What is freenet?

http://freenetproject.org

I came across this network whilst researching P2P systems for an essay I need to write. I’m not entirely sure of what freenet actually is (my lecturer mentioned it when setting the essay, as it was developed by an ex student here, apparently). The Wikipedia article on it makes it sound like a filesharing network, although the FAQ on the site makes it sound like an internet within the internet, connecting to sites via the browser etc. etc.

The FAQ also mentions that there is no way for anyone to know what files are being stored on their PC at anyone time (child porn, WMD instructions etc.). I only want to use it to see what it’s like, but my heart’s telling me that this is a really bad idea. Does anyone here use it? What is it? Is it like Kazaa or an internet within an internet?

Wow, I know these guys. I did some dilligence on them for a VC that was thinking of investing in them under a former project.

This is a P2P thing. The twist is: Lots of people dedicate a chunk of their hard disk. All of these people together have a large distributed filestore. People store things in it. Nobody actually knows what’s on their own hard disk, and nobody else knows who’s hard disk things are on, when they put things in or take them out.

I believe it’s pretty much theoretical at this point.

I take that part back. Looks like it’s in operation, making our streets safer for thieves.

Freenet has been in operation for a few years now. It is not a P2P filesharing system, but a P2P caching system. You can certainly use it for filesharing, but it requires a bit of extra effort. The main purpose is to distribute content and load balance requests for it. The more a given piece of content is requested, the more it is duplicated. “Unpopular” content eventually is deleted from the cache repositories to make way for new stuff. It’s kind of like an automated distributed load-balancing system, like what Akamai does, but anonymous.

Oh, please. I can’t think of a slower, more inefficient P2P protocol than Freenet (except for maybe sneakernet). Freenet has never been about sharing copyrighted materials, but about sharing infomation in countries were possessing a copy of the New York Times or The Telegraph can get you sent to the gulag.

That may be what the writers of it want it to be but currently it is a haven for illegal activities.

You could say the same about the Internet as a whole. Or New York. Should we outlaw (or even ridicule) them? It’s easy to disparage a tool that helps thieves, but if you’re going to do that, you should be sure there are absolutely no legal uses or benefits. Otherwise, you’re setting a precedent to outlaw everything from cell phones to pencils.

I know no one in this thread has explicitly mentioned outlawing freenet, but I was discouraged to see Bill H.'s comment. Based on his other posts, I have a great deal of respect for his expertise, but this view seems short sighted. I write encryption software (not algorithms, but implementations), so I get this argument all the time that my apps are helping the four horsemen (drug-dealers, money-launderers, terrorists, and pedophiles). They also help system administrators, journalists, travellers and businessmen, so I tend to ignore the rantings of the self-righteous.

Well, there’s no searching capability like there is with Kazaa, so it’s closer to an internet within an internet.

It works like an encrypted, anonymous, distributed database. Unlike a web site, you don’t access a piece of information on Freenet by telling your browser where to look for it. Each chunk of data is identified by a key–basically a hash of the data–and each Freenet node uses a complicated routing algorithm to pass requests along to other nodes that are likely to have data with keys like the ones it’s looking for.

There are a few types of keys. Some are simply a hash of the data; some can also be used to prove that the data was inserted by a certain person - i.e. that versions 1 and 2 of a certain freesite came from the same author. The human-readable keys that you enter into your browser are used to encrypt the data, but these are not the same keys that Freenet nodes use internally to keep track of the chunks, which is why you can’t always know what your node is storing: the chunks are encrypted with keys that you don’t have unless you’ve been looking them up yourself.

The easiest way to publish something on Freenet is to write an HTML file, insert it into Freenet, and share the key with your friends. This is a “freesite” - a web site on Freenet. To access a freesite, you start your browser, point it at the web server built into your Freenet node, and type in the key. There are also programs that access the node directly, like Frost, which is a Freenet based message board program (sort of an anonymous Usenet) that doesn’t require a browser at all.

Of course. In the aforementioned “countries were possessing a copy of the New York Times or The Telegraph can get you sent to the gulag”, those are illegal activities too.

The folks who rule those countries think it’s appropriate to limit freedom of speech in order to keep people from reading the Great Satan’s newspapers; people here may think it’s appropriate to limit freedom of speech in order to keep people from trading warez, movies, music, or various types of pornography.

Freenet will offend anyone who wants to restrict speech, because it’s about providing absolute freedom of speech - you can post whatever you want, and no one can take it down or trace it back to you. And that’s the way it has to be. Any system that’s strong enough to get around bans on political speech or accurate journalism must also be strong enough to get around copyright and obscenity laws.

So if you’re bothered that too much of the content on Freenet violates the laws in your country, or offends you, or is kooky and boring, then insert the kind of content you’d prefer to see, and hope it becomes popular enough to displace the content you don’t like.

Does anyone actually use it here? I’m not too comfortable with the idea that my PC may be being used as a repository for child porn.

I have operated a Freenet node on my linux server from time to time. The network is basically in an alpha test mode–functionality/specifications are still being developed. At best, the network is extremely laggy (but with high download speeds when it does finally connect); at worst it’s impossible to find anything not on your own node. The developers have been making steady improvements, but the network is not ready for mass use yet.

As for distasteful content hidden on your node: you are what you eat. That is, the things you download make up the majority of what sits on your harddrive.

micco wrote

Well, if the internet (or New York) were primarily for illegal activities, I wouldn’t say it should be shut down, but certainly I would say it should be very tightly monitored and regulated. Fortunately, both institutions are mostly used for legal activities, so that isn’t an issue.

I make my living building security products as well. Bad guys could use my products to further their badness. Fortunately, all of the customers that I can think of are upstanding citizens, primarily banks and other financial institutions. I’m sure it’s similar for you.

If in fact all my customers were crack-dealers or mafiosos, I would think it would be reasonable for the government to keep a very close eye on me and perhaps even try to shut me down. But, that’s not what it is. For me and you, anyway.

But P2P programs are different. They exist primarily to distribute illegal content so people don’t have to pay for it. Yes, there are positive side-benefits as well. But that’s not what they’re for.

And Freenet has an added twist that’s very key. Today, the RIAA can stop people from stealing from them through legal means. They can sue those who share songs illegally. Freenet makes it so noone knows who is sharing content. Today, it’s more theory than reality. But it’s just a matter of time before they or someone else will make it so there is no legal recourse for theft victims.

That’s wrong. Theft isn’t an undesirable side effect of P2P, as in the case of pedophiles using encryption to hide their wickedness. Theft is the primary goal of P2P.

Don’t forget good old fashioned (legal) porn. Though I do have a hard time thinking up any legitimate uses of Freenet (as described) outside oppressive regimes.

That’s what they said about the betamax too.

I don’t mean to be dense and I’m definitely a law-and-order guy. I don’t support using any tool, whether it’s P2P or not, for copyright infringement. On the other hand, just because we don’t see an obvious non-infringing use doesn’t mean there isn’t one, and I see too much harm to be done by prohibiting things just because they are used by bad guys. Characterizing everyone who uses freenet as a thief is analogous to saying that anyone who uses encryption must be up to no good. I don’t personally use freenet and I don’t have a use for it at the moment, but a lot of people say the same thing about the utilities I write.

Interesting then that myriad software companies are distributing ISOs, demos, updates and large patches via P2P technologies like BitTorrent.

Yes, but there is a reason why those companies choose BitTorrent and not Freenet. The big difference is that BitTorrent does not create one big network, but more like one per file. This way both content providers and users have full control over the legality of everything they do. Unless they specifically want to, they have no connection with anything illegal. This can simply not be guaranteed for many other networks, including Freenet.

Oh my gosh! You’re right! You know what we should do? We should get the RIAA and MPAA to whine to the government to force Microsoft, Apple and the Linux crowd to remove the TCP/IP stacks from their operating systems! THAT will stop P2P in its tracks.

Nah, you know what would be even better than that? If the RIAA and MPAA were given their very own police powers! That way, they wouldn’t need to bother with pesky things like “due process”, "standard judicial procedures"and “court orders”. Oh, and you know what would make that even better? If the law was written so that the actual “offenders” weren’t targeted, but some third-party… like… like… like their ISPs! Of course! That way, the ISP will be compelled by law to act against the “offender”, even though the RIAA and MPAA hasn’t proven anything! The beauty of a law like would be that the third-party wouldn’t want to get involved in any legal hassles and would comply like a dog to our Media Overlords!

Oh wait - that second thing already happened.

The “land of the free” indeed. Doubleplusgood, I think.
Copyright infringement != theft.

Hopefully the OP got enough information to answer his/her question before the debates started.

Moved.

samclem GQ moderator

I run a Freenet node from time to time. I don’t really worry about what kind of data might make its way into my store, because (1) it’s happening automatically and without my knowledge, and (2) passing a few bits around doesn’t hurt anyone. My node is simply caching data that other people want, just like the caches run by Google and ISPs.

Freenet, IME, is mostly used for legal activities as well - most freesites are legal and boring. With no capability for searching, and no guarantee that content will stick around for any length of time, it really doesn’t lend itself to copyright infringement in the sense that BT and Kazaa do.

Ignoring the obvious differences between copright violation and theft, this statement is pure speculation when applied to P2P systems in general, and plainly false when applied to Freenet in particular.

However, I don’t think it’s inaccurate to say that the primary goal of Freenet is to get around legal restrictions on communication. Some of those restrictions are ones that you’d probably consider oppressive (bans on foreign news media, religious and political expression, etc.), others are not. But you can’t make it easy to get around some without also making it easy to get around the others.

micco wrote

I agree.

I don’t advocate illegalizing peer-to-peer technologies or their implementations. (However, I do think it’s just when a P2P network which exists chiefly to provide illegal content is forced to be shutdown by lawsuits from the rightful owners).

I stand my my statement (“Looks like it’s in operation, making our streets safer for thieves.”). The existence of Freenet, and especially after it’s tuned properly, will make our streets safer for thieves. And that will be the primary usage of that technology. I’m not saying everyone who uses Freenet or other P2P networks is a thief. But I am saying that most are, that they exist to serve thieves, and that Freenet adds new protection for such thieves.

I’m not for illegalizing Freenet. But I don’t think moral indignation is inappropriate.

True. (well, sorta true. Several open source communities are, Fedora comes to mind. I don’t know of a single reasonably-established software company doing this.)

However, also interesting that all of the big BitTorrent sites (such as the biggest, suprnova.org) all closed down recently in fear of the legal repurcussions for hosting illegal content.

IMO it’s about as appropriate as the moral indignation of people who are upset because Freenet lets others post political and religious information. They want to restrict speech to suppress wicked thoughts; you want to restrict speech so someone can make a buck.

IIRC, many online games distribute patches through peer to peer networks built into the clients, some of which are basically tweaked versions of BT. I don’t have names, but I know I’ve read about this.

Well, that was in response to legal threats. Sites like Suprnova are basically in the same situation that Napster was: they control a central database of people offering files, and therefore they find themselves liable for any illegal offers in their database. Perhaps even more liable than Napster was, because Suprnova’s listings were moderated - a new user couldn’t post a torrent without someone verifying it first, so anything that appeared on the site effectively had the administrators’ stamp of approval.