[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Freedombox-discuss] Store-and-forward is a necessity

It is possible to harvest the Freedom Box discussion into the P2P Wiki?  I
am in NYC on Monday for a meeting about connecting a bunch of dots including
the next $500,000 for Freedom Box, elsewhere people vastly more talented
than I are looking at the next big step for OpenBTS, I have the strong
feeling that we need to rapidly organize all this information for optimal
sharing and "connecting the dots" so no open effort is wasted.

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 5:02 AM, stillyet at googlemail.com <
stillyet at googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 4 March 2011 08:30, StealthMonger <StealthMonger at nym.mixmin.net> wrote:
>> And later in this thread, michiel at unhosted.org (Michiel de Jong)
>> suggests the good idea of extending Usenet to Freedombox hosts:
>> > to set up a revival of usenet....  putting usenet into the
>> > freedombox would probably be easy, and definitely noone could say
>> > we're reinventing the wheel (although, maybe rediscovering a
>> > forgotten wheel)
>> "Extending Usenet to a new medium" would be more accurate.  Usenet has
>> not died.  Probably the NNTP Usenet protocol can be adapted to the
>> Freedom Protocol.
>> Moreover, pools can be used for both sides of a dialog, not just the
>> ACKs.  See stealthmail [3].
>> [1] http://mixmaster.sourceforge.net/
>> [2] http://www.is-not-my.name
>> [3] mailto:stealthsuite at nym.mixmin.net?subject=send%20index.html
> OK, this leads to some complicated issues.
> I have used Usenet since 1985, which is a moderately long time. I'm still
> officially 'control' of the scot.* hierarchy, although that hierarchy has
> been more or less destroyed by trolls and is moribund. I've been active over
> the years in a number of groups, and until last month was a moderator of
> uk.rec.cycling.moderated. But gradually - partly as sensible people have
> left - the tide of trollish behaviour has washed out of the old alt.*
> hierarchy and destroyed many once-useful groups. Don't get me wrong - some
> Usenet groups still work very well, especially in technical areas.
> But the anonymity of Usenet certainly allows a certain proportion of people
> feel disinhibited from behaving extremely badly - from using behaviour which
> they would certainly never use in a face to face situation. I've often felt
> that Usenet could be rescued if people had to register their real world
> identity - where they lived, what they did - before using it. It would
> prevent nym-shifts and sock puppets, and would mean that trolls would know
> that there could be real-world consequences of their misbehaviour...
> BUT.
> But if we're to provide a system which works for people living under
> repressive regimes, then we have to allow anonymity. And if we allow
> anonymity, then we allow nym-shifts and sock-puppetry and all the trollish
> behaviour which has eroded Usenet. I don't see a solution to this, beyond
> using webs of trust and reputation to allow our clients to discriminate
> between 'trusted', likely-to-be-valuable messages and untrusted,
> unlikely-to-be-valuable ones...
> BUT, again...
> If we do that, then some new user to the system reporting some significant
> human rights violation is unlikely to be listened to because (s)he won't
> have a reputation and won't have a well-developed web-of-trust.
> I don't have a solution to this. I think it is a genuinely difficult
> problem at both technical and social levels.
> At a technical level Usenet has a lot of merit and a sort of UsenetNG with
> the addition of opportunistic routing, webs-of-trust and automatic digital
> signing of messages to prevent (or at least expose) in-flight modification
> is a good model for at least part of what we want to achieve; Usenet
> successfully mixes real-time and store-and-forward transmission models to
> achieve rapid decentralised worldwide broadcast of messages, with relatively
> low bandwidth consumption. It could even use existing NNTP transport and
> Usenet servers for part of its backhaul (although existing servers obviously
> can't do opportunistic routing).
> --
> Simon Brooke :: http://www.journeyman.cc/~simon/
>         ;; Stultus in monte
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20110304/268ef0a9/attachment.htm>

Reply to: