH MUCH MUCH more secure than C/C++ in practice. To remotely exploit FreeNode, you'll need quite an exotic combination of bugs in JVM _and_ in the FreeNet.

And Java works just fine on PDAs, and FreeNet doesn't use anything fancy and non-portable like cool SWING GUIs.

Bugs exist either way

[elucido (870205)]

If you want a bug proof program, you aren't going to find that using Java or C, or C++. At least C and C++ is fast. Java is slow as hell and it's still buggy. If you like Java thats your preference, but C is my preference and you aren't such an authority where you can say one language is objectively better than another.

Are you going to say, that if GNUPG, or GNU-Net is written in C, that it's inferior to Freenet JUST because it's written in C and can fall for a buffer overflow exploit?

If you have remote exp

Re:

[xappax (876447)]

It's the same technology they use to have DRM.

Exactly - and name a DRM software technology that's impossible to break. There are none - it's not possible to create a media file that will display on normal personal computers and still prevent it from being "ripped" or re-encoded in a non-DRM format.

Unless you strongly understand every aspect of a technology like DRM or watermarking, it's unwise to assume that it will magically solve a given problem, such as tracing photographs.

Darknet Mode

[garett_spencley (193892)]

"This makes it much more difficult for an adversary to discover that you are using Freenet, let alone what you are doing with it."

Sure, that's all fine and dandy for the person who wants to conceal that he's using Freenet ... but what about us stalkers and snoopers ? Where does that leave us ?

The humanity! :(

Freedom

[immcintosh (1089551)]

Seems like Freenet is really pursuing their namesake, and setting themselves up specifically to provide a means of communication within otherwise locked down and totalitarian environments. A commendable goal I think. I have to wonder though, if this level of security is actually necessary, who CAN you really trust to use this new "darknet" with? Seems like the sort of place you'd use it would also be the sort of place where you could trust no one.

Re:Freedom

[Em Adespoton (792954)]

Let's say you're going on a business trip into hostile territory and want to be able to access data from HQ... all of your company could set up a darknet and keep all the sensitive data on it -- then when you're accessing it via your soon-to-be competitor's LAN, their sysadmin can's snoop in on the data you're accessing.

Also useful for Tibettan monks blogging about their current activities and trying to get the word out ;)

The viscious circle of bootstrapping freenet

[jmorris42 (1458)]

> Seems like the sort of place you'd use it would also be the sort of place where you could trust no one.

It's worse. There ain't no such thing as a 'darknet' to your ISP. If you are in the sort of place that needs Freenet you can be certain your ISP will report you to the government for using freenet. In the sort of places that need Freenet, possession of Freenet will get you shot. In places that having freenet won't get you shot the only people who will bother setting it up is pedophiles and others who are doing things that would get them imprisoned or shot.

These are hard facts. Yes it would be great if a critical mass of non illegal activity could get on Freenet to provide the chaff to provide cover for the occasional whistleblower who really needs it, but getting from here to there is all but impossible. Freenet will, by design, underperform a normal straight connection so there is a strong disincentive for legit content to use it. The only possible hope is if the *IAA goons drive piracy[1] far enough underground that the file traders adopt Freenet. But I really doubt Freenet in it's current form will be able to scale anywhere near large enough to handle the warez scene, especially in the age of full HD ripping we are hurtling towards. The limited size of the local data cache and cable/DSL upload speeds just won't suffer the inefficiencies involved.

[1] Yes, 'pirated' movies are illegal just like kiddieporn but as a practical matter they differ in one vital aspect. 90+% of Internet users currently trade movies, songs, etc. and thus would likely trade them on Freenet if Bittorrent becomes too dangerous, whereas few will currently install a freenet node due to the popular perception is that having one currently is tantamount to admitting being into, or at least a willing faciliator of kiddieporn.

Re:

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

Freenet will, by design, underperform a normal straight connection so there is a strong disincentive for legit content to use it.

That's almost true. Your node caches all content that passes through it, even that which your neighbor nodes have requested. Once it's cached, retrieval is almost instantaneous since your browser is fetching it from your own server. Translation: peer with people who share your tastes, and let their browsing habits pre-cache the content that you might also find interesting.

Re:Freedom

[paganizer (566360)]

I bet I'm going to get labeled troll.
Freenet 0.7+ is not secure. they gave anonymity and privacy up when they went with the Darknet concept.
With a Darknet, if you compromise one machine, or even just do traffic monitoring, you can easily determine other members of the Darknet; anonymity is just not there.
The old system, Freenet up to 0.5 (which is still alive and well, and might even have more users than 0.7) is an OpenNet; all you can tell about a person by monitoring traffic is that they are, indeed, using Freenet. even on a seized computer, You can not really tell who the people that person talks to are; you can only tell which other freenet nodes the persons computer has talked to, and that gives no clue as to the person identity. it can, theoretically, give clues (assuming a vast network of computers is trying to track someones identity) that a node is statistically likely to be someone you are looking for. But thats it.
No one who is sticking with 0.5 has a clue why the Freenet Developers are doing this, when it's so obviously a flawed concept. Conspiracy theories abound.

Re:Freedom

[evanbd (210358)]

If you don't like darknet mode, don't use it. 0.7 has both darknet and opennet available.

There are lots of reasons why darknets are better, but if you'd rather use an opennet instead no one is stopping you. You can get to the network either way.

Re:

[Sanity (1431)]

With Freenet 0.5 you are essentially broadcasting to the world that you are using Freenet. With Freenet 0.7's darknet mode, they can only determine you are running Freenet if they compromise one of your friends. Now sure, that is possible, but it requires much more effort on their part. The only reason Freenet 0.5 works at all is that it has virtually no users.

Re:Pedophiles

[Slashdot Suxxors (1207082)]

That is a complete fabrication. You sir, ought to be ashamed with yourself for turning /. into a HOUSE OF LIES.

Re:Pedophiles

[paganizer (566360)]

It is a fabrication.
I've been using freenet for a long, long, log time, since 0.3 was freshly released.
The truth is that Pedophiles do NOT use Freenet 0.7; it's insecure, and their identity would be too easily compromised.
This means it's also not smart for whistle blowers, activists, freedom fighters, or anyone else to trust it's anonymity & privacy. You seize the computer of one Darknet user, and all the members of that darknet are compromised. other insecurities abound.
A good rule of thumb; if Pedophiles can use a system with impunity, it's probably safe to talk about your boss ripping off the government.
Freenet 0.5 is still active, still has thousands (at least) of users, and is still private and anonymous; the only thing anyone can say about a user without using a keylogger is that they are, indeed, a user. and thats not necessarily easy to say with total certainty.
Freenet is either going to have Pedo's and other sick farks, or it's anonymous & private; you can't have both.

Re:Pedophiles

[paganizer (566360)]

"Freenet is either going to have Pedo's and other sick farks, or it's anonymous & private; you can't have both."

note to self: use the frakking preview button!!

try "Freenet is either going to have Pedo's and other sick farks, or it's NOT anonymous or private; you can't have it both ways"

Re:Pedophiles

[PopeRatzo (965947)]

Unfortunately, a secure, private, anonymous network will draw people doing nasty things.

That does not make it any less necessary for our future freedom.

Remember, privacy does the same thing: it allows people to do bad things. That doesn't mean we give up our privacy, just because people will do bad things privately.

At some point, pedophiles (and other bad actors) have to stick their heads above ground in order to satisfy their urges. That's where they should be met and stopped.

I think it's safe to say that any communication medium that is secure, private and anonymous will be accused of harboring the "bad guy du jour" whether it's terrorists, pedophiles or soon, file sharers. It doesn't matter whether this accusation is true or not, because those with power are going to make the accusations regardless. If our world is to be governed by a tiny group of rich and powerful people, preventing personal security, privacy and anonymity is a matter of survival.

That's why we have to support Freenet and other such tools. Plus, it's a great way of flushing out the tyrants: Just look at whomever is originating the claim that such a tool is full of "pedophiles, terrorists, gay priests, etc etc".

Remember, child pornography can be sent in a sealed envelope. Should we abolish the sealing of envelopes? It's been tried elsewhere. You can bet that shutting down Freenet or any other secure anonymous mode of communication will do absolutely nothing to eliminate pedophilia and other perversions from the face of the Earth.

You'd have better luck locking up all the priests (and Republicans). [note: I'm just kidding... .. about the priests.]

Re:

[evanbd (210358)]

What makes you say 0.5 is more secure than 0.7? There have been a large number of improvements, especially security ones. Not to mention it's faster...

Re:Pedophiles

[paganizer (566360)]

it's a darknet.
The big draw of the Darknet system, to the best of my knowledge, is that it makes you less likely to be noticed in the first place, and you can sort of "pick & choose" which nodes your computer talks to.
Lets put this in a real world situation:
You are A tibetan, living in the U.S.; you have a Darknet made up of other Tibetans, some of them living in China, some in Tibet. You use Freenet 0.7 to plan protests.
If one of your darknet members gets caught by the chinese government, for whatever reason, they will take that persons computer and analyze it. assuming the person did not put the Freenet 0.7 files in a encrypted volume, they then have the IP address of each computer that persons Freenet 0.7 node talked to; since it's a Darknet, they know that those computers are probably involved with the same thing the person they caught was involved in.
In a Open Net (Freenet 0.5), no matter how they analyze the persons computer, they can't say anything about the other nodes the examined computer talked to except that they are running Freenet 0.5; they are still most likely screwed if they live in China or Tibet, but they could conceivably be a little less screwed.

There are some other security improvements in 0.7; nothing is stopping the Freenet developers from putting those improvements on the 0.5 system.

Re:

[westlake (615356)]

A good rule of thumb; if Pedophiles can use a system with impunity, it's probably safe to talk about your boss ripping off the government.

It would also seem to be a good rule of thumb to assume that the system used by the most dangerous elements in society is the system that is going to be under systematic attack by the agencies most likely to have the resources to defeat it.

Re:

[cayenne8 (626475)]

"Freenet 0.5 is still active, still has thousands (at least) of users, and is still private and anonymous;"

I'm curious...what makes 0.7 less secure and anonymous than 0.5? Can you expand on this?

Re:Pedophiles

[bcrowell (177657)]

I'm not surprised that the grandparent decided to post anonymously. The only thing worse for your slashdot karma than criticizing Apple in a comment on an Apple story is to criticize BSD or Freenet in a comment on a BSD or Freenet story. The grandparent (who has now been modded down to -1, Troll) is factually correct. I tried out freenet several years ago, and poking around in the content that existed, it was extremely heavily weighted toward child pornography. Based on that observation, I made a personal decision that I didn't want to run a freenet node, because having my computer running as a freenet node meant I was contributing to that. Now we could have a reasoned debate about the issues. We could ask whether the individual has a responsibility not to contribute to this, or whether the individual is more like a common carrier. We could ask whether any government restrictions on free speech are morally and philosophically acceptable. We could talk about whether concern about child sexual abuse has turned into hysteria, and has resulted in bad legislation. We could make careful distinctions between government and private action against speech we disapprove of. Yes, we could do all these things, but we won't, because this thread is about Freenet, and therefore it will be heavily modded by people who are fans of Freenet. Ironically enough, Freenet users on Slashdot have shown unlimited willingness to use moderation to silence opposing points of view. How do I know? Because this isn't the first time I've sacrificed karma by trying to make a skeptical post about Freenet in slashdot comments on a Freenet story.

Re:Pedophiles

[Jugalator (259273)]

Yes, we could do all these things, but we won't, because this thread is about Freenet, and therefore it will be heavily modded by people who are fans of Freenet. Ironically enough, Freenet users on Slashdot have shown unlimited willingness to use moderation to silence opposing points of view. How do I know? Because this isn't the first time I've sacrificed karma by trying to make a skeptical post about Freenet in slashdot comments on a Freenet story.

It's usually not about what you post, but how you post.

Anyway, yes, obviously there are a number of pedophiles around there. After all, Freenet is a fairly successful anonymizing network. But thanks to this property, it can be immensely useful to other people as well. I'm not sure what can be done about that problem, if anything. Once it starts being monitored to screen the child porn, everything else will be screened too, and those doing the screening will likely only be mere humans that may choose to censor other material as well. And then everything is lost. Anonymizing properly seem to be a bit of an all or nothing deal, just like there is no such thing as a "little" freedom. Either you have it, or you don't.

I guess in the end, it is a fairly simply philosophical matter. A question on whether a person is willing to risk supporting something that's criminal in most parts of the world for other things the person believes in or not.

Re:Pedophiles

[amRadioHed (463061)]

I guess in the end, it is a fairly simply philosophical matter. A question on whether a person is willing to risk supporting something that's criminal in most parts of the world for other things the person believes in or not.

Speaking for myself, my opposition to child pornography has nothing to do with its legal status. I support some things that are currently illegal and I oppose some things that are currently legal. My personal morals are not linked to the whims of lawmakers.

I am not interested in running a freenet node because despite its potential for good the reality is that the chances that my actions will actually accomplish any good are vanishingly small while it's almost a certainty that I would be aiding the distribution of harmful material. There are other ways to support free speech without also compromising my belief in not causing harm to others.

Re:

[stdarg (456557)]

I am not interested in running a freenet node because despite its potential for good the reality is that the chances that my actions will actually accomplish any good are vanishingly small while it's almost a certainty that I would be aiding the distribution of harmful material.

As decent people leave, the network has a higher percentage of bad content. I'm sure people would never have used email and the WWW if 90% of first adopters had been pedophiles, but think of what the world would have missed out on in that case.

It also reminds me a lot of plummeting real estate prices in newly desegregated inner-city neighborhoods. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. "If THEY move in, it'll all go to hell! I'm getting out of here!" then they pat themselves on the back when it indeed does go to

Re:Pedophiles

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

I tried out freenet several years ago, and poking around in the content that existed, it was extremely heavily weighted toward child pornography.

I don't know what index pages you managed to find, but the ones that are preconfigured in Freenet (as of about 6 months ago when I last tried it) were packed with links to government criticisms and a mix of stuff from Wikileaks and Project Gutenberg. The reason you keep getting modded down is that your claim is factually incorrect based on what I've seen.

I'll take your word for it that the nastier stuff is available, even if you have to go digging for it. That doesn't mean that Freenet's not potentially very useful, in exactly the same way the Internet itself is useful even when considering the bad elements.

Re:

[Kamokazi (1080091)]

Nonsense. There are plenty of freenet sites on how to make explosive devices as well as the locations of animal testing labs.

On a serious note, yes it will. But the world is full of tradeoffs. Nothing is perfect. High anomnity allows the scumballs to hide just as much as the legitimite users. Althogh scumballs and legitimate users are a matter of perspective. You may share copyrighted files on there, and think the pedophile is bad for sharing kiddie porn, while he thinks the terrorist is bad for shari

Re:

[hairyfeet (841228)]

The problem I have with Freenet(and why I don't run it anymore) is that it hasn't been tested in US court yet. For those not from here, the US is currently having a "save the childrens from them evil pedos!" witch hunt that makes the red scare look tame. And while I know that Freenet encrypts the cache, I also now that someone with the unlimited funds of the FBI can throw some serious iron at cracking that crypto.

Now I'll admit that I haven't studied Freenet's algorithm for encryption, so I have no idea

Re:

[QCompson (675963)]

The problem I have with Freenet(and why I don't run it anymore) is that it hasn't been tested in US court yet. For those not from here, the US is currently having a "save the childrens from them evil pedos!" witch hunt that makes the red scare look tame. And while I know that Freenet encrypts the cache, I also now that someone with the unlimited funds of the FBI can throw some serious iron at cracking that crypto. Now I'll admit that I haven't studied Freenet's algorithm for encryption, so I have no idea how much iron it would take to crack it, but considering that a single thumbs.db file can net you ten years in PMITA prison, not to mention destroying any future you may have had before conviction, means that until a US court rules on whether the cache from Freenet is considered an illegal download or not I simply cannot risk my families future on it.

Agreed. The current atmosphere in the US towards anything even suspected of being child pr0n is too hysterical and kneejerk to take any risk. Happen to run across a picture of a naked child 3 years ago and immediately delete it? That could cost you five years in federal prison and a lifetime of sex-offender registration.

The penalties for child pr0n possession have become insane, and the threshold is very, very low. The definition of what constitutes child pr0n also becomes broader every year. I don

Re:

[hairyfeet (841228)]

The worst part IMHO, is the way they have pretty much left it to the discretion of the prosecutors and judges. If some dirty minded judge thinks that 23 year old on your pc "looks lolita" she might as well be ten as far as the law is concerned since an adult posing as a child is child porn according to the law. Your 15 year old takes a picture of his willy to send to his 14 year old girlfriend who sent him a tit shot? Now all three of you are child pornographers-you for having the computer, and they for ta

Re:

[QCompson (675963)]

The worst part IMHO, is the way they have pretty much left it to the discretion of the prosecutors and judges.

I agree with your post, but the reason it is left to the discretion of the prosecutors and the judges is because of current public opinion. 99% of the time any jury in the usa will convict anyone and anything the instant they hear the words "child pornography". They convict people possessing thumbs.db files, they convict people for possessing images of clothed children, and they convict underage teenagers for taking nude pictures of themselves... The media and law enforcement have hyped up child pornogr

Re:

[TempeTerra (83076)]

But yes, generally, most people, myself included, would agree pedophiles are scum and deserve a fate worse than the death penalty. I was just playing devil's advocate.

I suspect you were just being flippant, but in case you weren't...

A lot of people believe that the death penalty is never justified. Check out the wikipedia map [wikipedia.org]. It strikes me as odd that the US constitution doesn't prohibit state-endorsed murder. I believe that the highest legal punishment should be life imprisonment, but that's a different r

Re:Pedophiles

[koh (124962)]

The sad fact is that before now, only pedophiles and other criminals used something like Freenet to conceal their activities. Now that everyone (and given current eavesdropping policy in the US and laws recently passed in various EU countries, I really mean everyone) has to use it to maintain their privacy, everyone will be considered a pedophile at first. For at least 2-3 more years I think, depending on who's getting elected in the US.

However, if it really gets faster, in one year or so the useful content will override the unlawful content a hundred to one, and then maybe the medium will get some popularity at last.

Re:Pedophiles

[mcpkaaos (449561)]

Now that everyone (and given current eavesdropping policy in the US and laws recently passed in various EU countries, I really mean everyone) has to use it to maintain their privacy, everyone will be considered a pedophile at first.

The people (DoJ especially) pushing the pedophilia boogie man already think you are a pedophile. It doesn't matter if you are or not. Download the wrong file from some random person (honey pot) on a p2p network and you are fucked. I have a buddy doing 3 months in a work furlough program to prove it. (I've known him for years, he is not into children).

On a side note, last week he was fitted with a GPS anklet. His lawyer is fighting to have it removed after the 3 months. If he loses, he gets to wear that god damned thing for 3 years of probation. Justice is hiding spoon marks under that blindfold.

Re:Don't get excited...

[evanbd (210358)]

Only the primary design goal of Freenet: make the people uploading and downloading the content anonymous! If you're using bittorrent, it's easy for the Bad People (government, isp, mafiaa) to tell what you're uploading and downloading. Not so with Freenet (it probably can be done, but it would take a *lot* of effort).

It is easy to tell that someone is running Freenet (still harder than bittorrent, though -- with everything encrypted and ports randomized, it requires traffic analysis). But it's hard to tell who's downloading or uploading what.

Re:Don't get excited...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Not so with Freenet (it probably can be done, but it would take a *lot* of effort).

You mean, like having packet sniffers on all major chokepoints that log which IPs are talking to which other IPs, in order to build up a suitably-large database for purposes of traffic analysis?

Freenet was an interesting political statement: Since inception, every statement about its security model has been prefaced by "in any sane/democratic/free country...", followed by a list of assumptions about the integrity of the telecommunications system. For example, when Freenet was first designed, NSA couldn't legally monitor domestic traffic, nor could it legally share what it found with the FBI, and FBI needed a warrant.

The political implications of the project were supposed to motivate people to lobby for stronger telecom privacy laws, lest we become as non-sane, non-democratic, and non-free as the countries in systems such as Freenet are illegal/hazardous to use.

That experiment has run its course: In post-9/11 America, of course, none of those assumptions about the telecom system are true. Although it's arguably lamentable that Post-9/11 America telecom policy is every bit as not-sane, not-free, and not-democratic as China, it's indisputable that the experiment has ended. The privacy wars are over; the Freenet guys lost.

If you were interested in Freenet because of its implications for free political speech, it's time to give up: for better or worse, anonymous political speech is dead. The only justification that I can see for its continued development is that it gives enough of the illusion of anonymity to be a fantastic self-selecting honeypot for sleazeballs, and as far as I'm concerned, said sleazeballs deserve what they get.

Re:

[blueg3 (192743)]

Your theory incorrectly assumes that such a concerted attack is both reasonably possible and deemed a worthwhile expenditure of the time, effort, and money necessary to succeed. While it's entirely true that government agencies have the power to tap and record all kinds of communications, it's far from true that all communications *are* listened to and analyzed. Not all of the organizations combined have nearly the capacity to handle even a fraction of that data, they don't have the software necessary to an

Re:

[Psychotria (953670)]

Browsing the svn (trunk) reveals that the answer is: yes it is still written in Java.

Re:

[evanbd (210358)]

Yes, but why would that be a problem? The really CPU-intensive stuff is handled in native code anyway on most platforms (with Java fallbacks). I'm running it on a 1.4GHz Athlon (not exactly modern...) and it's using typically 10-20% of the CPU (though that number will rise on a faster connection).

Performance is limited by network connections, mostly. The real performance question is how quickly the developers can improve it and find and fix bugs, and if they say Java helps in that regard, then Java is

performance bound by peer resources

[QuietRiot (16908)]

Performance is limited by network connections; true. It goes deeper, however, in the fact that performance is also limited by the cpu and storage of your peers, and their peers, etc....

The network should eventually level demand across nodes. If one node for some reason gets saturated, peers will eventually find data faster elsewhere, reducing its load. Lower performance machine/network nodes may end up slightly less popular and those equipped will move more traffic. Freenet has a number of ways to optim

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

I don't think Java could have made it as slow as it was. Is it better now?

Also: It's supposedly an open standard, and should be implementable in things other than Java. However, the implementation is complex enough that I'm glad to have at least one guaranteed-portable implementation.

Re:

[Perseid (660451)]

Yeah. Trying to connect to their web page feels an awful lot like trying to use Freenet.

Re:

[quag7 (462196)]

Freenet is more like a distributed, anonymous document store. You upload a document to it, and it then lives in the distributed ether of freenet. Tor is used more for person-to-site, or person-to-person communications.