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...

But is it faster? Please?

Re:Well, that's good...

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:Well, that's good...

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:Well, that's good...

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.)

Darknet Mode

"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

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

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

> 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:Freedom

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

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:Pedophiles

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

Re:Pedophiles

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

"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

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:Pedophiles

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:Pedophiles

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

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

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:Pedophiles

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:Pedophiles

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

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...

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...

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:

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

Re:

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 th